Post by Tamrin on Aug 29, 2009 10:00:01 GMT 10
Dialectic (also called dialectics or the dialectical method) is a method of argument, which has been central to both Eastern and Western philosophy since ancient times. The word "dialectic" originates in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato's Socratic dialogues. Dialectic is rooted in the ordinary practice of a dialogue between two people who hold different ideas and wish to persuade each other. The presupposition of a dialectical argument is that the participants, even if they do not agree, share at least some meanings and principles of inference. Different forms of dialectical reason have emerged in the East and in the West, as well as during different eras of history (see below please).
Among the major forms of dialectic reason are Socratic, Hindu, Buddhist, Medieval, Hegelian, Marxist, and Talmudic.
Among the major forms of dialectic reason are Socratic, Hindu, Buddhist, Medieval, Hegelian, Marxist, and Talmudic.
Hegalian Dialectic
With Hegelian dialectic, ultimately there are no contradictions. However, according to Hegel, we are incapable of comprehending all that is and can only tackle that which we perceive, which is necessarily incomplete. As we deal with a complex notion or thesis, contradictions and inadequacies become apparent because of its incompleteness and sooner or later these contradictions give rise to an anti-thesis, which is also inadequate. The two conflict for a time until eventually both are reconciled as a syn-thesis. The synthesis transcends the contradictions of its predecessors, and is a step closer to the absolute, but the synthesis too is necessarily incomplete and it becomes the new thesis, giving rise to its own antithesis, etc. etc.
An example is that of the state in relation to the individual. The simplistic thesis that the state serves the individual is inadequate and the many instance where this is not so, eventually gives rise to its antithesis, that of state tyranny. This notion is also manifestly incomplete. A synthesis might be to rise above notions of the state, as such, being necessarily good or bad for the individual and consider the quality of governance (and to specify which individuals' interests are served or not): How representative is the state; what does it do (and for whom); how transparent is it; what check and balances are in place; how accessible are representatives and officials, etc., etc. Ultimately, inadequacies in this notion will also be seen to be inadequate but will serve until then...
Georg Wilhelm F Hegel
Everything is inherently contradictory