Hegel Considered the Most Universal and Spiritual of All Arts

Discourse method for resolving disagreement by reasoned argument

Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική , dialektikḗ; related to dialogue; German: Dialektik), also known as the dialectical method, is a soapbox between two or more people holding different points of view near a subject just wishing to institute the truth through reasoned argumentation. Dialectic resembles contend, but the concept excludes subjective elements such equally emotional appeal and the modern debasing sense of rhetoric.^[1] ^[2] Dialectic may thus be assorted with both the eristic, which refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another'southward argument (rather than searching for truth), and the didactic method, wherein one side of the chat teaches the other. Dialectic is alternatively known equally pocket-sized logic, as opposed to major logic or critique.

Inside Hegelianism, the discussion dialectic has the specialised meaning of a contradiction betwixt ideas that serves as the determining factor in their relationship. Dialectical materialism, a theory or set of theories produced mainly past Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, adapted the Hegelian dialectic into arguments regarding traditional materialism. The dialectics of Hegel and Marx were criticized in the twentieth century by the philosophers Karl Popper and Mario Bunge.

Dialectic tends to imply a procedure of evolution and so does not naturally fit within classical logics, simply was given some formalism in the twentieth century. The emphasis on process is specially marked in Hegelian dialectic, and even more and so in Marxist dialectical logic, which tried to account for the development of ideas over longer time periods in the real globe.

Western dialectical forms [edit]

There is a variety of meanings of dialectic or dialectics within Western philosophy.

Classical philosophy [edit]

In classical philosophy, dialectic ( διαλεκτική ) is a grade of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses). The outcome of such a dialectic might be the refutation of a relevant proposition, or of a synthesis, or a combination of the opposing assertions, or a qualitative improvement of the dialogue.^[three] ^[iv]

Moreover, the term "dialectic" owes much of its prestige to its part in the philosophies of Socrates and Plato, in the Greek Classical flow (5th to 4th centuries BC). Aristotle said that it was the pre-Socratic philosopher Zeno of Elea who invented dialectic, of which the dialogues of Plato are the examples of the Socratic dialectical method.^[5]

According to Kant, however, the ancient Greeks used the word "dialectic" to signify the logic of faux advent or semblance. To the Ancients, "information technology was nothing but the logic of illusion. It was a sophistic art of giving to 1'south ignorance, indeed even to 1'southward intentional tricks, the outward advent of truth, by imitating the thorough, accurate method which logic e'er requires, and by using its topic as a cloak for every empty exclamation."^[6]

Socratic method [edit]

The Socratic dialogues are a particular class of dialectic known as the method of elenchus (literally, "refutation, scrutiny"^[vii]) whereby a series of questions clarifies a more than precise argument of a vague conventionalities, logical consequences of that statement are explored, and a contradiction is discovered. The method is largely destructive, in that faux belief is exposed^[8] and only constructive in that this exposure may pb to further search for truth. The detection of error does non amount to a proof of the antonym; for instance, a contradiction in the consequences of a definition of piety does non provide a correct definition. The chief aim of Socratic activity may be to amend the soul of the interlocutors, past freeing them from unrecognized errors; or indeed, past teaching them the spirit of research.

In common cases, Socrates used enthymemes as the foundation of his statement.^{[ commendation needed ]}

For case, in the Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro to provide a definition of piety. Euthyphro replies that the pious is that which is loved by the gods. Just, Socrates besides has Euthyphro agreeing that the gods are quarrelsome and their quarrels, like human quarrels, business organisation objects of love or hatred. Therefore, Socrates reasons, at least one thing exists that certain gods love but other gods hate. Over again, Euthyphro agrees. Socrates concludes that if Euthyphro's definition of piety is adequate, then there must be at least 1 thing that is both pious and impious (as it is both loved and hated by the gods)—which Euthyphro admits is cool. Thus, Euthyphro is brought to a realization by this dialectical method that his definition of piety is not sufficiently meaningful.

For instance, in Plato'southward Gorgias, dialectic occurs between Socrates, the Sophist Gorgias, and two men, Polus and Callicles. Because Socrates' ultimate goal was to reach true knowledge, he was even willing to change his own views in order to go far at the truth. The central goal of dialectic, in this case, was to establish a precise definition of the subject (in this case, rhetoric) and with the use of argumentation and questioning, brand the discipline even more precise. In the Gorgias, Socrates reaches the truth by asking a series of questions and in return, receiving short, articulate answers.

Plato [edit]

There is some other interpretation of dialectic, suggested in The Republic, equally a process that is both discursive and intuitive.^[9] In Platonism and Neoplatonism, dialectic assumes an ontological and metaphysical part in that it becomes the process whereby the intellect passes from sensibles to intelligibles, rising from Idea to Idea until it finally grasps the supreme Idea, the Showtime Principle which is the origin of all. The philosopher is consequently a "dialectician".^[10] In this sense, dialectic is a procedure of inquiry that does away with hypotheses up to the Start Principle (Republic, VII, 533 c-d). Information technology slowly embraces the multiplicity in unity. Simon Blackburn writes that the dialectic in this sense is used to understand "the full procedure of enlightenment, whereby the philosopher is educated so equally to attain knowledge of the supreme practiced, the Course of the Practiced".^[xi]

Aristotle [edit]

Aristotle stresses that rhetoric is closely related to dialectic. He offers several formulas to describe this analogousness between the two disciplines: first of all, rhetoric is said to exist a "counterpart" (antistrophos) to dialectic (Rhet. I.1, 1354a1); (2) information technology is also called an "outgrowth" (paraphues ti) of dialectic and the study of character (Rhet. I.ii, 1356a25f.); finally, Aristotle says that rhetoric is office of dialectic and resembles information technology (Rhet. I.ii, 1356a30f.). In maxim that rhetoric is a counterpart to dialectic, Aristotle obviously alludes to Plato'south Gorgias (464bff.), where rhetoric is ironically defined as a analogue to cookery in the soul. Since, in this passage, Plato uses the word 'antistrophos' to designate an analogy, it is likely that Aristotle wants to express a kind of analogy too: what dialectic is for the (private or academic) practice of attacking and maintaining an statement, rhetoric is for the (public) practice of defending oneself or accusing an opponent. The analogy to dialectic has important implications for the status of rhetoric. Plato argued in his Gorgias that rhetoric cannot be an art (technê), since it is not related to a definite subject field, while real arts are defined by their specific subjects, every bit e.g. medicine or shoemaking are defined past their products, i.due east., health and shoes.^[12]

Medieval philosophy [edit]

Logic, which could be considered to include dialectic, was one of the three liberal arts taught in medieval universities as part of the trivium; the other elements were rhetoric and grammar.^[13] ^[xiv] ^[15] ^[sixteen]

Based mainly on Aristotle, the first medieval philosopher to piece of work on dialectics was Boethius (480–524).^[17] After him, many scholastic philosophers also made use of dialectics in their works, such as Abelard,^[18] William of Sherwood,^[19] Garlandus Compotista,^[xx] Walter Burley, Roger Swyneshed, William of Ockham,^[21] and Thomas Aquinas.^[22]

This dialectic (a quaestio disputata) was formed as follows:

The question to exist determined ("Information technology is asked whether...");
A provisory answer to the question ("And it seems that...");
The principal arguments in favor of the provisory respond;
An argument against the provisory reply, traditionally a single statement from dominance ("On the opposite...");
The determination of the question after weighing the evidence ("I reply that...");
The replies to each of the initial objections. ("To the first, to the 2nd etc., I respond that...")

Modern philosophy [edit]

The concept of dialectics was given new life at the kickoff of the 19th century by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (following Johann Gottlieb Fichte), whose dialectical model of nature and of history made dialectic a key attribute of the nature of reality (instead of regarding the contradictions into which dialectics leads as a sign of the sterility of the dialectical method, as the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant tended to practise in his Critique of Pure Reason).^[23] ^[24]

In the mid-19th century, the concept of dialectics was appropriated by Karl Marx (see, for instance, Das Kapital, published in 1867) and Friedrich Engels and retooled in what they considered to be a nonidealistic manner. It would also get a crucial part of later representations of Marxism every bit a philosophy of dialectical materialism. These representations often contrasted dramatically^[25] and led to vigorous debate amongst dissimilar Marxist groupings.

Hegelian dialectic [edit]

Hegelian dialectic, ordinarily presented in a threefold way, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus^[26] as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction; an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis; and the tension between the ii being resolved past ways of a synthesis. Although this model is often named after Hegel, he never used that specific conception. Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.^[27] Carrying on Kant's piece of work, Fichte profoundly elaborated on the synthesis model and popularized information technology.

On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very like to the antithesis model, but Hegel's about usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete. Hegel used this writing model as a backbone to accompany his points in many of his works.^[28]

The formula, thesis-antonym-synthesis, does not explain why the thesis requires an antithesis. Still, the formula, abstruse-negative-concrete, suggests a flaw, or maybe an incompleteness, in whatever initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error, and experience. For Hegel, the concrete, the synthesis, the accented, must ever pass through the phase of the negative, in the journeying to completion, that is, mediation. This is the essence of what is popularly called Hegelian dialectics.

Co-ordinate to the German philosopher Walter Kaufmann:

Fichte introduced into German philosophy the 3-step of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, using these three terms. Schelling took upward this terminology. Hegel did non. He never once used these three terms together to designate three stages in an argument or account in any of his books. And they exercise not help united states of america understand his Phenomenology, his Logic, or his philosophy of history; they impede whatever open-minded comprehension of what he does by forcing it into a scheme which was bachelor to him and which he deliberately spurned [...] The mechanical formalism [...] Hegel derides expressly and at some length in the preface to the Phenomenology.^[29] ^[xxx]

Kaufmann as well cites Hegel's criticism of the triad model ordinarily misattributed to him, calculation that "the only place where Hegel uses the three terms together occurs in his lectures on the history of philosophy, on the final page but ane of the sections on Kant—where Hegel roundly reproaches Kant for having 'everywhere posited thesis, antonym, synthesis'".^[31]

To describe the action of overcoming the negative, Hegel besides often used the term Aufhebung, variously translated into English as "sublation" or "overcoming", to excogitate of the working of the dialectic. Roughly, the term indicates preserving the useful portion of an thought, thing, club, etc., while moving across its limitations. (Jacques Derrida's preferred French translation of the term was relever.)^[32]

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: get-go, existence must be posited as pure Being (Sein); only pure Being, upon examination, is found to exist indistinguishable from Zip (Nichts). When information technology is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (in life, for case, i'southward living is as well a dying), both Being and Goose egg are united every bit Becoming.^[33]

As in the Socratic dialectic, Hegel claimed to go on by making implicit contradictions explicit: each phase of the process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding phase. For Hegel, the whole of history is one tremendous dialectic, major stages of which chart a progression from cocky-alienation as slavery to self-unification and realization equally the rational constitutional state of free and equal citizens. The Hegelian dialectic cannot be mechanically practical for any chosen thesis. Critics argue that the selection of any antonym, other than the logical negation of the thesis, is subjective. And so, if the logical negation is used as the antonym, there is no rigorous way to derive a synthesis. In practice, when an antithesis is selected to suit the user's subjective purpose, the resulting "contradictions" are rhetorical, not logical, and the resulting synthesis is not rigorously defensible confronting a multitude of other possible syntheses. The problem with the Fichtean "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" model is that information technology implies that contradictions or negations come from outside of things. Hegel's bespeak is that they are inherent in and internal to things. This formulation of dialectics derives ultimately from Heraclitus.

Hegel stated that the purpose of dialectics is "to study things in their ain being and motion and thus to demonstrate the finitude of the fractional categories of understanding."^[34]

Ane important dialectical principle for Hegel is the transition from quantity to quality, which he terms the Measure. The mensurate is the qualitative quantum, the breakthrough is the existence of quantity.^[35]

The identity between quantity and quality, which is found in Measure, is at first simply implicit, and not yet explicitly realised. In other words, these 2 categories, which unite in Measure, each claim an contained authorisation. On the one hand, the quantitative features of existence may be altered, without affecting its quality. On the other hand, this increase and diminution, immaterial though it exist, has its limit, by exceeding which the quality suffers alter. [...] But if the quantity present in measure exceeds a certain limit, the quality corresponding to information technology is also put in abeyance. This nevertheless is not a negation of quality altogether, but merely of this definite quality, the identify of which is at once occupied past some other. This process of measure, which appears alternately every bit a mere change in quantity, and then every bit a sudden revulsion of quantity into quality, may be envisaged nether the figure of a nodal (knotted) line.^[36]

As an example, Hegel mentions u.s. of aggregation of water: "Thus the temperature of h2o is, in the first place, a bespeak of no consequence in respect of its liquidity: still with the increase or diminution of the temperature of the liquid water, in that location comes a indicate where this state of cohesion suffers a qualitative change, and the h2o is converted into steam or ice".^[37] As other examples Hegel mentions the reaching of a point where a single additional grain makes a heap of wheat; or where the baldheaded tail is produced, if we keep plucking out single hairs.

Some other important principle for Hegel is the negation of the negation, which he also terms Aufhebung (sublation): Something is only what it is in its relation to another, only by the negation of the negation this something incorporates the other into itself. The dialectical motility involves ii moments that negate each other, something and its other. Equally a result of the negation of the negation, "something becomes its other; this other is itself something; therefore it besides becomes an other, and so on ad infinitum".^[38] Something in its passage into other only joins with itself, it is self-related.^[39] In becoming there are 2 moments:^[40] cominghoped-for and ceasing-to-be: by sublation, i.eastward., negation of the negation, existence passes over into nothing, it ceases to exist, but something new shows up, is coming to be. What is sublated (aufgehoben) on the 1 hand ceases to be and is put to an stop, only on the other hand it is preserved and maintained.^[41] In dialectics, a totality transforms itself; it is self-related, then self-forgetful, relieving the original tension.

Marxist dialectic [edit]

Marxist dialectic is a course of Hegelian dialectic which applies to the report of historical materialism. It purports to be a reflection of the real world created by man. Dialectic would thus exist a robust method under which one could examine personal, social, and economic behaviors. Marxist dialectic is the core foundation of the philosophy of dialectical materialism, which forms the footing of the ideas backside historical materialism.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, writing several decades later Hegel'south decease, proposed that Hegel's dialectic is as well abstract:

The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, past no means prevents him from being the first to present its full general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious way. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel inside the mystical shell.^[42]

In contradiction to Hegelian idealism, Marx presented his own dialectic method, which he claims to be "direct opposite" of Hegel'southward method:

My dialectic method is not only dissimilar from the Hegelian, merely is its straight contrary. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, nether the proper name of 'the Thought', he even transforms into an independent subject area, is the demiurgos of the real globe, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea'. With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the cloth world reflected past the human mind, and translated into forms of idea.^[43]

In Marxism, the dialectical method of historical study became intertwined with historical materialism, the schoolhouse of thought exemplified by the works of Marx, Engels, and Vladimir Lenin. In the USSR, nether Joseph Stalin, Marxist dialectics became "diamat" (short for dialectical materialism), a theory emphasizing the primacy of the material way of life; social "praxis" over all forms of social consciousness; and the secondary, dependent character of the "ideal".

The term "dialectical materialism" was coined by the 19th-century social theorist Joseph Dietzgen who used the theory to explain the nature of socialism and social development. The original populariser of Marxism in Russia, Georgi Plekhanov used the terms "dialectical materialism" and "historical materialism" interchangeably. For Lenin, the master characteristic of Marx'due south "dialectical materialism" (Lenin'south term) was its awarding of materialist philosophy to history and social sciences. Lenin'south main input in the philosophy of dialectical materialism was his theory of reflection, which presented human consciousness as a dynamic reflection of the objective material earth that fully shapes its contents and construction.

Later, Stalin'due south works on the discipline established a rigid and formalistic partitioning of Marxist–Leninist theory in the dialectical materialism and historical materialism parts. While the outset was supposed to be the fundamental method and theory of the philosophy of nature, the second was the Soviet version of the philosophy of history.

A dialectical method was fundamental to Western Marxists such as Karl Korsch and Georg Lukács. Certain members of the Frankfurt School also used dialectical thinking, such every bit Theodor W. Adorno who developed negative dialectics. Soviet academics, notably Evald Ilyenkov and Zaid Orudzhev, continued pursuing unorthodox philosophic study of Marxist dialectics; likewise in the Due west, notably the philosopher Bertell Ollman at New York Academy.

Friedrich Engels proposed that Nature is dialectical, thus, in Anti-Dühring he said that the negation of negation is:

A very uncomplicated procedure, which is taking place everywhere and every day, which any child can understand as soon every bit it is stripped of the veil of mystery in which it was enveloped past the former idealist philosophy.^[44]

In Dialectics of Nature, Engels said:

Probably the same gentlemen who upwards to now accept decried the transformation of quantity into quality as mysticism and incomprehensible transcendentalism will now declare that it is indeed something quite self-evident, lilliputian, and commonplace, which they take long employed, so they have been taught zip new. But to have formulated for the first time in its universally valid form a full general law of development of Nature, order, and idea, will e'er remain an act of historic importance.^[45]

Marxist dialectics is exemplified in Das Kapital (Upper-case letter), which outlines 2 fundamental theories: (i) surplus value and (ii) the materialist conception of history; Marx explains dialectical materialism:

In its rational form, information technology is a scandal and anathema to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, considering it includes in its comprehension an affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same fourth dimension, also, the recognition of the negation of that land, of its inevitable breaking upward; because it regards every historically developed social class as in fluid motility, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; considering information technology lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.^[46]

Class struggle is the primary contradiction to exist resolved past Marxist dialectics, because of its key function in the social and political lives of a guild. Yet, Marx and Marxists developed the concept of class struggle to comprehend the dialectical contradictions between mental and manual labor, and between town and country. Hence, philosophic contradiction is fundamental to the development of dialectics – the progress from quantity to quality, the acceleration of gradual social modify; the negation of the initial development of the condition quo; the negation of that negation; and the loftier-level recurrence of features of the original status quo.

In the USSR, Progress Publishers issued anthologies of dialectical materialism by Lenin, wherein he also quotes Marx and Engels:

Every bit the nearly comprehensive and profound doctrine of evolution, and the richest in content, Hegelian dialectics was considered past Marx and Engels the greatest achievement of classical German philosophy.... "The great basic thought", Engels writes, "that the world is not to be comprehended as a circuitous of ready-made things, but as a complex of processes, in which the things, manifestly stable no less than their listen images in our heads, the concepts, go through an uninterrupted change of coming into being and passing away... this bang-up fundamental thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that, in its generality, information technology is now scarcely always contradicted. Only, to acknowledge this cardinal idea in words, and to apply information technology in reality in detail to each domain of investigation, are ii unlike things.... For dialectical philosophy nothing is concluding, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure earlier information technology, except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing abroad, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy, itself, is zip more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain." Thus, according to Marx, dialectics is "the science of the general laws of motion both of the external world and of human thought".^[47]

Lenin describes his dialectical agreement of the concept of evolution:

A development that repeats, as it were, stages that have already been passed, simply repeats them in a different way, on a higher basis ("the negation of the negation"), a development, and so to speak, that proceeds in spirals, not in a straight line; a development past leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions; "breaks in continuity"; the transformation of quantity into quality; inner impulses towards development, imparted past the contradiction and conflict of the diverse forces and tendencies acting on a given trunk, or within a given phenomenon, or within a given society; the interdependence and the closest and indissoluble connection between all aspects of any phenomenon (history constantly revealing ever new aspects), a connection that provides a compatible, and universal process of motion, one that follows definite laws – these are some of the features of dialectics equally a doctrine of evolution that is richer than the conventional i.^[47]

An instance of the influence of Marxist dialectic in the European tradition is Jean-Paul Sartre's 1960 book Critique of Dialectical Reason. Sartre stated:

Existentialism, similar Marxism, addresses itself to experience in order to observe there physical syntheses. It can conceive of these syntheses merely inside a moving, dialectical totalisation, which is nada else only history or—from the strictly cultural point of view adopted here—'philosophy-becoming-the globe'.^[48]

Dialectical naturalism [edit]

Dialectical naturalism is a term coined by American philosopher Murray Bookchin to depict the philosophical underpinnings of the political plan of social environmental. Dialectical naturalism explores the complex interrelationship betwixt social problems, and the direct consequences they have on the ecological impact of human social club. Bookchin offered dialectical naturalism as a contrast to what he saw as the "empyrean, basically antinaturalistic dialectical idealism" of Hegel, and "the wooden, often scientistic dialectical materialism of orthodox Marxists".

Theological dialectical forms [edit]

Baháʼí dialectics — dialectical science and religion [edit]

Baháʼí Religion doctrine advocates a form of dialectical science and organized religion. A dialectical relationship of harmony between religion and science is presented, wherein scientific discipline and religion are described as complementary, mutually dependent, and indispensable cognition systems.^[49] Baháʼí scripture asserts that true science and true faith tin never be in disharmonize. 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the organized religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that truthful religion must conform to the conclusions of science.^[50] ^[51] ^[52] Equally a modern, globalist religion, the Baháʼí Faith defies simple categorisation into whatever of Western, Eastern, Northern, Southern, or other philosophical forms. Nevertheless, the principled dialectical approach to harmony between science and faith is non dissimilar social ecology'due south implementation of dialectical naturalism to moderate the extremes of scientifically unverified idealisms with scientific insight.

Dialectical theology [edit]

Neo-orthodoxy, in Europe as well known as theology of crisis and dialectical theology,^[53] ^[54] is an approach to theology in Protestantism that was developed in the aftermath of the First World War (1914–1918). It is characterized every bit a reaction against doctrines of 19th-century liberal theology and a more positive reevaluation of the teachings of the Reformation, much of which had been in turn down (especially in western Europe) since the late 18th century.^[55] It is primarily associated with two Swiss professors and pastors, Karl Barth^[56] (1886–1968) and Emil Brunner (1899–1966),^[53] ^[54] even though Barth himself expressed his unease in the use of the term.^[57]

In dialectical theology the difference and opposition between God and homo beings is stressed in such a mode that all human attempts at overcoming this opposition through moral, religious or philosophical idealism must be characterized as 'sin'. In the death of Christ humanity is negated and overcome, but this judgment also points forwards to the resurrection in which humanity is reestablished in Christ. For Barth this meant that only through God'southward 'no' to everything human can his 'yes' be perceived. Applied to traditional themes of Protestant theology, such as double predestination, this means that election and reprobation cannot exist viewed as a quantitative limitation of God's activeness. Rather information technology must exist seen as its "qualitative definition".^[58] As Christ bore the rejection every bit well as the election of God for all humanity, every person is discipline to both aspects of God'southward double predestination.

Dialectic prominently figured in Bernard Lonergan'southward philosophy, in his books Insight and Method in Theology. Michael Shute wrote virtually Lonergan'southward employ of dialectic in The Origins of Lonergan's Notion of the Dialectic of History. For Lonergan, dialectic is both individual and operative in customs. Simply described, it is a dynamic process that results in something new:

For the sake of greater precision, let the states say that a dialectic is a concrete unfolding of linked only opposed principles of change. Thus there will be a dialectic if (1) there is an aggregate of events of a determinate character, (two) the events may be traced to either or both of two principles, (three) the principles are opposed yet bound together, and (4) they are modified past the changes that successively result from them.^[59]

Dialectic is one of the eight functional specialties Lonergan envisaged for theology to bring this field of study into the modernistic world. Lonergan believed that the lack of an agreed method amongst scholars had inhibited noun agreement from being reached and progress from beingness made compared to the natural sciences. Karl Rahner, Due south.J., however, criticized Lonergan's theological method in a brusk article entitled "Some Critical Thoughts on 'Functional Specialties in Theology'" where he stated: "Lonergan'south theological methodology seems to me to be and so generic that it really fits every science, and hence is not the methodology of theology equally such, but only a very general methodology of scientific discipline."^[60]

Criticisms [edit]

Karl Popper has attacked the dialectic repeatedly. In 1937, he wrote and delivered a paper entitled "What Is Dialectic?" in which he attacked the dialectical method for its willingness "to put up with contradictions".^[61] Popper concluded the essay with these words: "The whole development of dialectic should exist a alert against the dangers inherent in philosophical system-edifice. It should remind usa that philosophy should not be made a footing for any sort of scientific system and that philosophers should be much more modest in their claims. 1 task which they tin can fulfill quite usefully is the written report of the critical methods of science" (Ibid., p. 335).

In affiliate 12 of volume two of The Open Lodge and Its Enemies (1944; 5th rev. ed., 1966), Popper unleashed a famous assail on Hegelian dialectics in which he held that Hegel's idea was to some degree responsible for facilitating the rise of fascism in Europe past encouraging and justifying irrationalism. (This was unjust in the view of some philosophers, such every bit Walter Kaufmann.^[62]) In section 17 of his 1961 "addenda" to The Open up Society, entitled "Facts, Standards and Truth: A Further Criticism of Relativism", Popper refused to moderate his criticism of the Hegelian dialectic, arguing that it "played a major role in the downfall of the liberal motion in Germany [...] past contributing to historicism and to an identification of might and correct, encouraged totalitarian modes of thought. [...] [And] undermined and somewhen lowered the traditional standards of intellectual responsibility and honesty".^[63]

The philosopher of science and physicist Mario Bunge repeatedly criticized Hegelian and Marxian dialectics, calling them "fuzzy and remote from science"^[64] and a "disastrous legacy".^[65] He concluded: "The and then-called laws of dialectics, such equally formulated past Engels (1940, 1954) and Lenin (1947, 1981), are false insofar as they are intelligible."^[65]

Ceremonial [edit]

Since the late 20th century, European and American logicians accept attempted to provide mathematical foundations for dialectic through formalisation,^[66] ^{: 201–372} although logic has been related to dialectic since ancient times.^[66] ^: 51–140 At that place have been pre-formal and partially-formal treatises on argument and dialectic, from authors such as Stephen Toulmin (The Uses of Argument, 1958),^[67] ^[68] ^[66] ^{: 203–256} Nicholas Rescher (Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, 1977),^[69] ^[seventy] ^[66] ^{: 330–336} and Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (pragma-dialectics, 1980s).^[66] ^{: 517–614} One can include works of the communities of informal logic and paraconsistent logic.^[66] ^{: 373–424}

Defeasibility [edit]

Edifice on theories of defeasible reasoning (see John L. Pollock), systems accept been congenital that define well-formedness of arguments, rules governing the procedure of introducing arguments based on stock-still assumptions, and rules for shifting burden.^[66] ^{: 615–675} Many of these logics appear in the special area of artificial intelligence and law, though the computer scientists' interest in formalizing dialectic originates in a desire to build decision support and computer-supported collaborative work systems.^[71]

Dialog games [edit]

Dialectic itself can exist formalised as moves in a game, where an advocate for the truth of a proposition and an opponent fence.^{[ citation needed ]} Such games can provide a semantics of logic, i that is very general in applicability.

Mathematics [edit]

Mathematician William Lawvere interpreted dialectics in the setting of categorical logic in terms of adjunctions between idempotent monads.^[72] This perspective may be useful in the context of theoretical computer scientific discipline where the duality between syntax and semantics can be interpreted as a dialectic in this sense. For example, the Curry-Howard equivalence is such an adjunction or more more often than not the duality between closed monoidal categories and their internal logic.^[73]

Encounter besides [edit]

Dialectical beliefs therapy – Psychotherapy for emotional dysregulation
Dialectical inquiry – Form of qualitative research which utilizes the method of dialectic
Dialogic – Apply of conversation to explore the meaning of something
Doublethink – Simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs every bit right
Simulated dilemma – Breezy fallacy involving falsely limited alternatives
Reflective equilibrium
Relational dialectics – Interpersonal communication theory
Tarka sastra
Unity of opposites – Central category of dialectics, said to be related to not-duality in a deep sense
Universal dialectic

References [edit]

^ see Gorgias, 449B: "Socrates: Would you be willing so, Gorgias, to continue the discussion as we are now doing [Dialectic], by manner of question and answer, and to put off to another occasion the (emotional) speeches [Rhetoric] that [the Sophist] Polus began?"
^ Corbett, Edward P. J.; Robert J. Connors (1999). Classical Rhetoric For the Modern Student (quaternary ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. ane, 18. ISBN9780195115420.
^ Ayer, A. J., & O'Grady, J. (1992). A Dictionary of Philosophical Quotations. Oxford, United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland: Blackwell Publishers. p. 484.
^ McTaggart, J. M. E. (1964). A commentary on Hegel's logic. New York: Russell & Russell. p. 11
^ Diogenes Laërtius, IX 25ff and VIII 57 [1].
^ Critique of Pure Reason, A 61
^ "Elenchus - Wiktionary". 8 February 2021.
^ Wyss, Peter (October 2014). "Socratic Method: Aporeia, Elenchus and Dialectics (Plato: Four Dialogues, Handout three)" (PDF). open.conted.ox.ac.uk. University of Oxford, Department for Continuing Pedagogy.
^ Popper, Thou. (1962) The Open up Gild and its Enemies, Volume 1, London, Routledge, p. 133.
^ Reale, Giovanni. (1990), History of Aboriginal Philosophy, five vols, trans. by John R. Catan, Albany: State Academy of New York, vol two, p. 150
^ Blackburn, Simon. 1996. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford
^ Rapp (2010). Aristotle'south Rhetoric. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
^ Abelson, P. (1965). The seven liberal arts; a study in mediæval civilization. New York: Russell & Russell. Page 82.
^ Hyman, A., & Walsh, J. J. (1983). Philosophy in the Middle Ages: the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co. Folio 164.
^ Adler, Mortimer Jerome (2000). "Dialectic". Routledge. Page iv. ISBN 0-415-22550-7
^ Herbermann, C. G. (1913). The Catholic encyclopedia: an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, and history of the Catholic church. New York: The Encyclopedia printing, inc. Page 760–764.
^ From topic to tale: logic and narrativity in the Centre Ages, by Eugene Vance, p.43-45
^ "Cosmic Encyclopedia: Peter Abelard". Newadvent.org. 1907-03-01. Retrieved 2011-11-03 .
^ William of Sherwood's Introduction to logic, past Norman Kretzmann, p.69-102
^ A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, past Peter Dronke, p.198
^ Medieval literary politics: shapes of ideology, by Sheila Delany, p.11
^ "Catholic Encyclopedia: St. Thomas Aquinas". Newadvent.org. 1907-03-01. Retrieved 2015-x-20 .
^ Nicholson, J. A. (1950). Philosophy of religion. New York: Ronald Printing Co. Folio 108.
^ Kant, I., Guyer, P., & Wood, A. Due west. (2003). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Folio 495.
^ Henri Lefebvre'southward "humanist" dialectical materialism (Dialectical Materialism [1940]) was composed to directly challenge Joseph Stalin's own dogmatic text on dialectical materialism.
^ Historische Entwicklung der spekulativen Philosophie von Kant bis Hegel, Dresden-Leipzig (1837), p. 367 of the fourth edition (1848).
^ The Accessible Hegel by Michael Allen Play tricks. Prometheus Books. 2005. p. 43. As well see Hegel's preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A. V. Miller (Oxford: Clarendon Printing, 1977), secs. 50, 51, pp. 29, 30.
^ See for a discussion of the historical evolution of the triad. Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln 4, Hegelian Dialectical Analysis of U.S. Voting Laws, 42 U. Dayton L. Rev. 87 (2017).
^ Hegel: A Reinterpretation, 1966, Anchor Books, p. 154)
^ M. Due east. Mueller (June 1958), "The Hegel Legend of 'Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis", 166ff
^ Hegel, Werke, ed. Glockner, XIX, 610
^ Run into 'La différance' in: Margins of Philosophy. Alan Bass, translator. Academy of Chicago Books. 1982. p. 19, fn 23.
^ Hegel. "Department in question from Hegel's Science of Logic". Marxists.org. Retrieved 2011-11-03 .
^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Printing. Note to §81
^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Press. §§107–111
^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Printing. §§108–109
^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2d Edition. London: Oxford University Press. §108
^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Press. §93
^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford Academy Printing. §95
^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1812. Hegel's Science of Logic. London. Allen & Unwin. §§176–179.
^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1812. Hegel's Science of Logic. London. Allen & Unwin. §185.
^ Marx, Karl (1873) Capital letter Afterword to the Second German language Edition, Vol. I [ii]
^ Marx, Karl. "Afterword (Second High german Ed.)". Capital. 1: 14. Retrieved 28 December 2014.
^ Engels, Frederick, (1877) Anti-Dühring, Part I: Philosophy, Thirteen. Dialectics. Negation of the Negation.
^ Engels, Frederick (1883). "Dialectics of Nature: II. Dialectics". Marxists.org . Retrieved 2011-11-03 .
^ Marx, Karl, (1873) Capital Vol. I, Afterword to the Second High german Edition.
^ ^a ^b Lenin, V. I., On the Question of Dialectics: A Drove, pp. 7–9. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1980.
^ Jean-Paul Sartre. "The Search for Method (1st part) Sartre, 1960, in Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, transl. Hazel Barnes, Vintage Books". Marxists.org. Retrieved 2011-11-03 .
^ Inquiry Department of the Universal Business firm of Justice (Baronial 2020). "Social Action". Baháʼí Reference Library. Coherence Between the Material and Spiritual Dimensions of Existence. Retrieved 2020-08-30 .
^ Hatcher, William (September 1979). "Science and the Baháʼí Faith". Zygon. 14 (3): 229–53. doi:x.1111/j.1467-9744.1979.tb00359.x.
^ Smith, P. (1999). A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, United kingdom: Oneworld Publications. pp. 306–07. ISBN978-1-85168-184-6.
^ Mehanian, Courosh; Friberg, Stephen R. (2003). "Religion and Development Reconciled: 'Abdu'l-Bahá'due south Comments on Evolution". The Periodical of Baháʼí Studies. thirteen (i–iv): 55–93. doi:x.31581/JBS-13.ane-4.3(2003).
^ ^a ^b "Original Britinnica online". Retrieved 2008-07-26 .
^ ^a ^b "Britannica Encyclopedia (online)". Retrieved 2008-07-26 .
^ "Merriam-Webster Dictionary(online)". Retrieved 2008-07-26 .
^ "American Heritage Dictionary (online)". Archived from the original on 2005-05-10. Retrieved 2008-07-26 .
^ See Church Dogmatics III/3, xii.
^ Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (1933), p. 346
^ Bernard J.F. Lonergan, Insight: A Study of Human Understanding, Nerveless Works vol. 3, ed. Frederick E. Crowe and Robert Yard. Doran (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1992, pp.217-218).
^ McShane, S.J., Philip (1972). Foundations of Theology. Notre Matriarch, Indiana: Academy of Notre Dame Printing. p. 194.
^ Karl Popper,Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge [New York: Bones Books, 1962], p. 316.
^ Walter Kaufmann. "kaufmann". Marxists.org. Retrieved 2011-11-03 .
^ Karl Popper,The Open up Guild and Its Enemies, fifth rev. ed., vol. 2 [Princeton: Princeton Academy Press, 1966], p. 395
^ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1981). "A critique of dialectics". Scientific materialism. Episteme. Vol. nine. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 41–63. doi:x.1007/978-94-009-8517-9_4. ISBN978-9027713049. OCLC 7596139.
^ ^a ^b Bunge, Mario Augusto (2012). Evaluating philosophies. Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. 295. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 84–85. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4408-0. ISBN9789400744073. OCLC 806947226.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g
^ Toulmin, Stephen (2003) [1958]. The uses of statement (Updated ed.). Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005. ISBN978-0521827485. OCLC 51607421.
^ Hitchcock, David; Verheij, Bart, eds. (2006). Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument assay and evaluation. Argumentation library. Vol. 10. Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag. doi:x.1007/978-i-4020-4938-5. ISBN978-1402049378. OCLC 82229075.
^ Hetherington, Stephen (2006). "Nicholas Rescher: Philosophical Dialectics". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2006.07.xvi).
^ Jacquette, Dale, ed. (2009). Reason, Method, and Value: A Reader on the Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag. doi:10.1515/9783110329056. ISBN9783110329056.
^ For surveys of work in this area run into, for example: Chesñevar, Carlos Iván; Maguitman, Ana Gabriela; Loui, Ronald Prescott (December 2000). "Logical models of argument". ACM Calculating Surveys. 32 (4): 337–383. CiteSeerX10.ane.one.702.8325. doi:10.1145/371578.371581. And: Prakken, Henry; Vreeswijk, Gerard (2005). "Logics for defeasible argumentation". In Gabbay, Dov G.; Guenthner, Franz (eds.). Handbook of philosophical logic. Vol. iv (2nd ed.). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 219–318. CiteSeerX10.i.1.295.2649. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3. ISBN9789048158775.
^ Lawvere, F. William (1996). "Unity and identity of opposites in calculus and physics". Applied Categorical Structures. 4 (ii–3): 167–174. doi:10.1007/BF00122250. S2CID 34109341.
^ Eilenberg, Samuel; Kelly, Thousand. Max (1966). "Closed Categories". Proceedings of the Conference on Categorical Algebra: 421–562. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-99902-4_22. ISBN978-3-642-99904-8.

External links [edit]

Wikiquote has quotations related to: Dialectic

Look up dialectic in Wiktionary, the free lexicon.

v:Dialectic algorithm – An algorithm based on the principles of classical dialectics
"Hegel's Dialectics" entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iredalelogy1996.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic