| Dialectics |
Articles about Dialectic |
Information AboutDialectics |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT DIALECTIC | |
| social philosophy | |
| rhetoric | |
| dialecticsocial philosophy | |
| rhetoric | |
| dialectic | |
| rhetoric | |
| social philosophy | |
|
INTRODUCTION It has been stated that the history of ''dialectic'' is identical to the extensive history of philosophy.Cassin, Barbara (ed.), ''Vocabulaire européen des philosophies'' The concept was given new life by (see, for example, Das Kapital , published in 1867 ) and Engels and retooled in a non-idealist manner, becoming a crucial notion in their philosophy of Dialectical Materialism . Thus this concept has played a prominent role on the world stage and in World History . Today, "dialectics" can also refer to an understanding of how we can or should perceive the world ( Epistemology ); an assertion that the nature of the world outside one's perception of it is interconnected, contradictory, and dynamic ( Ontology ); or it can refer to a method of presentation of ideas and/or conclusions ( Discourse ). VARIANTS OF DIALECTICS Hindu dialectic See Also: Hindu philosophy In Hinduism , certain dialectical elements can be found in the embryo, such as the idea of the three phases of creation ( Brahma ), maintenance of order ( Vishnu ) and destruction or disorder ( Shiva ). Hindu dialectic is discussed by Hegel, Engels, and Ian Stewart , who has written on Chaos Theory . Stewart points out that the relationship between the gods Shiva, "the Untamed", and Vishnu is not the antagonism between good and evil, but that of the real principles of harmony and discord which together underlie the whole of existence. The very earliest religious writings in Ancient India , the Vedas , which date from around 1500 BC , in a formal sense, are hymns to the gods, but as Hegel also points out, Eastern religions are very philosophical in character. The gods have less of a personal character and are more akin to general concepts and symbols. We find these elements of dialectics in Hinduism as Engels has explained. The gods and goddesses of the Vedas are not persons but manifestations of ultimate truth and reality, and these writings contain a wealth of philosophical and religious speculation about the nature of the universe. This understanding of Hinduism potentially betrays a less than thorough reading of the relevant texts, since the four Vedas themselves had not developed the notion of the trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, which ideas came to full fruition in much later works, post- Upanishads , particularly in the allegorical mythological literature known as the Puranas . Socratic dialectic See Also: Socratic method In Plato 's dialogues and other Socratic Dialogues , Socrates attempts to examine someone's beliefs, at times even First Principles or Premises by which we all reason and argue. Socrates typically argues by cross-examining his interlocutor's claims and premises in order to draw out a Contradiction or inconsistency among them. According to Plato, the rational detection of error amounts to finding the proof of the antithesis Vlastos, G., Burnyeat M. (Ed.) (1994) Socratic Studies, Cambridge U.P. ISBN 0-521-44735-6 Ch. 1. However, important as this objective is, the principal aim of Socratic activity seems to be to improve the soul of his interlocutors, by freeing them from unrecognized errors. For example, 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. But, Socrates also has Euthyphro agreeing that the gods are quarrelsome and their quarrels, like human quarrels, concern objects of love or hatred. Therefore, Socrates reasons, at least one thing exists which certain gods love but other gods hate. Again, Euthyphro agrees. Socrates concludes that if Euthyphro's definition of piety is acceptable, then there must exist at least one thing which is both pious and impious (as it is both loved and hated by the gods) — which, Euthyphro admits, is absurd. Thus, Euthyphro is brought to a realization by this dialectical method that his definition of piety is not sufficiently elaborate, thus wrong. Buddhist dialectic See Also: Buddhist philosophy Elements of dialectics are found in Buddhism , Engels explains. The Buddhist doctrine was argued in a highly consistent and logical way in the 2nd Century by Nagarjuna , whose rationalism became the basis for the development of Buddhist logic. The logic of Buddhism was later developed by other notable thinkers such as Dignaga and Dharmakirti (between 500 and 700 ). This laid the basis for later idealist schools such as Madhyamaka , Vijnanavada , and Tantric Buddhism . The dynamic element in Buddhism, its dialectical side, is shown by its view of reality as something eternally changing and impermanent. By contrast, for the Vedanta philosophy, only the changeless and eternal is real. The Essence of Buddhism in its original form possesses a rational core, and most of the elements of dialectics were present in it, but they were present only in Theravāda Buddhism presently practiced in Thailand , Burma and Sri Lanka , similar to the early Greek philosophies. This represented the first faltering steps of dialectical philosophy. Hegelian dialectic an. In the ''Logic'' , for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of Existence : first, existence must be posited as pure Being (''Sein''); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (''Nichts''). When it is realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (consider life: old organisms die as new organisms are created or born), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming. Section in question from Hegel's ''Science of Logic'' As in the Socratic dialectic, Hegel claimed to proceed by making implicit contradictions explicit: each stage of the process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding stage. For Hegel, the whole of history is one tremendous dialectic, major stages of which chart a progression from self-alienation as Slavery to self-unification and realization as the Rational , Constitutional State of free and equal citizens. The Hegelian dialectic cannot be mechanically applied for any chosen thesis. Critics argue that the selection of any antithesis, other than the logical negation of the thesis, is subjective. Then, if the logical negation is used as the antithesis, 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 Rhetoric al, not logical, and the resulting synthesis not rigorously defensible against a multitude of other possible syntheses. The problem with the Fichtean "thesis — antithesis — synthesis" model is that it implies that contradictions or negations come from outside of things. Hegel's point is that they are inherent in and internal to things. This conception of dialectics derives ultimately from Heraclitus . Marxist dialectics Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed Hegel was "standing on his head," and endeavoured to put him back on his feet, ridding Hegel's logic of its orientation towards philosophical Idealism , and conceiving what is now known as materialist or Marxist dialectics. This is what Marx had to say about the difference between Hegel's dialectics and his own: "My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, 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 material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought." Nevertheless Marx: "openly avowed {Link without Title} the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even "coquetted with modes of expression peculiar to him." Marx wrote: "The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the mystical shell." In the work of Marx and Engels the dialectical approach to the study of history became intertwined with Historical Materialism , the school of thought exemplified by the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. (Marx himself never referred to "historical materialism.") A dialectical methodology came to be seen as the vital foundation for any Marxist politics, through the work of Karl Korsch , Georg Lukács and certain members of the Frankfurt School . Under Stalin , Marxist dialectics developed into what was called "diamat" (short for Dialectical Materialism ). Some Soviet academics, most notably Evald Ilyenkov , continued with unorthodox philosophical studies of the Marxist dialectic, as did a number of thinkers in the West. One of the best known North American dialectical philosophers is Bertell Ollman , Professor of Political Science at New York University . Engels argued that all of nature is dialectical. In Anti-Dühring he contends that negation of negation is : ''"A very simple process which is taking place everywhere and every day, which any child can understand as soon as it is stripped of the veil of mystery in which it was enveloped by the old idealist philosophy."'' In Dialectics Of Nature , Engels states, "Probably the same gentlemen who up to now have decried the transformation of quantity into quality as mysticism and incomprehensible transcendentalism will now declare that it is indeed something quite self-evident, trivial, and commonplace, which they have long employed, and so they have been taught nothing new. But to have formulated for the first time in its universally valid form a general law of development of nature, society, and thought, will always remain an act of historic importance." Marxists view dialectics as a framework for development in which contradiction plays the central role as the source of development. This is perhaps best exemplified in Marx's ''Capital,'' which outlines two of his central theories: that of the theory of surplus value and the materialist conception of history. In ''Capital,'' Marx had the following to say about his dialectical methodology: "In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension an affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary." At the heart of Marxist dialectics is the idea of contradiction, with class struggle playing the central role in social and political life. Marx and subsequent Marxists also identify other historically important contradictions, such as those between mental and manual labor and town and country. Contradiction is the key to all other categories and principles of dialectical development: development by passage of quantitative change into qualitative ones, interruption of gradualness, leaps, negation of the initial moment of development and negation of this very negation, and repetition at a higher level of some of the features and aspects of the original state. CRITICISM OF DIALECTIC Many philosophers have offered critiques of dialectic, and it can even be said that hostility or receptivity to dialectics is one of the things that divides twentieth-century Anglo-American philosophy from the so-called "continental" tradition, a divide that only a few contemporary philosophers (among them, G.H. Von Wright , Paul Ricoeur , Hans-Georg Gadamer , Richard Rorty ) have ventured to bridge. It is generally thought that whilst there are a few notable exceptions, in general on the continent of Europe, dialectics has entered intellectual culture (or at least its counter-culture) as what might be called a legitimate part of thought and philosophy. In America and Britain, by contrast, the dialectic plays no discernible part in the intellectual culture, which instead tends toward Positivism . A prime example of the European tradition is Sartre 's ''Critique of Dialectical Reason'', which is very different from the works of Popper, whose philosophy was for a time highly influential in the UK where he resided (see below). Sartre states: : ''Existentialism, like Marxism, addresses itself to experience in order to discover there concrete syntheses; it can conceive of these syntheses only within a moving, dialectical totalisation which is nothing else but history or -- from the strictly cultural point of view which we have adopted here --“philosophy-becoming-the world.” '' should not be made a basis for any sort of scientific system and that philosophers should be much more modest in their claims. One task which they can fulfill quite usefully is the study of the critical methods of Science " (Ibid., p. 335). In chapter 12 of volume 2 of '', . . . by contributing to Historicism and to an identification of might and right, encouraged Totalitarian modes of thought. . . . undermined and eventually lowered the traditional standards of intellectual responsibility and honesty" (''The Open Society and Its Enemies'', 5th rev. ed., vol. 2 [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966 , p. 395). DIALECTICAL BIOLOGY In ''The Dialectical Biologist'' (Harvard U.P. 1985 ISBN 0-674-20281-3), Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin sketch a dialectical approach to biology. They see "dialectics" more as a set of questions to ask about biological research, a weapon against dogmatism, than as a set of pre-determined answers. They focus on the (dialectical) relationship between the "whole" (or totality) and the "parts." "Part makes whole, and whole makes part" (p. 272). That is, a biological system of some kind consists of a collection of heterogeneous parts. All of these contribute to the character of the whole, as in reductionist thinking. On the other hand, the whole has an existence independent of the parts and feeds back to affect and determine the nature of the parts. This back-and-forth (dialectic) of causation implies a dynamic process. For example, Darwinian Evolution points to the competition of a variety of species, each with heterogeneous members, within a given environment. This leads to changing species and even to new species arising. A dialectical biologist would not reject this picture as much as look for ways in which the competing creatures lead to changes in the environment, as when the action of microbes encourages the erosion of rocks. Further, each species is part of the "environment" of all of the others. SEE ALSO ;Philosophy
;Portals ;Interdisciplinary concepts NOTES Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1807/1841): Die Phänomenologie des Geistes, in: Baillie, James Back / Lichtheim, Georg (1967): The phenomenology of mind, New York Göhler, Gerhard (1980): Die Reduktion der Dialektik durch marx. Strukturveraenderungen der dialektischen Entwicklung in der Kritik der Politischen Oekonomie, Stuttgart Kimmerle, Heinz (Edit.) (1986): Dialektik – Modelle von Marx bis Althusser. Beitraege der Bochumer Dialektik – Arbeitsgemeinschaft, Bochum REFERENCES General information
FURTHER READING
EXTERNAL LINKS |
|
|