Difference between revisions of "Dialectic"

From Psychotherapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deprecated: The each() function is deprecated. This message will be suppressed on further calls in /home1/sloanean/public_html/psychotherapedia/includes/diff/DairikiDiff.php on line 434
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
'''Dialectic''' (also called ''dialectics'' or ''the dialectical method'') is a method of argument, which has been central to both Indic and European philosophy since ancient times. The word "dialectic" originates in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by [[Plato]] in his Socratic dialogues. Dialectic is based on a [[dialogue]] between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason.<ref>The Republic (Plato), 348b</ref> This differs from a [[debate]], in which both sides are committed to their viewpoint and only wish to win the debate by persuading or proving themselves right (or the other side wrong) – and thus a jury or judge is often needed to decide the matter. It also differs from rhetoric, which is oratory that appeals to logos, pathos, or ethos. Rhetoric is communication designed to persuade an audience to side with a particular argument or action.
+
'''Dialectic''' (also called ''dialectics'' or ''the dialectical method'') is a method of argument, which has been central to both Indic and European philosophy since ancient times. The word "dialectic" originates in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in his Socratic dialogues. Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason.<ref>The Republic (Plato), 348b</ref> This differs from a debate, in which both sides are committed to their viewpoint and only wish to win the debate by persuading or proving themselves right (or the other side wrong) – and thus a jury or judge is often needed to decide the matter. It also differs from rhetoric, which is oratory that appeals to logos, pathos, or ethos. Rhetoric is communication designed to persuade an audience to side with a particular argument or action.
  
 
The Sophists taught "Arete|arête" (Greek: meaning quality or excellence) as the highest value and determinant of one's actions in life. The Sophists taught artistic quality in oratory (as we might teach someone to both write and to deliver a moving or motivational monologue) as (one) manner of demonstrating one's "arête". They taught oratory as an art form, used to both please and to influence others through the excellence of one's speeches (as opposed to using logical arguments). (The Sophists taught that a person should seek arête in all that he did, not just oratory).
 
The Sophists taught "Arete|arête" (Greek: meaning quality or excellence) as the highest value and determinant of one's actions in life. The Sophists taught artistic quality in oratory (as we might teach someone to both write and to deliver a moving or motivational monologue) as (one) manner of demonstrating one's "arête". They taught oratory as an art form, used to both please and to influence others through the excellence of one's speeches (as opposed to using logical arguments). (The Sophists taught that a person should seek arête in all that he did, not just oratory).
Line 7: Line 7:
 
==Principles==
 
==Principles==
 
Fichtean/Hegelian Dialectics is based on three (or four) basic concepts:
 
Fichtean/Hegelian Dialectics is based on three (or four) basic concepts:
−
# Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of [[time]] (this idea is not accepted by some dialecticians).
+
# Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by some dialecticians).
 
# Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).
 
# Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).
 
# Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
 
# Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
−
# Change moves in spirals (or [[helices]]), not circles (sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation").{{Citation needed|date=May 2010}}
+
# Change moves in spirals (or helices), not circles (sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation").{{Citation needed|date=May 2010}}
−
Within this broad qualification, dialectics has a rich and varied history. It has been stated that the history of ''dialectic'' is identical to the extensive history of philosophy.<ref>Cassin, Barbara (ed.), ''Vocabulaire européen des philosophies'' <nowiki>[</nowiki>Paris: Le Robert & Seuil, 2004<nowiki>]</nowiki>, p. 306, trans. M.K. Jensen)</ref> The basic idea is perhaps already present in [[Heraclitus]] of [[Ephesus]], who held that all is in constant change, as a result of inner strife and opposition.<ref>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 press, inc. [http://books.google.com/books?id=sH4qAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA160 Page 160]</ref><ref>Howard Ll. Williams, ''Hegel, Heraclitus, and Marx's Dialectic''. Harvester Wheatsheaf 1989. 256 pages. ISBN 0-7450-0527-6</ref><ref>Denton Jaques Snider, Ancient European Philosophy: The History of Greek Philosophy Psychologically Treated. Sigma publishing co. 1903. 730 pages. Pages 116-119.</ref>
+
Within this broad qualification, dialectics has a rich and varied history. It has been stated that the history of ''dialectic'' is identical to the extensive history of philosophy.<ref>Cassin, Barbara (ed.), ''Vocabulaire européen des philosophies'' <nowiki>[</nowiki>Paris: Le Robert & Seuil, 2004<nowiki>]</nowiki>, p. 306, trans. M.K. Jensen)</ref> The basic idea is perhaps already present in Heraclitus of Ephesus, who held that all is in constant change, as a result of inner strife and opposition.<ref>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 press, inc. [http://books.google.com/books?id=sH4qAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA160 Page 160]</ref><ref>Howard Ll. Williams, ''Hegel, Heraclitus, and Marx's Dialectic''. Harvester Wheatsheaf 1989. 256 pages. ISBN 0-7450-0527-6</ref><ref>Denton Jaques Snider, Ancient European Philosophy: The History of Greek Philosophy Psychologically Treated. Sigma publishing co. 1903. 730 pages. Pages 116-119.</ref>
  
−
The aim of the dialectical method is resolution of the disagreement through rational discussion,<ref>Pinto, R. C. (2001). Argument, inference and dialectic: collected papers on informal logic. Argumentation library, v. 4. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Page 138-139.</ref><ref>Eemeren, F. H. v. (2003). Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation. Argumentation library, v. 8. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Page 92.</ref> and ultimately the search for truth. One way to proceed &mdash; the [[Socratic method]] &mdash; is to show that a given [[hypothesis]] (with other admissions) leads to a [[contradiction]]; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for [[truth]] (see also [[reductio ad absurdum]]). Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some [[presupposition]] of both the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis or "sublation". However, the rejection of the participants' presuppositions can be resisted, which might generate a second-order controversy.<ref>Musicologist Rose Rosengard Subotnick gives the following example: "A question posed in a [[Fred Friendly|Fred Friendly Seminar]] entitled ''Hard Drugs, Hard Choices: The Crisis Beyond Our Borders'' [http://www.fredfriendly.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=tv.detail&pid=40] (aired on WNET on February 26, 1990), illustrates that others, too, seem to find this dynamic enlightening: 'Are our lives so barren because we use drugs? Or do we use drugs because our lives are so barren?' The question is dialectical to the extent that it enables one to grasp the two opposed priorities as simultaneously valid."</ref>
+
The aim of the dialectical method is resolution of the disagreement through rational discussion,<ref>Pinto, R. C. (2001). Argument, inference and dialectic: collected papers on informal logic. Argumentation library, v. 4. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Page 138-139.</ref><ref>Eemeren, F. H. v. (2003). Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation. Argumentation library, v. 8. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Page 92.</ref> and ultimately the search for truth. One way to proceed &mdash; the Socratic method &mdash; is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth (see also reductio ad absurdum). Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some presupposition of both the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis or "sublation". However, the rejection of the participants' presuppositions can be resisted, which might generate a second-order controversy.<ref>Musicologist Rose Rosengard Subotnick gives the following example: "A question posed in a Fred Friendly Seminar entitled ''Hard Drugs, Hard Choices: The Crisis Beyond Our Borders'' [http://www.fredfriendly.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=tv.detail&pid=40] (aired on WNET on February 26, 1990), illustrates that others, too, seem to find this dynamic enlightening: 'Are our lives so barren because we use drugs? Or do we use drugs because our lives are so barren?' The question is dialectical to the extent that it enables one to grasp the two opposed priorities as simultaneously valid."</ref>
  
 
==Western forms==
 
==Western forms==
 
===Classical philosophy===
 
===Classical philosophy===
−
The term "dialectic" owes much of its prestige to its role in the philosophy of Socrates and Plato. According to [[Aristotle]],<ref>([fr. 65], Diog. IX 25ff and VIII 57)</ref> it was Zeno of Elea who 'invented' dialectic. Plato's dialogues are the best ancient written examples that show the Socratic dialectic method in great detail.
+
The term "dialectic" owes much of its prestige to its role in the philosophy of Socrates and Plato. According to Aristotle,<ref>([fr. 65], Diog. IX 25ff and VIII 57)</ref> it was Zeno of Elea who 'invented' dialectic. Plato's dialogues are the best ancient written examples that show the Socratic dialectic method in great detail.
  
−
In classical [[philosophy]], '''dialectic''' is a form of reasoning based on the exchange of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating ''propositions'' (theses) and ''counter-propositions'' (antitheses). The outcome of such an exchange might be the refutation of one of the relevant points of view, or a synthesis or combination of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue.<ref>Ayer, A. J., & O'Grady, J. (1992). A dictionary of philosophical quotations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Page 484.</ref><ref>McTaggart, J. M. E. (1964). A commentary on Hegel's logic. New York: Russell & Russell. Page 11</ref>
+
In classical philosophy, '''dialectic''' is a form of reasoning based on the exchange of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating ''propositions'' (theses) and ''counter-propositions'' (antitheses). The outcome of such an exchange might be the refutation of one of the relevant points of view, or a synthesis or combination of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue.<ref>Ayer, A. J., & O'Grady, J. (1992). A dictionary of philosophical quotations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Page 484.</ref><ref>McTaggart, J. M. E. (1964). A commentary on Hegel's logic. New York: Russell & Russell. Page 11</ref>
  
 
==== Socratic dialogue ====
 
==== Socratic dialogue ====
  
−
In Plato's dialogues and other [[Socratic dialogues]], [[Socrates]] attempts to examine someone's beliefs, at times even [[first principles]] or [[premise]]s 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.<ref>[[Gregory Vlastos|Vlastos, G.]], [[Myles Burnyeat|Burnyeat, M.]] (Ed.) (1994) Socratic Studies, Cambridge U.P. ISBN 0-521-44735-6 Ch. 1</ref> 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.
+
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.<ref>Gregory Vlastos|Vlastos, G., Burnyeat, M. (Ed.) (1994) Socratic Studies, Cambridge U.P. ISBN 0-521-44735-6 Ch. 1</ref> 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) &mdash; which Euthyphro admits is absurd. Thus, Euthyphro is brought to a realization by this dialectical method that his definition of piety is not sufficiently meaningful.
+
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) &mdash; which Euthyphro admits is absurd. Thus, Euthyphro is brought to a realization by this dialectical method that his definition of piety is not sufficiently meaningful.
  
 
===Medieval philosophy===
 
===Medieval philosophy===
−
Dialectics (also called logic) was one of the three liberal arts taught in [[medieval universities]] as part of the [[trivium (education)|trivium]]. The [[trivium (education)|trivium]] also included [[rhetoric]] and [[grammar]].<ref>Abelson, P. (1965). The seven liberal arts; a study in mediæval culture. New York: Russell & Russell. Page 82.</ref><ref>Hyman, A., & Walsh, J. J. (1983). Philosophy in the Middle Ages: the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co. Page 164.</ref><ref>Adler, Mortimer Jerome (2000). "Dialectic". Routledge. Page 4. ISBN 0-415-22550-7</ref><ref name="Herbermann">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 press, inc. Page 760 - 764.</ref>
+
Dialectics (also called logic) was one of the three liberal arts taught in medieval universities as part of the trivium (trivium. The trivium (education) also included rhetoric and grammar.<ref>Abelson, P. (1965). The seven liberal arts; a study in mediæval culture. New York: Russell & Russell. Page 82.</ref><ref>Hyman, A., & Walsh, J. J. (1983). Philosophy in the Middle Ages: the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co. Page 164.</ref><ref>Adler, Mortimer Jerome (2000). "Dialectic". Routledge. Page 4. ISBN 0-415-22550-7</ref><ref name="Herbermann">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 press, inc. Page 760 - 764.</ref>
  
−
Based mainly on [[Aristotle]], the first medieval philosopher to work on dialectics was [[Boethius]].<ref>[http://books.google.es/books?id=dA0YGAD1cQcC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=dialectics+in+Boethius&source=bl&ots=_HccRhfdjX&sig=-lqZuRDK4jXLpWiN8-X8Rn36F3o&hl=es&ei=KGv0S_L6J4P-8AaZs-zNDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=dialectics%20in%20Boethius&f=false From topic to tale: logic and narrativity in the Middle Ages], by Eugene Vance,p.43-45</ref> After him, many scholastic philosophers also made use of dialectics in their works, such as [[Abelard]],<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01036b.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Peter Abelard]</ref> [[William of Sherwood]],<ref>[http://books.google.es/books?id=f3uMdwDVvL8C&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=Dialectic+in+william+of+sherwood&source=bl&ots=DgQ7rzGOrB&sig=7KAHsosojbyBiA_Fe6KckbL_zlM&hl=es&ei=FGX0S8rTAYL68Aar5oijBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dialectical&f=false William of Sherwood's Introduction to logic], by Norman Kretzmann,p.69-102</ref> [[Garlandus Compotista]],<ref>[http://books.google.es/books?id=7mcPcSuUa8EC&pg=RA1-PA198&lpg=RA1-PA198&dq=Garlandus+Compotista+and+Dialectic+in+the+Eleventh+and+Twelfth+Centuries&source=bl&ots=XkXFFyOASE&sig=bH4YzmizXsgyd2LWo-QjTT5FB4o&hl=es&ei=F2b0S8eiB8H-8AbhrMCyAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Garlandus%20Compotista%20and%20Dialectic%20in%20the%20Eleventh%20and%20Twelfth%20Centuries&f=false A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy], by Peter Dronke,p.198</ref> [[Walter Burley]], Roger Swyneshed and [[William of Ockham]].<ref>[http://books.google.es/books?id=UnW7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=William+of+Ockham+dialectical+materialism&source=bl&ots=GRVgP3JXdO&sig=KWQjQf8z5s0VMgVf5sqjIkWZgpk&hl=es&ei=Mmn0S4bqHMT38AablKj6Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=William%20of%20Ockham%20dialectical%20materialism&f=false Medieval literary politics: shapes of ideology], by Sheila Delany,p.11</ref>
+
Based mainly on Aristotle, the first medieval philosopher to work on dialectics was Boethius.<ref>[http://books.google.es/books?id=dA0YGAD1cQcC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=dialectics+in+Boethius&source=bl&ots=_HccRhfdjX&sig=-lqZuRDK4jXLpWiN8-X8Rn36F3o&hl=es&ei=KGv0S_L6J4P-8AaZs-zNDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDYQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=dialectics%20in%20Boethius&f=false From topic to tale: logic and narrativity in the Middle Ages], by Eugene Vance,p.43-45</ref> After him, many scholastic philosophers also made use of dialectics in their works, such as Abelard,<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01036b.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: Peter Abelard]</ref> William of Sherwood,<ref>[http://books.google.es/books?id=f3uMdwDVvL8C&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=Dialectic+in+william+of+sherwood&source=bl&ots=DgQ7rzGOrB&sig=7KAHsosojbyBiA_Fe6KckbL_zlM&hl=es&ei=FGX0S8rTAYL68Aar5oijBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=dialectical&f=false William of Sherwood's Introduction to logic], by Norman Kretzmann,p.69-102</ref> Garlandus Compotista,<ref>[http://books.google.es/books?id=7mcPcSuUa8EC&pg=RA1-PA198&lpg=RA1-PA198&dq=Garlandus+Compotista+and+Dialectic+in+the+Eleventh+and+Twelfth+Centuries&source=bl&ots=XkXFFyOASE&sig=bH4YzmizXsgyd2LWo-QjTT5FB4o&hl=es&ei=F2b0S8eiB8H-8AbhrMCyAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Garlandus%20Compotista%20and%20Dialectic%20in%20the%20Eleventh%20and%20Twelfth%20Centuries&f=false A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy], by Peter Dronke,p.198</ref> Walter Burley, Roger Swyneshed and William of Ockham.<ref>[http://books.google.es/books?id=UnW7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA11&lpg=PA11&dq=William+of+Ockham+dialectical+materialism&source=bl&ots=GRVgP3JXdO&sig=KWQjQf8z5s0VMgVf5sqjIkWZgpk&hl=es&ei=Mmn0S4bqHMT38AablKj6Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=William%20of%20Ockham%20dialectical%20materialism&f=false Medieval literary politics: shapes of ideology], by Sheila Delany,p.11</ref>
  
 
This dialectic was formed as follows:
 
This dialectic was formed as follows:
Line 40: Line 40:
  
 
===Modern philosophy===
 
===Modern philosophy===
−
The concept of dialectics was given new life by [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]] (following [[Fichte]]), whose dialectically dynamic model of [[nature]] and of [[history]] made it, as it were, a fundamental aspect 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 [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]] tended to do in his ''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]'').<ref>Nicholson, J. A. (1950). Philosophy of religion. New York: Ronald Press Co. Page 108.</ref><ref>Kant, I., Guyer, P., & Wood, A. W. (2003). [http://books.google.com/books?id=7bRychF0y0EC Critique of pure reason]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 495.</ref> In the mid-19th century, the concept of "dialectic" was appropriated by [[Karl Marx|Marx]] (see, for example, [[Das Kapital]], published in 1867) and [[Friedrich Engels|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 [[History of the world|world history]]. In contemporary [[polemics]], "dialectics" may 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 is interconnected, contradictory, and dynamic ([[ontology]]); or it can refer to a method of presentation of ideas and conclusions ([[discourse]]). According to Hegel, "dialectic" is the method by which human history unfolds; that is to say, history progresses as a dialectical process.
+
The concept of dialectics was given new life by Hegel (following Fichte), whose dialectically dynamic model of nature and of history made it, as it were, a fundamental aspect 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 Immanuel Kant tended to do in his ''Critique of Pure Reason'').<ref>Nicholson, J. A. (1950). Philosophy of religion. New York: Ronald Press Co. Page 108.</ref><ref>Kant, I., Guyer, P., & Wood, A. W. (2003). [http://books.google.com/books?id=7bRychF0y0EC Critique of pure reason]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 495.</ref> In the mid-19th century, the concept of "dialectic" was appropriated by Karl Marx (see, for example, Das Kapital, published in 1867) and Friedrich 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 History of the world. In contemporary polemics, "dialectics" may 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 is interconnected, contradictory, and dynamic (ontology); or it can refer to a method of presentation of ideas and conclusions (discourse). According to Hegel, "dialectic" is the method by which human history unfolds; that is to say, history progresses as a dialectical process.
  
  

Latest revision as of 16:50, 27 March 2011

Dialectic (also called dialectics or the dialectical method) is a method of argument, which has been central to both Indic and European philosophy since ancient times. The word "dialectic" originates in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in his Socratic dialogues. Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason.[1] This differs from a debate, in which both sides are committed to their viewpoint and only wish to win the debate by persuading or proving themselves right (or the other side wrong) – and thus a jury or judge is often needed to decide the matter. It also differs from rhetoric, which is oratory that appeals to logos, pathos, or ethos. Rhetoric is communication designed to persuade an audience to side with a particular argument or action.

The Sophists taught "Arete|arête" (Greek: meaning quality or excellence) as the highest value and determinant of one's actions in life. The Sophists taught artistic quality in oratory (as we might teach someone to both write and to deliver a moving or motivational monologue) as (one) manner of demonstrating one's "arête". They taught oratory as an art form, used to both please and to influence others through the excellence of one's speeches (as opposed to using logical arguments). (The Sophists taught that a person should seek arête in all that he did, not just oratory).

Socrates favoured "truth" as the highest value, holding that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality, i.e. logical appeal, above emotional appeal, as the proper means for persuasion, discovery of truth, and as the determinant of action. To Socrates, truth, not arête, was the higher good, and each person should seek truth above all to guide his life. Socrates therefore opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as artistic, emotional oratory that did not require logic or proof.[2] Different forms of dialectical reason have emerged in the Indosphere and in the West, as well as during different eras of history (see below). Among the major forms of dialectic reason are Socratic, Hindu, Buddhist, Medieval, Hegelian, Marxist, Talmudic and Neo-orthodoxy.

Principles

Fichtean/Hegelian Dialectics is based on three (or four) basic concepts:

  1. Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by some dialecticians).
  2. Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).
  3. Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).
  4. Change moves in spirals (or helices), not circles (sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation").

Within this broad qualification, dialectics has a rich and varied history. It has been stated that the history of dialectic is identical to the extensive history of philosophy.[3] The basic idea is perhaps already present in Heraclitus of Ephesus, who held that all is in constant change, as a result of inner strife and opposition.[4][5][6]

The aim of the dialectical method is resolution of the disagreement through rational discussion,[7][8] and ultimately the search for truth. One way to proceed — the Socratic method — is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth (see also reductio ad absurdum). Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some presupposition of both the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis or "sublation". However, the rejection of the participants' presuppositions can be resisted, which might generate a second-order controversy.[9]

Western forms

Classical philosophy

The term "dialectic" owes much of its prestige to its role in the philosophy of Socrates and Plato. According to Aristotle,[10] it was Zeno of Elea who 'invented' dialectic. Plato's dialogues are the best ancient written examples that show the Socratic dialectic method in great detail.

In classical philosophy, dialectic is a form of reasoning based on the exchange of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses). The outcome of such an exchange might be the refutation of one of the relevant points of view, or a synthesis or combination of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue.[11][12]

Socratic dialogue

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.[13] 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 meaningful.

Medieval philosophy

Dialectics (also called logic) was one of the three liberal arts taught in medieval universities as part of the trivium (trivium. The trivium (education) also included rhetoric and grammar.[14][15][16][17]

Based mainly on Aristotle, the first medieval philosopher to work on dialectics was Boethius.[18] After him, many scholastic philosophers also made use of dialectics in their works, such as Abelard,[19] William of Sherwood,[20] Garlandus Compotista,[21] Walter Burley, Roger Swyneshed and William of Ockham.[22]

This dialectic was formed as follows:

  1. The Question to be determined
  2. The principal objections to the question
  3. An argument in favor of the Question, traditionally a single argument ("On the contrary..")
  4. The determination of the Question after weighing the evidence. ("I answer that...")
  5. The replies to each objection

Modern philosophy

The concept of dialectics was given new life by Hegel (following Fichte), whose dialectically dynamic model of nature and of history made it, as it were, a fundamental aspect 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 Immanuel Kant tended to do in his Critique of Pure Reason).[23][24] In the mid-19th century, the concept of "dialectic" was appropriated by Karl Marx (see, for example, Das Kapital, published in 1867) and Friedrich 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 History of the world. In contemporary polemics, "dialectics" may 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 is interconnected, contradictory, and dynamic (ontology); or it can refer to a method of presentation of ideas and conclusions (discourse). According to Hegel, "dialectic" is the method by which human history unfolds; that is to say, history progresses as a dialectical process.



References

  1. ↑ The Republic (Plato), 348b
  2. ↑ Cf. Gorgias, 449B: "Socrates: Would you be willing then, Gorgias, to continue the discussion as we are now doing [Dialectic], by way of question and answer , and to put off to another occasion the (emotional) speeches [Rhetoric] that Polus [a Sophist] began?"
  3. ↑ Cassin, Barbara (ed.), Vocabulaire européen des philosophies [Paris: Le Robert & Seuil, 2004], p. 306, trans. M.K. Jensen)
  4. ↑ 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 press, inc. Page 160
  5. ↑ Howard Ll. Williams, Hegel, Heraclitus, and Marx's Dialectic. Harvester Wheatsheaf 1989. 256 pages. ISBN 0-7450-0527-6
  6. ↑ Denton Jaques Snider, Ancient European Philosophy: The History of Greek Philosophy Psychologically Treated. Sigma publishing co. 1903. 730 pages. Pages 116-119.
  7. ↑ Pinto, R. C. (2001). Argument, inference and dialectic: collected papers on informal logic. Argumentation library, v. 4. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Page 138-139.
  8. ↑ Eemeren, F. H. v. (2003). Anyone who has a view: theoretical contributions to the study of argumentation. Argumentation library, v. 8. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Page 92.
  9. ↑ Musicologist Rose Rosengard Subotnick gives the following example: "A question posed in a Fred Friendly Seminar entitled Hard Drugs, Hard Choices: The Crisis Beyond Our Borders [1] (aired on WNET on February 26, 1990), illustrates that others, too, seem to find this dynamic enlightening: 'Are our lives so barren because we use drugs? Or do we use drugs because our lives are so barren?' The question is dialectical to the extent that it enables one to grasp the two opposed priorities as simultaneously valid."
  10. ↑ ([fr. 65], Diog. IX 25ff and VIII 57)
  11. ↑ Ayer, A. J., & O'Grady, J. (1992). A dictionary of philosophical quotations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Page 484.
  12. ↑ McTaggart, J. M. E. (1964). A commentary on Hegel's logic. New York: Russell & Russell. Page 11
  13. ↑ Gregory Vlastos|Vlastos, G., Burnyeat, M. (Ed.) (1994) Socratic Studies, Cambridge U.P. ISBN 0-521-44735-6 Ch. 1
  14. ↑ Abelson, P. (1965). The seven liberal arts; a study in mediæval culture. New York: Russell & Russell. Page 82.
  15. ↑ Hyman, A., & Walsh, J. J. (1983). Philosophy in the Middle Ages: the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co. Page 164.
  16. ↑ Adler, Mortimer Jerome (2000). "Dialectic". Routledge. Page 4. ISBN 0-415-22550-7
  17. ↑ 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 press, inc. Page 760 - 764.
  18. ↑ From topic to tale: logic and narrativity in the Middle Ages, by Eugene Vance,p.43-45
  19. ↑ Catholic Encyclopedia: Peter Abelard
  20. ↑ William of Sherwood's Introduction to logic, by Norman Kretzmann,p.69-102
  21. ↑ A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, by Peter Dronke,p.198
  22. ↑ Medieval literary politics: shapes of ideology, by Sheila Delany,p.11
  23. ↑ Nicholson, J. A. (1950). Philosophy of religion. New York: Ronald Press Co. Page 108.
  24. ↑ Kant, I., Guyer, P., & Wood, A. W. (2003). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page 495.
Retrieved from "http://www.unifiedpsychotherapyproject.org/psychotherapedia/index.php?title=Dialectic&oldid=54481"