That's useful! I mean it's still quite vague to me, but I get the sense of it referring to the use of judgement in debate.
I dunno.
It still doesn't seem to jive with how I've seen it used in other contexts.
Re: Dialectics
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:35 am
by SomeInternetBloke
A. "“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides."
B. "Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική, dialektikḗ; related to dialogue; German: Dialektik), also known as the dialectical method, is at base a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned methods of argumentation. Dialectic resembles debate, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and the modern pejorative sense of rhetoric."
Re: Dialectics
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 6:56 am
by Ferrus
It is used by different ways in different contexts.
The original use was related to Greek philosophy and the use of discussions to draw out definitions and conclusions.
Re: Dialectics
Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:57 pm
by Roger Mexico
"Dialectic" is an adjective derived from the noun "dialogue"--i.e. its basic meaning is "of or pertaining to dialogue."
However, if we're talking philosophy, the proverbial elephant in the room here (apologies if I'm over-assuming and thus misunderstanding your question) may be G.W.F. Hegel's theory of "historical dialectics", which is a (more or less) figurative expression referring to the idea that different elements of reality itself exist in a "dialectic" relationship to one another--as in, exerting influences upon one another, even when they are conflicting or contradictory in nature--and that changes in the universe over time are the products or outcomes of these figurative "dialogues."
"Dialectic" is an adjective derived from the noun "dialogue"--i.e. its basic meaning is "of or pertaining to dialogue."
However, if we're talking philosophy, the proverbial elephant in the room here (apologies if I'm over-assuming and thus misunderstanding your question) may be G.W.F. Hegel's theory of "historical dialectics", which is a (more or less) figurative expression referring to the idea that different elements of reality itself exist in a "dialectic" relationship to one another--as in, exerting influences upon one another, even when they are conflicting or contradictory in nature--and that changes in the universe over time are the products or outcomes of these figurative "dialogues."
Almost like forces in physics? (In terms of effects, not as actual phenomena, that is.) Things that pull society in one direction or another? I've been thinking for some time now that something like that seems to exist. As an obvious example I think about the evolution of political discourse and how it is very different than it was 20 years ago, around the time I first started paying attention to this stuff.
Re: Dialectics
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2021 5:06 am
by Utisz
Appreciate the responses! Basically I've heard people (irl and online) refer to dialetics (in the context of Plato, Hegel, Marx, etc.), and I have zero clue what they are actually talking about (and I do wonder at times, probably unfairly, if they themselves understand what they are talking about ... I am after all an arrogant sob).
I have a better idea now (reading Wikipedia pages beforehand yielded no insight). Still though, I don't really get it get it.
Re: Dialectics
Posted: Wed Apr 14, 2021 6:48 am
by Ferrus
The simplest way to understand it is as a form of argumentation that you see in works by Plato. A back and forth of logical ideas, usually where one side (Socrates usually) asks the interlocutor awkward questions that demonstrate the logical invalidity of their beliefs, and thus a process of refinement to come to 'truth' in the rather naive way the ancients thought it existed. It's similar to what a lawyer would do in court, but they thought it could get at higher universal truths. Aristotle was more sceptical and wanted materialist, empirical evidence and saw universals not as a different level of reality but baked in. Of course his conclusions were often wrong as he lacked a way to use empirical data efficiently through experimentation or testing but an important seed was planted.
Hegel's philosophy is a mindfuck but basically whereas Kant thought that a priori beliefs structure experieced reality, Hegel took it a step farther and say it had a logical structure that evolved through human history by its own logical contradictions from simple forms like pure sense experience to complex ones such as living in a nation with a collective consciousness or purpose. Marx took this idea and asserted it was materialistic forms of living and structures of economic relations that had a dialogue of contradictions.
The simplest way to understand it is as a form of argumentation that you see in works by Plato. A back and forth of logical ideas, usually where one side (Socrates usually) asks the interlocutor awkward questions that demonstrate the logical invalidity of their beliefs, and thus a process of refinement to come to 'truth' in the rather naive way the ancients thought it existed. It's similar to what a lawyer would do in court, but they thought it could get at higher universal truths. Aristotle was more sceptical and wanted materialist, empirical evidence and saw universals not as a different level of reality but baked in. Of course his conclusions were often wrong as he lacked a way to use empirical data efficiently through experimentation or testing but an important seed was planted.
Hegel's philosophy is a mindfuck but basically whereas Kant thought that a priori beliefs structure experieced reality, Hegel took it a step farther and say it had a logical structure that evolved through human history by its own logical contradictions from simple forms like pure sense experience to complex ones such as living in a nation with a collective consciousness or purpose. Marx took this idea and asserted it was materialistic forms of living and structures of economic relations that had a dialogue of contradictions.
That is pretty understandable. I like the analogy of lawyers going at it, but if lawyers were logicians/philosophers arguing for universal truths. That mostly makes sense to me.
Still hazy when we get to Hegel and Marx, but I get the drift. For Hegel, the logical lawyers are our past and present (sometimes contradictory) collective experiences implicitly arguing with each other. For Marx, it's (sometimes contradictory) economic classes and lifestyles implicitly arguing with each other. Something like that?
