Dialectics

[gL.edu] This article gathers contributions by Konstantin Litera, Henri Wahl, developed within the context of the Conceptual clarification about "Information, Knowledge and Philosophy", under the supervisión of J.M. Díaz Nafría.

The term “dialectic” originates from the (ancient) Greek language. In its literal meaning, it means “art of conversation” or “art of dialog”. In ancient greek, dialectic was used as a rhetorical methodology to find the truth on topics of nature or society by using the dialog form and using the opposite of the treated object. According to Aristoteles, Zeno of Elea was the first dialectician.

In the eighteen century the term gained a further dimension of meaning when Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel used it in “The Phenomenology of Spirit” as a methodology to constitute knowledge. Marx and Engels replaced Hegel’s idealistic approach with historian materialism in their works.

Dialectics in ancient times

This section covers the dialectic in the ancient times. In ancient times, dialectic was mainly seen as a rhetorical method to discover the truth in conversation, unlike in modernity, where especially Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel considered dialectic as systematic method to uncover truth completely.

Plato and Socrates

Even though dialectic is considered more of a Platonic than a Socratic idea, Plato attributes the method to Socrates in several dialogs (Republic, Phaedrus, Sophist and Statesman). Methodologically, the concept revolves around the idea of acquiring and testing knowledge in the form of questions and answers in a dialogue. In Plato’s transcripts of Socrates speeches, the idea of dialectic appears for the first time in the history of mankind. Here is a an abstracts of one speech, which gives a general idea of how the dialectic method was understood in ancient Greek and also divides the dialectic concept from the rhetoric of the sophists.

—Suppose someone should ask us about the children sitting together learning their letters: when one of them is asked of what letters some word or other is composed, do we ever say that the inquiry is more for the sake of the one problem set before him or for the sake of his becoming a better speller in all such cases?—Clearly for the sake of his becoming a better speller in all such cases.—Now again whatabout our inquiry about the statesman? Is it posed more for the sake of that thing itself [the statesman] or for the sake of our becoming more dialectical about everything? This too is clear, that it’s for the sake of our becoming more dialectical about everything. (Statesman 285c–d)

Aristotle

Aristotle, who was Plato's student, took the dialectical concept one step further in his “Organon/Tropics” (Greek for Tools). Although his approaches on logic are considered hard to understand and partly wrong, he develops in his works, the first systematic concept of dialectics by developing an argument guide. Aristoteles sees usability of dialectics in three forms: (i) training for the mind, (ii) public discussions, (iii) discussing philosophical questions.

He differs between scientific and dialectic premises. According to him, scientific premises are true and first propositions, while dialectic propositions are recognized opinions. As in other cases, we must set out the appearances (phainomena) and run through all the puzzles regarding them. In this way we must prove the credible opinions (endoxa) about these sorts of experiences—ideally, all the credible opinions, but if not all, then most of them, those which are the most important ones. For if the objections are answered and the credible opinions remain, we shall have an adequate proof (EN 1145b2–7).

Because of this, Aristoteles is widely considered as the first representative of the correspondence theory of truth (s. truth).

Dialectical School

The dialectical School or Megaric school was a group of early Hellenistic philosophers linked to the Socratic tradition of Eubulides of Miletus and by their focus on logical paradoxes, propositional logic and dialectics. This school, among whom Diodorus Cronus and Philo were prominent, made relevant contributions to logics, for instance, the Master-Argument, theories of conditionals and modal logic.

Medieval Ages

In the medieval age, serval thinkers like Boethius, Berengar of Tours, Petrus Hispanus expanded the dialectical method. Anselm of Canterbury is particularly noteworthy, using the dialectical approach for his ontological proof of the existence of God.

Dialectics in Modernity

Kant's Dialectics

A central aspect of Immanuel Kant's work is the dialectic, which plays a crucial in both epistemological and metaphysical discussions. While classical dialectic is often understood as a method of argumentation and contradiction, Kant offered a systematic examination of the limits and conditions of human cognition.

In his theory of "transcendental idealism", he centers the distinction between "appearances" and "things in themselves". This distinction forms the basis for his dialectical method, which aims to analyze and resolve the contradictions and illusions that arise in human reason (ibidem).

German Idealism, particularly in the form of Shelling and Hegel, builds on Kant's transcendental dialectic and significantly expands it. While Kant largely confines the dialectics to exposing contradictions and delineating the limits of reason, these authors integrates the dialectic as a dynamic process into their philosophical systems. The article on Kant's dialectics provides further details.

Schelling’s Dialectics

It is difficult to integrate the works on dialectics of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling because he is partly considered as teacher of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, on the other hand, he survived his student on several years and also changed his direction on dialectics over the years. The following shows the different states on dialects over time.

Early works (Naturphilosophie): In his early works, (e.g. Münchner Vorlesung) Schelling divides the human cognition in subjective and objective thinking. This division is also transmitted on nature. While objective nature (natura naturata), can be measured empirical, the subjective nature (natura naturans) is productivity. Schelling develops a model of those two opposites, which rescind each other in an eternal dynamical process.

Philosophy and Religion: In Philosophy and Religion, Schelling investigates the difference between eternal absoluteness and unlasting things. The eternal absoluteness is representing God, while the unlasting things are all those which are not-god-like”. Those two poles are in an everlasting conflict.

Die Weltalter: Here Schelling describes an unbreakable primeval being. This being is the combination of an eternal affirmative potency and an negative potency (ibidem).

Hegel’s Dialectics

Hegel dialectics is described in the “Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences”, where he defines his logical form composed of three sides (similar to the triad “Thesis”, “Antithesis” and ”Synthesis”, though he never used these specific terms)

• The first side: The moment of understanding. In which for example a concept is created.
• The second side: The “dialectical moment”, which sublates the first side by turning it into the opposite.
• The third side: Creates the unity between the first two sides.

Hegel transfers these concepts to the elementary questions that Immanuel Kant came up in his “Kritik der reinen Vernunft”, in which the possibility to make an objective judgement on real world objects (“the thing-in-itself”) is denied on the basis of the loss of information of the real substance (ibidem).

Hegel transferred Kant's epistemology to an ontological problem, by questing if a substance could be for itself. This question appeared earlier in Rene Descartes' mind-body-dualism (being and not-being). However, Hegel concluded that a substance could not stand for itself. It always needs the opposite and cannot exist in its pure form. Thus, he denies monism as well as dualism. In his dialectic the substance is one, but inside itself it differs from each other. The unity of opposites defines Hegel's dialectics.

Consequently, addressing Kant’s opinion about the impossibility to make an objective judgment of real world objects that are for themselves, Hegel concludes that the object is part of the subject and vice versa. Hegelian Dialectic can be understood as an unit of opposites.

The dialectics of Marx and Engels

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels tried to transform Hegel’s Dialectic based on Idealism into an historical materialism to bring about a practical application of this theory. They transferred the theory on certain aspects of human mankind and history to gain insight and deeper knowledge into the development of mankind.

While Hegel applied the dialectic to ideal processes, Marx and Engels apply the dialectic to the material world, particularly to the analysis of economic and social processes. They see dialectical contradictions as driving forces of social development and class struggle.

Dialectic Man vs Nature: The opposition man vs nature builds the foundation of the Marx/Engel’s approach on dialectic. In this approach mankind transforms and subjugate nature. At the same time, they develop skills to produce. While mankind is changing nature, it also changes itself. This leads to an everlasting synthesis (ibidem).

Dialectics to understand history: By reducing the social reality to economical categories, Marx and Engels tried to gain a deeper understanding of the history of mankind. They categorize society into two different classes, bourgeoisie and proletariat. Both appeared with the advent of the industrial revolution. Ever since those contradictory poles have influenced each other in a dialectical way (ibidem).

Conclusion

Since the first appearance of the dialectical method in ancient Greek, the method was understood to gain a deeper understanding of being. While it was used at first as an method to find the truth, it later became an method to describe systems and the world as a whole in the times of Hegel and Marx.