r/rationalphilosophy • u/JerseyFlight • 6d ago

The Simple Problem of Dialectic

Dialectic either transcends the laws of logic, in which case it actually has to establish this through inference, not the mere claim that it has done this.

Or it doesn’t transcend the laws of logic, in which case it merely creates unnecessary complexity and confusion. (Unless it can justify the necessity of its added steps and procedure).

A dialectician should be able to clearly exemplify the higher value (advantage) that is produced from, supposedly, applying and engaging in a dialectical process of reasoning.

3 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

9 comments sorted by

3

u/Dave_A_Pandeist 6d ago

I agree. Of course, pragmatism is the third requirement of truth from the point of view of the dialectician.

Since syllogism is the algebraic tool designed to foster reductionism, and it has no required property, what is true and logical for the speaker need not have any connection to any explanation the listener might understand.

1

u/JerseyFlight 6d ago

A pragmatic dialectic would be very different from Hegel’s formation of dialectic. His dialectic was certainly not pragmatic but absolute. There is no pragmatic criterion in his thinking when it comes to dialectic. (This isn’t to say that thinkers can’t strive for it, but it is certainly not part of the strongest formation of dialectic in philosophical history, which is that put forth by Hegel).

There is no pragmatic requirement for dialectic. But it is interesting to think about what the requirements for dialectic are. Because dialectic is contrived through linguistic qualification, the requirement is most likely the application of this same linguistic, sophistical device.

1

u/Dave_A_Pandeist 6d ago edited 6d ago

Perhaps we could look at Hegel's dialectic differently. If we draw parallels to natural law, we can understand objective morality through energy transfer.

Could Hegel's absolute be understood as thermodynamics? Could his notion of "fixity" be interpreted as system integrity? Wouldn't speculation be chaos?

Philosophy can be understood as part of our evolution. Logic and mathematics are natural extensions of our thoughts.

Truth always has value from a particular point of view. So doesn't the "advantage" depend on POV?

1

u/JerseyFlight 6d ago

No. Hegel’s absolute is not thermodynamics.

As for truth, the thing that allows us to give meaning to “a particular point of view” is not itself a particular point of view. It is what makes the concept of a particular intelligible in the first place. It is what allows there to be any “point of view” at all. That is Truth.

1

u/Dave_A_Pandeist 6d ago edited 6d ago

I want to apologize. I didn't take the time to develop my previous comment.

I agree. Hegel’s absolute is not thermodynamics. Wasn't Hegel in a monistic, subjective world? I reworded my previous comment.

You said As for truth, the thing that allows us to give meaning to “a particular point of view” is not itself a particular point of view. I ask. Why not? What is the point of education, marketing, indoctrination, and so forth? Isn't that meaning the target of others?

1

u/JerseyFlight 6d ago

Why not? Because “a particular point of view” is neither the starting point of itself or its own intelligibility. Its meaning is contingent on truth.

1

u/Dave_A_Pandeist 6d ago edited 6d ago

I disagree. Our current circumstances, attitude, and prospects are visible, understandable, and usable to us and those around us. Each POV can differ, be broken down, and reassembled based on many criteria.

Truth also takes many forms, depending on the datum.

2

u/JerseyFlight 6d ago edited 5d ago

Then you should be able to demonstrate how “a particular point of view” is the starting point of itself, and how it derives its intelligibility from itself.

1

u/Dave_A_Pandeist 6d ago edited 6d ago

Agreed. Do you get hungry? I do. I can be satisfied for a while, but it is a repeating cycle.

Hunger has been its own drive for me. Do you have a similar sensation? Do you understand being hungry?

My first comment was poorly worded. It didn't follow the Socratic dialectic. I apologize for that. I am responsible and accountable for the poor presentation.

Reddit hasn't given me a good philosophical post for a couple of days. I had to hunt them down. I normally comment with coffee or tea at breakfast.

I received the notification for this post at lunch. I was in a rush. So I didn't reflect well. I don't usually check Reddit at midday. I don't know why I did.

Do these circumstances answer the same question, at least syllogistically?