Chapter 4/2

Dialectic

The DIALECTIC is rooted in the idea of dialogue. The core idea is that other perspectives, positions, and possibilities must always be taken into account. The DIALECTIC seems to be rooted in a principle that can be expressed in three differing ways.

• No human statement is ever complete by itself.

By the word statement we should understand this is not necessarily a single sentence. Sometimes a paragraph makes a single statement. A speech may do that, as may a book, a law, or a television program. Whether a statement is simple or elaborate, it remains true that no human statement is ever complete by itself, and therefore, is never the whole truth.

• There is always more that can be said.

Always there is something else no matter what we are talking about. Some aspects have been left out. The world, and our life in it, is too complex to be reduced to a single statement.

• It is always possible that we might be wrong.

In whatever we think or say, we could, on occasion, be wrong. To believe otherwise is to claim that we are infallible, that we are never mistaken. But humans are not infallible. We do make mistakes, and often.

So the DIALECTIC grows out of the realization that there is always another side, another perspective that must be taken into consideration if we are to approach the full truth. To think DIALECTICally is to always consider the possibility of our own error and then to examine our thought to see where the flaw might be. We can never take it for granted that what we think, is the truth, and certainly not that it is the whole truth. (At one point I considered using “Considerate Thinking” as the title of this book. Consideration is what it is all about.)

Several months after an automobile accident with a driver in a stolen car, the accident that totaled our Buick, the police finally found the offender and a date was set for his trial. I was called to court as a witness. Judge Ellis’s docket was full, so I sat through two afternoons of trials by the judge before they got to our case. As I listened, I began to realize that being sworn in was going to present me with a problem. As a philosopher, I realized that I could not tell the truth about the accident because it all happened so fast and so much was involved that I had the truth only as I remembered it. Moreover, I was not in position to know the whole truth. And again, I knew that it was always possible that I, as a human being, could be wrong. How could I swear “to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” (whether with God’s help or not)?

In a court of law, we may “swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” but the truth is we cannot do what we swear to do. We can never know the whole, and often, unintentionally, some of what we say may be in error. The DIALECTIC automatically searches for other ways of looking at the same thing. In its most active form, the DIALECTICal thinker seeks out those who hold different views and asks for their response to his own ideas, with the expectation that these voices from another side will lead to some modification of his own thought.

One task of a courtroom is the effort to determine, as best is possible, what the truth is. It should not be assumed that any one witness could establish the irrefutable truth. Fortunately, I never had to face the issue because the case was settled out of court. I was saved from confrontation with the traditional oath.