Chapter 4/3

More of the Story

As noted earlier, Mortimer Adler has said that the Greek words, men and de, are the greatest contribution the Greeks made to civilization. Quite a claim. A DIALECTICal claim. These words are commonly translated, “on the one hand,” “but on the other hand.” In a Greek text, the little particle, men, may show up in an unexpected place. It is not always necessary that it be translated at all, but it always indicates that a particular aspect of something is being presented. When, somewhere later in the text, de, shows up, it indicates that we are looking from a different perspective.

Whatever is being presented, the good thinker’s characteristic response is, “But on the other hand.” The DIALECTIC warns us to never forget there are other perspectives; it reminds us to remain constantly aware of the other side.

Paul Harvey’s The Rest of the Story is an instance of the DIALECTIC. “ For more than sixty years on the radio he told us stories, true stories, but saved a surprising twist to end with. When he had told this last information, he ended saying, “And now you know . . . the rest of the story.” On one hand was the story; on the other hand we learned the rest of the story.

There is always more to be said. In a sense, the scholar’s footnotes are the same sort of thing. There are many kinds of footnotes. Sometimes they tell us the source of the noted material, sometimes they refer us to other pages or other books that will tell us more about what has been noted in the text, and at other times they add explanation, definition, or asides.

The DIALECTIC is the language of relationship. It keeps us from forgetting others and our relationship to them. It strikes out against monism, individualism, isolationism, absolutism, and all self-centeredness. The DIALECTICal ear is always listening, the DIALECTICal eye is constantly searching, the DIALECTICal voice is always considerate of the listener. Whether we think of family or workplace relationships, love or any other of life’s relationships, they are bound to disappoint, disintegrate, diminish, or fail without the DIALECTIC.

DIALECTICal thought is always in process, never complete. “What have I left out, what have I not considered?” These questions become routine. “What if my presuppositions are wrong?” Part of the processive character of the DIALECTIC is that it is always developing, alternately expanding, then focusing. It grows and is enriched, it sharpens and clarifies.