“The Dialectic Is Logical, Ontological, and Historical.”
Before we leave the philosophers and go back to the world the rest of us live in, we need to look at one more of them, Georg W. F. Hegel. (With Hegel, we must slow our reading down and study carefully, think about what he has to say.) Hegel believed that the DIALECTIC is what everything is all about. Specifically, he said, “The dialectic is logical, ontological, and historical”; it is how our minds work, what is fundamentally and ultimately real, and how all history moves. Everything is DIALECTICal (thus, the DIALECTIC is the only way to understand anything).
Not only did Hegel believe that all reality is DIALECTICal, he also systematized it, reduced it to a logical order, an order that always involved three processive elements.
I suggest you now find a blank sheet of paper and draw a triangle–one line across the base with two lines converging to a point at the top. Hegel thought in such triangular patterns, or as he called them, triads. Think of the bottom left corner as the starting point of your thinking, action, or understanding, the place you hold to, where you take your stand, what you believe or plan or hope for.
This position, Hegel called, your thesis. It might be anything from your income to your job or hobby. It could be spiritualism, surgery, snack food, the school board, or anything else that might be the starting point–the thesis–for your thought.
Now look to the bottom right corner of the triangle. Hegel called this the anti-thesis. By this he meant anything that stands apart from your basic thesis. It could be its enemy, its opposite, or merely something left out or ignored by the thesis. It is something to be considered over and against your thesis.
Suppose, for instance, your thesis is an illness for which the doctor has recommended surgery. The surgery is scheduled and seems to be the best course of action. On the other hand, you are uneasy about going under the knife, and there are medicines that sometimes take care of the problem without resort to surgery. This medicine would be an antithesis to surgery. (Ordinarily, there are many antitheses although only one or two may be significant.)
Again, acupuncture might be a promising option, another antithesis to consider. You may imagine other possible antitheses to surgery, including foregoing the operation and taking your chances without medical treatment.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Chapter 4/7
Socrates would then ask them to explain what they meant by some key word or phrase, particularly when they used the heavy words: justice, love, courage, good, excellence, integrity, or beauty. When they had explained how they were using words or sentences, he then suggested that if this is what they meant, then something else, something they could not accept, would have to be true. By continual questioning, he showed their definitions to be inadequate, incomplete, or even self-contradictory.
Let’s suppose one of us commented on the beauty of a rich red rose on a bush and the other asked what she had meant by beauty. Further suppose the answer was, “Just look at the rich red color, have you ever seen anything more beautiful?”
“Oh, so you mean that the beauty of the rose lies in its redness.”
“Yes, that’s what makes it beautiful.”
“So, if we see a pure yellow rose, we cannot say it is beautiful, because it is not red.”
“No, that’s not what I mean. A yellow rose can be beautiful, as can a pink or a white one.”
“Ah, so do you mean that beauty lies in pure, rich color?”
“Yes, that is exactly what I mean.”
“Look across the street at the young lady on the sidewalk. Don’t you think she is beautiful?”
“She is very beautiful. That is Jessica Taylor, everyone knows how beautiful she is.”
“Does her beauty reside in the color of her skin, or of her hair, her eyes, or her clothing?”
“No, there is more to beauty than color.”
“So, what is this ‘more’ you speak of?”
In such manner Socrates led others to rethink their ideas. His goal was to expose ignorance so that the search for truth could begin. All of this was done through guided, persistent, and purposive conversation. The resolution of the issue at hand always depended on the interaction between the two conversants. Socrates never told others his own ideas, but rather led them to think through their own. Teachers, lawyers, parents, and others have picked up this “Socratic method” and continue to use it to this day. This is Socrates’ use of the DIALECTIC.
Let’s suppose one of us commented on the beauty of a rich red rose on a bush and the other asked what she had meant by beauty. Further suppose the answer was, “Just look at the rich red color, have you ever seen anything more beautiful?”
“Oh, so you mean that the beauty of the rose lies in its redness.”
“Yes, that’s what makes it beautiful.”
“So, if we see a pure yellow rose, we cannot say it is beautiful, because it is not red.”
“No, that’s not what I mean. A yellow rose can be beautiful, as can a pink or a white one.”
“Ah, so do you mean that beauty lies in pure, rich color?”
“Yes, that is exactly what I mean.”
“Look across the street at the young lady on the sidewalk. Don’t you think she is beautiful?”
“She is very beautiful. That is Jessica Taylor, everyone knows how beautiful she is.”
“Does her beauty reside in the color of her skin, or of her hair, her eyes, or her clothing?”
“No, there is more to beauty than color.”
“So, what is this ‘more’ you speak of?”
In such manner Socrates led others to rethink their ideas. His goal was to expose ignorance so that the search for truth could begin. All of this was done through guided, persistent, and purposive conversation. The resolution of the issue at hand always depended on the interaction between the two conversants. Socrates never told others his own ideas, but rather led them to think through their own. Teachers, lawyers, parents, and others have picked up this “Socratic method” and continue to use it to this day. This is Socrates’ use of the DIALECTIC.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Chapter 4/6
Everything Can Be Questioned
We don’t know much about Heraclitus himself. In the ancient world he was called “Heraclitus the Obscure.” We don’t know what drove his thinking. With Socrates, however, we can have a good idea of what he was about. He wanted people to think about and think through whatever they had to say, particularly if they were dealing with life issues. He found that most people he talked with did not understand what they were talking about. Their mental laziness amazed him.
The word got out in Athens that the Delphic Oracle had declared Socrates to be the wisest man in the entire city. Socrates knew that could not be true because there was so much he did not understand. Thus he began a search to find those who were wiser, those who were not as ignorant as Socrates knew himself to be. He went to the most respected, the most successful, the most powerful citizens and questioned them about their knowledge and understanding. Repeatedly he found that they knew and understood even less than he did. He realized that much of the time they did not know what they were talking about.
So, after seeking out all those who might be wiser, he decided that the oracle was right. He, after all, was the wisest, in the sense that he was at least aware of his ignorance; at least he did not pretend to understand things. The Socratic wisdom and the Socratic ignorance were synonymous. He came to believe that “the god” (he was a Greek monotheist) had called him to help his fellow citizens become good people by becoming good thinkers.
The Socratic DIALECTIC takes the form of intense, purposive conversation. Socrates never allows the dialogue to degenerate into a mere bull-session or a bantering of the conventional wisdom. He kept the conversation directed toward clarification of the problem at hand. His method was to ask if his fellow conversants meant what they said. Usually, just like us, they claimed that indeed, they meant what they said, they knew what they were talking about.
We don’t know much about Heraclitus himself. In the ancient world he was called “Heraclitus the Obscure.” We don’t know what drove his thinking. With Socrates, however, we can have a good idea of what he was about. He wanted people to think about and think through whatever they had to say, particularly if they were dealing with life issues. He found that most people he talked with did not understand what they were talking about. Their mental laziness amazed him.
The word got out in Athens that the Delphic Oracle had declared Socrates to be the wisest man in the entire city. Socrates knew that could not be true because there was so much he did not understand. Thus he began a search to find those who were wiser, those who were not as ignorant as Socrates knew himself to be. He went to the most respected, the most successful, the most powerful citizens and questioned them about their knowledge and understanding. Repeatedly he found that they knew and understood even less than he did. He realized that much of the time they did not know what they were talking about.
So, after seeking out all those who might be wiser, he decided that the oracle was right. He, after all, was the wisest, in the sense that he was at least aware of his ignorance; at least he did not pretend to understand things. The Socratic wisdom and the Socratic ignorance were synonymous. He came to believe that “the god” (he was a Greek monotheist) had called him to help his fellow citizens become good people by becoming good thinkers.
The Socratic DIALECTIC takes the form of intense, purposive conversation. Socrates never allows the dialogue to degenerate into a mere bull-session or a bantering of the conventional wisdom. He kept the conversation directed toward clarification of the problem at hand. His method was to ask if his fellow conversants meant what they said. Usually, just like us, they claimed that indeed, they meant what they said, they knew what they were talking about.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Chapter 4/5
The Unity of Opposites
Heraclitus stressed the unity of opposites. He believed that contradiction is the source of everything. Only as both sides struggle with and against each other is development possible. Thus, opposites effect a unity. They become parts of a new order that has resulted from their conflict. In traditional logic, contradictories cannot both be true, but in actuality the tension between them is the driving force of life, expanding and enriching even as they are constantly changing: male and female, night and day, work and play, nature and technology, emotion and reason,. . . .
Heraclitus is most famously known as the ancient who claimed we can’t step twice into the same river. The river flows constantly. The river we step into the second time is not precisely the same as it was when we took that first step. The current changes continually. The chemical makeup of the water varies slightly each time we dip into it. Everything about it is in flux. In fact, that is a core idea of Heraclitus: everything is in flux, everything flows, nothing remains the same. The only thing permanent is change.
Moreover, when we step into the river the second time, we are no longer the same person who took that first step. We now have experienced the river as we had not before our first step. We, like the river, are constantly in flux. When I was a boy setting trotlines in the Chikaskia river in northern Oklahoma, it seemed to me that it was always the same river, the Chikaskia. Much in life does seem to be constant. Much appears unchanging, but Heraclitus is the apostle of change. Everything changes constantly, even if infinitesimally.
Thus, we must always take into account that things might differ from what experience tells us. We must learn to look for what the eye of habit, the mind of habit, neither sees nor thinks. Heraclitus bids us, like the highway sign at the railroad tracks, to Stop, Look, and Listen. We must look both directions–and also up and down–before proceeding with life. We must make DIALECTICal thinking our new eye and mind of habit.
Heraclitus stressed the unity of opposites. He believed that contradiction is the source of everything. Only as both sides struggle with and against each other is development possible. Thus, opposites effect a unity. They become parts of a new order that has resulted from their conflict. In traditional logic, contradictories cannot both be true, but in actuality the tension between them is the driving force of life, expanding and enriching even as they are constantly changing: male and female, night and day, work and play, nature and technology, emotion and reason,. . . .
Heraclitus is most famously known as the ancient who claimed we can’t step twice into the same river. The river flows constantly. The river we step into the second time is not precisely the same as it was when we took that first step. The current changes continually. The chemical makeup of the water varies slightly each time we dip into it. Everything about it is in flux. In fact, that is a core idea of Heraclitus: everything is in flux, everything flows, nothing remains the same. The only thing permanent is change.
Moreover, when we step into the river the second time, we are no longer the same person who took that first step. We now have experienced the river as we had not before our first step. We, like the river, are constantly in flux. When I was a boy setting trotlines in the Chikaskia river in northern Oklahoma, it seemed to me that it was always the same river, the Chikaskia. Much in life does seem to be constant. Much appears unchanging, but Heraclitus is the apostle of change. Everything changes constantly, even if infinitesimally.
Thus, we must always take into account that things might differ from what experience tells us. We must learn to look for what the eye of habit, the mind of habit, neither sees nor thinks. Heraclitus bids us, like the highway sign at the railroad tracks, to Stop, Look, and Listen. We must look both directions–and also up and down–before proceeding with life. We must make DIALECTICal thinking our new eye and mind of habit.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Chapter 4/4
Among the Philosophers
I first discovered the DIALECTIC deep within the pages of a book on General Philosophy, by Elton Trueblood. Trueblood gives it only a half-dozen pages, but for me, it resonated immediately. My way of thinking, understanding, analyzing–and my way of living–was transformed and has never been the same. The DIALECTIC became a major part of who I am.
But none of the ideas in this book (well, almost none) are original with me. The DIALECTIC is not something new. It has been around at least since the DIALECTICal relationship of Adam and Eva, whoever they were. It is ancient. I am merely attempting to present, in a way that is simple, clear, fairly complete, and useful, what others before me have practiced and taught.
Historically, three major philosophers--Heraclitus, Socrates, and Hegel--developed the DIALECTIC, each somewhat differently.
I first discovered the DIALECTIC deep within the pages of a book on General Philosophy, by Elton Trueblood. Trueblood gives it only a half-dozen pages, but for me, it resonated immediately. My way of thinking, understanding, analyzing–and my way of living–was transformed and has never been the same. The DIALECTIC became a major part of who I am.
But none of the ideas in this book (well, almost none) are original with me. The DIALECTIC is not something new. It has been around at least since the DIALECTICal relationship of Adam and Eva, whoever they were. It is ancient. I am merely attempting to present, in a way that is simple, clear, fairly complete, and useful, what others before me have practiced and taught.
Historically, three major philosophers--Heraclitus, Socrates, and Hegel--developed the DIALECTIC, each somewhat differently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
