Talk:Dialectic/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

reductio

i don't know much about this subject, but isn't the socratic method essentially reductio ad absurdum? if so, should there be a reference to the latter?

For practical purposes (causally, the task at hand), productio dialectically opposes reductio in axiological momentum (Now, or, in the moment). --Dialectic (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Nietzsche

What do people think about categorizing Nietzsche as having used a Cogntive Dissonant Dialectic, similar to Hegel but with different values obviously used in the logical structure? I am interested to know what people believe. MicrocreditSA (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cognitive Dissonance as it Relates to Dialectic

Does anyone have any interest in having a part which describes Hegel's contradictory structure as a Dialectic formed through Abstracted Cognitive Dissonance? I think this application of the term is much more appropriate than using it to describe Psychological Pathology. At the very least I would like to see the concepts disentangled and be able to address the notion that some Dialectics intentionally use Abstracted Cognitive Dissonance to produce more unified Social Thought. MicrocreditSA (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of dissonance (Occam, ahem), we could just erase me and enter "Celebrate Difference!" ;) --Dialectic (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

misnomers

You should check out the following facts: The word Logic has been introduced by the Stoics. The word Dialectics comes from Aristotle, who called the study of self-reflecting thinking as a separate discipline, Dialectics - what is Reflective thinking today http://ldt.stanford.edu/ldt1999/Students/cmazow/MajorProject/onRefThink.htm. Since the term has been widely used by materialist philosophers nobody goes along those line any more, but is stuck with formal logic, rhetorics now called critical thinking and the whole mess of cognitive science, the current version of the mindless autopsy of the Middle Ages. 89.133.200.126 (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Question of material being deleted

The material (the section on Socratic dialectic, Hegel etc.) which is currently being deleted/re-added has some relevant links (at the end) but otherwise seems to wander, perhaps. This particular bit -- As this was the overall thrust of Platonic thought and Greek elitist intellectualism (distinguished from the illiterate masses of the general populace (demos))of the classical era, it is entirely plausible that this may have had a systemic and corollary influence on the development of theorectical and critical thought about human behavior of the "pre" and "post" modern eras. - - might be wandering towards OR, perhaps. I would think some re-writing would be necessary, otherwise I am not sure how much, if anything is added to the article by including the section as it is. --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Kaufmann on Dialectics

In Kaufmann's "Nietzsche", on the chapter about Nietzsche's method, Kaufmann dismisses the famous three-step interpretation of the Hegelian dialectic, which he was right in doing, and provides a definition of dialectics that encompasses Hegel's, Socrates's, Kierkegaard's, and Nietzsche's. This definition has two parts. The first presents dialectics as a form of reasoning that is reductive rather than deductive, which is to say that it seeks to reveal and analyze the assumptions that an idea or problem is built on, rather than starting from assumed premises and building a system upon them. It is demolition rather than construction, so to speak. And the second part asserts that this form of reasoning must be presented in a form of communication that leads to the recipient self-consciously questioning his own assumptions, i.e. being dialectical in the first sense: Socrates asked questions, Kierkegaard wrote ironic essays under pseudonyms, Hegel leads the mind of the reader through the phenomenology of Spirit, and Nietzsche plants aphoristic bombs.

Now, my question is whether or not this definition is (A) useful for the article, and (B) therefore accurate. I think that it is pretty accurate for Socrates and Kierkegaard, but I still don't know enough about Nietzsche and Hegel to comment on whether or not it accurately represents their dialectics. If it does, however, then I personally do think that Kaufmann's definition may be useful for unifying an article that currently looks like it is talking about several different things that just happen to share the same name. --Le vin blanc (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Now it is lot better!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.12.16 (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism!

I haven't surveyed the page extensively but this page has been very clearly been vandalized (e.g. in the first like "thesis" is replaced with "feces") 128.239.47.74 (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, in the time it took me to write that note it has been reverted, so never mind. 128.239.47.74 (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 05:00, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Easy to understand Dialectic video

My Philosophy class has created a video explaining The Marxist Dialectic Process. It is pretty simple, but helped me to understand it. (P.S. It's not your fault if you don't understand all the philosophical terms with Marxist Leninists. They all boil down to simplicity.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkslHBsoNH0 75.85.231.114 (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I am a BC

Dialectic

It is said that the dialectic debate you have to study in order to achieve the Geshe degree is a ritualized debate. What does this mean in that context? What does the ritual consist of? How does it work?

Austerlitz -- 83.236.19.14 (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Hegelian dialectic section

The section Hegelian dialectic declares a lot of "troubles" with the Fichtean triad Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis or the Fichtean triad as explaining Hegel's triad without citing sources in a lot of places where sources are needed. This makes some paragraphs of that section WP:ESSAYish and possibly WP:ORish. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 14:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern dialectics, Not Hegel's dialectic, not a classic dialectic

Hello! My name is Michael. I am the author of articles in Russian Wikipedia under username Михаил Заумный. In the Russian Wikipedia, I wrote an article about the Ph.D. Rothenfelde Y.A. Professor Rothenfelde Y.A. - the creator of modern dialectics. He defended two dissertations on its development, member of Russian Philosophical Society. I have a question. Can I publish this article link to my article? (Here it is ... or site Ph.D. Rothenfelde Y.A.? (1) Or his archive? (2) Михаил Заумный14.50, 16 may 2010

You did it. I'll make a little stylistic cleanups. However, the links should preferrably be to http://www.servicism.lg.ua and http://www.servicism.lg.ua/b_rot_st22.htm directly. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
No, making a more detailed review I note that it is a biographical text about prof. Rothenfelde. That shouldn't be in the article, so I rip it out and place it here:
I replaced the section with a stub section, requiring expansion. Using google-translation I scanned the russian article. What is relevant for this article is a compacted version of the section Диалектика Ю. А. Ротенфельда (современная диалектика, неклассическая диалектика) (too long name!!) with most academic-biographical data removed. Almost all biographical data should be in a hypothetical Yuri Rothenfelde, if notable. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 07:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I have a step-by-step the expanding theme "Rothenfelde modern dialectics" Михаил Заумный00.15, 27 may 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 21:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC).
Have I expanded the article "Rothenfelde modern dialectics"?
P.S. I put the time change article in my time zone. Михаил Заумный19.26, 30 may 2010

Plato's well documented antagonism (esp. towards Democritus, Protagoras & Sophists) & plagiarism (in the name of the holy halo of Socrates)

In the lead, it says:

"Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who hold different ideas and wish to persuade each other. This is in contrast to rhetoric, which is a relatively long oration conducted by a single person, a method favored by the Sophists[1]."

Apolloniandionysus wrote the following comment:

"This accusation against the Sophists is a logical fallacy of Confirmation Bias. Another logical fallacy here is Hazardous Uber-Generalization. Yet another logical fallacy here is not confirming the neutrality of historical source. In fact, to the contrary, Sophists were pioneers of relativism & dialogue (very much to the chagrin of Plato). Diogenes Laertius, one of the most prominent historians of antiquity, states that the Socratic Method was actually invented by Protagoras who was a Sophist. Please refer to "Protagoras and the challenge of relativism: Plato's subtlest enemy"."

This was copied to the talk page by Lova Falk talk 06:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight to dialectical biology?

As it appears in the article, Dialectical biology is a concept advanced by only one book. The concept's currency in the practice and study of biology or philosophy seems limited (116 hits on google scholar for 'dialectical biology'). Unless other authors who discuss this concept are included, it appears to me that giving the concept a section in this article is undue weight. Dialectric (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Plato

There are two main interpretations of dialectic in Plato. First is the process of question and answer and this is covered in the article. The second is a form of intuition and this is not covered. I will add something but any comments from any editors? Oxford73 (talk) 05:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

My site

Readers might like to visit my site (link at the bottom of this page), where I systematically take apart dialectical materialism, from a Marxist angle. Rosa Lichtenstein. 07/03/06

It's cute that there is an "anti-dialectics" site. The existence of such a site further affirms the principles of dialectics, of course. --Nat 02:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Only if the dialectics site and the anti-dialectics site synthesize into a synthetic dialectics site which retains the characteristics of both thetic and antithetic sites. Oh, I forgot to mention, the new synthetic absolute dialectic site must become, in turn, a new thetic site, which will generate a new antithetic site, ad infinitum. This is progressive development. Lestrade (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
Rosa L:
"The existence of such a site further affirms the principles of dialectics, of course."
Not if not a single one of these 'principles' makes a blind bit of sense.
In popular language, dialectics says that for every thesis, there is an antithesis. If dialectics is a thesis, your site is an (attempted) antithesis. You're affirming dialectics by opposing it. That's the strength of dialectics - it encompasses even its opposition. --Nat 03:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I would like to propose the synthesis of these two ideas: "Who cares." ;-) --Ignignot 16:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Rosa L writes:
"In popular language, dialectics says that for every thesis, there is an antithesis."
Which, of course, makes not a blind bit of sense. And:
"I would like to propose the synthesis of these two ideas: "Who cares.""
Clearly not you; so what? 11/03/06

Who?

After extensive web research in several languages, with minimal results, it has become obvious that Dr.Rothenfelde and his ideas do not have sufficient recognition to warrant their inclusion in a general discussion of this topic...let alone their own section, which would suggest primary importance. In fact, an article on him was removed from the Russian Wikipedia. WQUlrich (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I've just noticed that this section has been deleted once before, in Oct.2010. WQUlrich (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

PS: It appears to be a summary of his doctoral thesis.WQUlrich (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened to Heraclitus??

It's remarkable that all reference to Heraclitus, from antiquity, has been removed from this entry on dialectics. The antipathy towards Heraclitus in the Ancient World has continued, apparently, to the present day. Why nothing about the most famous dialectical philosopher of the Ancient World? Wikipedia, when it comes to important Marxist ideas, is a thin gruel of half-truths and misrepresentations. And that's a shame. Georgi Plekhanov (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Why was Heraclitus a dialectical philosopher? Did he teach through the use of questions and answers?Lestrade (talk) 00:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)Lestrade
Perhaps not, but he did make statements in the direction that the world is constituted of dialethia 88.114.154.216 (talk) 11:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 July 2013

The list of philosophers who used the dialectic method in the Medieval Period --- Abelard, Sherwood, Compotista --- amazingly fails to include the one more prominent than any of them, i.e., Thomas Aquinas. The failure to mention him indicates a lack of knowledge, and thus, detracts from the authority of the entire discussion.

71.176.236.200 (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 786b6364 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dialectic/Archive_2&oldid=1149796899"