The word “dialectics” comes from ancient Greece due to the popularity of dialogues between Plato and Socrates. In fact, it means a dialogue between people trying to convince each other.
Philosophical method; in the general sense – the ability to find the truth through rational discussion between interlocutors with different points of view; in the specific sense – a characteristic of Hegel’s philosophy and dialectical materialism – a method of investigating contradictions as driving forces of development.
The ideas of dialectics are actively covered on the pages of peer-reviewed scientific and philosophical journals and religious press published on all five continents. The idealistic picture of the world is considered in the framework of TV shows, documentaries and videos shown on scientific and educational channels.
A brief history
In the history of philosophy, dialectics has evolved through three stages: the naive dialectics of antiquity, the idealistic dialectics of the German philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries, the peak of which was the dialectics of Hegel, and the materialistic dialectics of Marx, Engels and Lenin.
Dialectics is the only logical theory that, with the help of its categories, gives an accurate idea of movement, change, reveals the relationship of things in objective reality. Therefore, the categories of dialectics are mobile, they differ in flexibility and mutual transitions. For example, quantity turns into quality, and vice versa; possibility becomes reality, reality is the basis of new possibilities; cause turns into effect, consequence may be the cause of another phenomenon associated with it; the content is determined by the form, but the form can be the content for another process, etc.
In the history of philosophy, there are two polar points of view on the essence of knowledge of the Universal (common, abstract) and the Singular (concrete).
How are the concepts and categories of philosophy formed in the process of transition from the sensory stage of cognition to the rational?
The sensory process is a direct connection between the object and the image that it creates by acting on the sensory organs. Feelings do not require fixing, materializing them through words, concepts or categories. Concepts are necessary when it is necessary to distinguish something Common (Universal) in different things and give it a name when this Common is not given in sensations. Since we have found this Universal, we need a certain word, a concept, as its material carrier.
This dialectic of the connection between the allocation of the Universal and the concept of it was shown by K. Marx in Capital. “Let’s take, for instance,” wrote K. Marx, “two commodities – wheat and iron. Whatever their exchange ratio, it can always be expressed by an equation in which a given amount of wheat is equated to a certain amount of iron, for example: 1 quarter of wheat = A hundredweight of iron. There is something in common in two different things — 1 quart of wheat and A hundredweight of iron… So, both of these things are equal to something third, which in itself is neither the first nor the second of them… Thus, the general thing that is expressed in the exchange relation… is their cost.” That is, the word “value” is needed when it is necessary to materialize the Universal that stands out in the process of theoretical thinking.
If commodities, in this case wheat and iron, have a sensory comprehension, their marketability has a general, abstract character. In contrast to the sensually coarse objectivity of commodity bodies, not a single atom of the substance of nature is included in the price. You can touch and examine each individual product, make whatever you want out of it, but it, as a value, remains elusive.
Thinking and speech are inextricably linked. The first is the highest form of reflection of reality; the second is the material form in which mental activity is carried out, fixed, objectified. A person can express his thoughts in many ways (sounds, drawings, signs, paints, facial expressions, gestures, ready-made crafts, etc.), However, speech is a universal means of expressing thoughts. And the more spiritually rich a person is, the more expressive their speech, and, conversely, expressive, developed speech testifies to the the level of development of the individual.
Biography of the creators
Theodor W. Adorno (1903-1969) was a German philosopher, sociologist, representative of the so-called “Frankfurt” school. Author of a number of works on philosophy, including “Negative Dialectics” (1966). He developed the idea of negation in its abstract, nihilistic understanding, when negation ceases to be the moment of transition to a new one. The dialectic of Hegel “in the hands” of Adorno turns into an anti-systemic, “negating dialectics” of everything that exists.
Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) was a French philosopher and writer, a representative of the so–called atheistic existentialism. He owns a number of works on problems of philosophy, including “Criticism of dialectical reason” (I960). In his understanding, dialectics is possible in two forms – “critical” and “dogmatic”. The first is the “negative” dialectic interpreted from the point of view of the philosophy of existentialism (philosophy of existence), the second is the “conservative”, “dogmatic”, “insufficiently revolutionary” Marxist dialectics.
Stephen Edelston Toulmin (1922 – 2009) a British philosopher, author and professor. Influenced by the ideas of the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, Toulmin devoted his works to the analysis of the moral foundation. In his own research, he studied the dilemma of practical argumentation. In addition, his works have been used in the field of rhetoric to analyze rhetorical argumentation. Tulmin’s Argumentation Model – six interrelated components used to analyze argumentation – is considered one of his most significant works, especially in the field of rhetoric and communication.
Karl Popper was an ardent critic of dialectics. In 1937, he wrote and published an article entitled “What is Dialectics?” in which he criticized the dialectical method for “reconciling with contradictions.”