Home  ›  The Art of Reasoning an Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Fourth Edition Pdf

The Art of Reasoning an Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Fourth Edition Pdf

Written By Tuesday 26 April 2022 Add Comment Edit

Discourse method for resolving disagreement by reasoned argument

For varieties of language, encounter Dialect. For electrical insulators, see Dielectric.

Dialectic or dialectics (Greek: διαλεκτική , dialektikḗ; related to dialogue; German: Dialektik), also known equally the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people property different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation. Dialectic resembles argue, but the concept excludes subjective elements such as emotional appeal and the modernistic pejorative sense of rhetoric.[ane] [2] Dialectic may thus be contrasted with both the eristic, which refers to argument that aims to successfully dispute another'due south argument (rather than searching for truth), and the didactic method, wherein one side of the conversation teaches the other. Dialectic is alternatively known as minor logic, as opposed to major logic or critique.

Within Hegelianism, the word dialectic has the specialised meaning of a contradiction betwixt ideas that serves as the determining factor in their relationship. Dialectical materialism, a theory or set of theories produced mainly past Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, adapted the Hegelian dialectic into arguments regarding traditional materialism. The dialectics of Hegel and Marx were criticized in the twentieth century by the philosophers Karl Popper and Mario Bunge.

Dialectic tends to imply a process of development and so does not naturally fit within classical logics, but was given some ceremonial in the twentieth century. The accent on process is particularly marked in Hegelian dialectic, and even more so in Marxist dialectical logic, which tried to business relationship for the development of ideas over longer time periods in the real world.

Western dialectical forms [edit]

In that location is a diversity of meanings of dialectic or dialectics within Western philosophy.

Classical philosophy [edit]

In classical philosophy, dialectic ( διαλεκτική ) is a form of reasoning based upon dialogue of arguments and counter-arguments, advocating propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses). The outcome of such a dialectic might exist the refutation of a relevant proposition, or of a synthesis, or a combination of the opposing assertions, or a qualitative improvement of the dialogue.[3] [four]

Moreover, the term "dialectic" owes much of its prestige to its office in the philosophies of Socrates and Plato, in the Greek Classical period (5th to 4th centuries BC). Aristotle said that it was the pre-Socratic philosopher Zeno of Elea who invented dialectic, of which the dialogues of Plato are the examples of the Socratic dialectical method.[5]

Co-ordinate to Kant, however, the ancient Greeks used the give-and-take "dialectic" to signify the logic of false appearance or semblance. To the Ancients, "it was nil but the logic of illusion. It was a sophistic art of giving to 1's ignorance, indeed fifty-fifty to one's intentional tricks, the outward appearance of truth, past imitating the thorough, authentic method which logic always requires, and by using its topic as a cloak for every empty assertion."[half-dozen]

Socratic method [edit]

The Socratic dialogues are a particular form of dialectic known every bit the method of elenchus (literally, "refutation, scrutiny"[7]) whereby a series of questions clarifies a more precise statement of a vague belief, logical consequences of that statement are explored, and a contradiction is discovered. The method is largely destructive, in that false belief is exposed[8] and simply constructive in that this exposure may lead to further search for truth. The detection of mistake does not corporeality to a proof of the antithesis; for case, a contradiction in the consequences of a definition of piety does non provide a correct definition. The principal aim of Socratic activity may be to ameliorate the soul of the interlocutors, by freeing them from unrecognized errors; or indeed, past instruction them the spirit of inquiry.

In mutual cases, Socrates used enthymemes equally the foundation of his argument.[ commendation needed ]

For instance, in the Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro to provide a definition of piety. Euthyphro replies that the pious is that which is loved by the gods. But, Socrates also has Euthyphro like-minded that the gods are quarrelsome and their quarrels, like man quarrels, business objects of love or hatred. Therefore, Socrates reasons, at least one matter exists that sure gods love but other gods detest. Again, Euthyphro agrees. Socrates concludes that if Euthyphro's definition of piety is adequate, then there must be at to the lowest degree ane matter that is both pious and impious (every bit it is both loved and hated by the gods)—which Euthyphro admits is cool. Thus, Euthyphro is brought to a realization by this dialectical method that his definition of piety is not sufficiently meaningful.

For case, in Plato's Gorgias, dialectic occurs between Socrates, the Sophist Gorgias, and two men, Polus and Callicles. Because Socrates' ultimate goal was to reach true knowledge, he was even willing to modify his own views in society to arrive at the truth. The fundamental goal of dialectic, in this case, was to establish a precise definition of the subject (in this case, rhetoric) and with the apply of argumentation and questioning, make the field of study even more than precise. In the Gorgias, Socrates reaches the truth by request a series of questions and in return, receiving curt, clear answers.

Plato [edit]

There is another interpretation of dialectic, suggested in The Republic, as a procedure that is both discursive and intuitive.[9] In Platonism and Neoplatonism, dialectic assumes an ontological and metaphysical office in that it becomes the process whereby the intellect passes from sensibles to intelligibles, rising from Idea to Idea until it finally grasps the supreme Thought, the Kickoff Principle which is the origin of all. The philosopher is consequently a "dialectician".[10] In this sense, dialectic is a process of enquiry that does away with hypotheses upward to the First Principle (Republic, VII, 533 c-d). It slowly embraces the multiplicity in unity. Simon Blackburn writes that the dialectic in this sense is used to understand "the total process of enlightenment, whereby the philosopher is educated so as to achieve knowledge of the supreme good, the Form of the Practiced".[eleven]

Aristotle [edit]

Aristotle stresses that rhetoric is closely related to dialectic. He offers several formulas to describe this analogousness between the two disciplines: start of all, rhetoric is said to be a "counterpart" (antistrophos) to dialectic (Rhet. I.i, 1354a1); (ii) information technology is also chosen an "outgrowth" (paraphues ti) of dialectic and the study of character (Rhet. I.2, 1356a25f.); finally, Aristotle says that rhetoric is part of dialectic and resembles information technology (Rhet. I.2, 1356a30f.). In saying that rhetoric is a counterpart to dialectic, Aristotle obviously alludes to Plato's Gorgias (464bff.), where rhetoric is ironically defined as a counterpart to cookery in the soul. Since, in this passage, Plato uses the word 'antistrophos' to designate an analogy, it is likely that Aristotle wants to limited a kind of illustration too: what dialectic is for the (private or academic) practice of attacking and maintaining an statement, rhetoric is for the (public) do of defending oneself or accusing an opponent. The analogy to dialectic has important implications for the status of rhetoric. Plato argued in his Gorgias that rhetoric cannot be an art (technê), since it is not related to a definite subject, while real arts are defined by their specific subjects, equally e.one thousand. medicine or shoemaking are divers by their products, i.east., wellness and shoes.[12]

Medieval philosophy [edit]

Logic, which could be considered to include dialectic, was one of the 3 liberal arts taught in medieval universities as part of the trivium; the other elements were rhetoric and grammar.[13] [14] [15] [16]

Based mainly on Aristotle, the first medieval philosopher to work on dialectics was Boethius (480–524).[17] After him, many scholastic philosophers as well made use of dialectics in their works, such every bit Abelard,[xviii] William of Sherwood,[19] Garlandus Compotista,[20] Walter Burley, Roger Swyneshed, William of Ockham,[21] and Thomas Aquinas.[22]

This dialectic (a quaestio disputata) was formed as follows:

  1. The question to exist determined ("It is asked whether...");
  2. A provisory answer to the question ("And it seems that...");
  3. The main arguments in favor of the provisory answer;
  4. An argument against the provisory reply, traditionally a single argument from dominance ("On the contrary...");
  5. The determination of the question after weighing the evidence ("I reply that...");
  6. The replies to each of the initial objections. ("To the first, to the second etc., I reply that...")

Modern philosophy [edit]

The concept of dialectics was given new life at the get-go of the 19th century by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (following Johann Gottlieb Fichte), whose dialectical model of nature and of history fabricated dialectic a primal aspect of the nature of reality (instead of regarding the contradictions into which dialectics leads equally a sign of the sterility of the dialectical method, as the 18th-century philosopher Immanuel Kant tended to exercise in his Critique of Pure Reason).[23] [24]

In the mid-19th century, the concept of dialectics was appropriated past Karl Marx (see, for example, Das Kapital, published in 1867) and Friedrich Engels and retooled in what they considered to be a nonidealistic manner. It would also become a crucial part of afterward representations of Marxism as a philosophy of dialectical materialism. These representations often contrasted dramatically[25] and led to vigorous debate among dissimilar Marxist groupings.

Hegelian dialectic [edit]

Hegelian dialectic, commonly presented in a threefold way, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus[26] equally comprising 3 dialectical stages of evolution: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction; an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis; and the tension betwixt the two existence resolved past means of a synthesis. Although this model is oft named afterward Hegel, he never used that specific formulation. Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant.[27] Conveying on Kant'south work, Fichte profoundly elaborated on the synthesis model and popularized it.

On the other paw, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, merely Hegel'south nearly usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete. Hegel used this writing model equally a backbone to back-trail his points in many of his works.[28]

The formula, thesis-antithesis-synthesis, does not explicate why the thesis requires an antithesis. However, the formula, abstract-negative-physical, suggests a flaw, or perchance an incompleteness, in any initial thesis—information technology is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error, and feel. For Hegel, the physical, the synthesis, the absolute, must e'er pass through the phase of the negative, in the journeying to completion, that is, mediation. This is the essence of what is popularly chosen Hegelian dialectics.

Co-ordinate to the German language philosopher Walter Kaufmann:

Fichte introduced into High german philosophy the three-step of thesis, antonym, and synthesis, using these three terms. Schelling took upwards this terminology. Hegel did not. He never in one case used these 3 terms together to designate three stages in an argument or account in whatsoever of his books. And they exercise not help us understand his Phenomenology, his Logic, or his philosophy of history; they impede whatever open-minded comprehension of what he does by forcing it into a scheme which was available to him and which he deliberately spurned [...] The mechanical formalism [...] Hegel derides expressly and at some length in the preface to the Phenomenology.[29] [30]

Kaufmann also cites Hegel's criticism of the triad model commonly misattributed to him, calculation that "the only place where Hegel uses the three terms together occurs in his lectures on the history of philosophy, on the last page simply one of the sections on Kant—where Hegel roundly reproaches Kant for having 'everywhere posited thesis, antithesis, synthesis'".[31]

To describe the activity of overcoming the negative, Hegel likewise often used the term Aufhebung, variously translated into English as "sublation" or "overcoming", to excogitate of the working of the dialectic. Roughly, the term indicates preserving the useful portion of an idea, thing, society, etc., while moving beyond its limitations. (Jacques Derrida's preferred French translation of the term was relever.)[32]

In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of being: start, being must be posited equally pure Existence (Sein); but pure Beingness, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nichts). When it is realized that what is coming into existence is, at the aforementioned time, besides returning to null (in life, for example, i'southward living is likewise a dying), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.[33]

Equally in the Socratic dialectic, Hegel claimed to proceed by making implicit contradictions explicit: each phase of the process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding stage. For Hegel, the whole of history is one tremendous dialectic, major stages of which chart a progression from self-breach equally slavery to self-unification and realization as the rational constitutional land of free and equal citizens. The Hegelian dialectic cannot exist mechanically applied for any chosen thesis. Critics argue that the choice of whatsoever antithesis, other than the logical negation of the thesis, is subjective. And then, if the logical negation is used as the antithesis, there is no rigorous way to derive a synthesis. In practice, when an antithesis is selected to suit the user's subjective purpose, the resulting "contradictions" are rhetorical, not logical, and the resulting synthesis is not rigorously defensible confronting a multitude of other possible syntheses. The problem with the Fichtean "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" model is that it implies that contradictions or negations come from outside of things. Hegel's betoken is that they are inherent in and internal to things. This conception of dialectics derives ultimately from Heraclitus.

Hegel stated that the purpose of dialectics is "to report things in their own being and movement and thus to demonstrate the finitude of the partial categories of understanding."[34]

One of import dialectical principle for Hegel is the transition from quantity to quality, which he terms the Measure. The measure is the qualitative breakthrough, the quantum is the beingness of quantity.[35]

The identity between quantity and quality, which is constitute in Mensurate, is at first but implicit, and non all the same explicitly realised. In other words, these two categories, which unite in Mensurate, each claim an independent authority. On the one mitt, the quantitative features of being may be altered, without affecting its quality. On the other hand, this increase and diminution, immaterial though it be, has its limit, past exceeding which the quality suffers alter. [...] But if the quantity nowadays in measure exceeds a certain limit, the quality corresponding to it is as well put in abeyance. This withal is not a negation of quality altogether, but only of this definite quality, the identify of which is at once occupied by some other. This procedure of measure, which appears alternately as a mere change in quantity, and then every bit a sudden revulsion of quantity into quality, may be envisaged under the figure of a nodal (knotted) line.[36]

As an example, Hegel mentions u.s. of aggregation of water: "Thus the temperature of water is, in the first identify, a point of no consequence in respect of its liquidity: even so with the increase or diminution of the temperature of the liquid water, there comes a indicate where this state of cohesion suffers a qualitative change, and the water is converted into steam or water ice".[37] Every bit other examples Hegel mentions the reaching of a point where a single additional grain makes a heap of wheat; or where the bald tail is produced, if we continue plucking out single hairs.

Some other important principle for Hegel is the negation of the negation, which he also terms Aufhebung (sublation): Something is only what it is in its relation to another, merely past the negation of the negation this something incorporates the other into itself. The dialectical movement involves two moments that negate each other, something and its other. Every bit a consequence of the negation of the negation, "something becomes its other; this other is itself something; therefore information technology besides becomes an other, and so on ad infinitum".[38] Something in its passage into other just joins with itself, it is self-related.[39] In condign there are ii moments:[twoscore] coming-to-be and ceasinghoped-for: past sublation, i.e., negation of the negation, existence passes over into nothing, it ceases to be, only something new shows up, is coming to exist. What is sublated (aufgehoben) on the one paw ceases to be and is put to an end, but on the other hand it is preserved and maintained.[41] In dialectics, a totality transforms itself; information technology is self-related, then self-forgetful, relieving the original tension.

Marxist dialectic [edit]

Marxist dialectic is a class of Hegelian dialectic which applies to the study of historical materialism. Information technology purports to be a reflection of the real world created by man. Dialectic would thus be a robust method under which one could examine personal, social, and economic behaviors. Marxist dialectic is the cadre foundation of the philosophy of dialectical materialism, which forms the ground of the ideas behind historical materialism.

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, writing several decades after Hegel's expiry, proposed that Hegel's dialectic is too abstract:

The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel'southward easily, by no means prevents him from existence the get-go to present its full general grade of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is standing on its head. Information technology must be turned correct side upwardly over again, if you would detect the rational kernel within the mystical trounce.[42]

In contradiction to Hegelian idealism, Marx presented his own dialectic method, which he claims to be "directly opposite" of Hegel's method:

My dialectic method is not just different from the Hegelian, but is its direct contrary. To Hegel, the life-procedure of the human encephalon, i.due east. the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea', he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea'. With me, on the reverse, the ideal is nothing else than the cloth world reflected by the human being mind, and translated into forms of thought.[43]

In Marxism, the dialectical method of historical study became intertwined with historical materialism, the schoolhouse of thought exemplified by the works of Marx, Engels, and Vladimir Lenin. In the USSR, nether Joseph Stalin, Marxist dialectics became "diamat" (short for dialectical materialism), a theory emphasizing the primacy of the material way of life; social "praxis" over all forms of social consciousness; and the secondary, dependent character of the "ideal".

The term "dialectical materialism" was coined by the 19th-century social theorist Joseph Dietzgen who used the theory to explicate the nature of socialism and social development. The original populariser of Marxism in Russia, Georgi Plekhanov used the terms "dialectical materialism" and "historical materialism" interchangeably. For Lenin, the primary feature of Marx's "dialectical materialism" (Lenin's term) was its awarding of materialist philosophy to history and social sciences. Lenin'southward main input in the philosophy of dialectical materialism was his theory of reflection, which presented human being consciousness every bit a dynamic reflection of the objective textile globe that fully shapes its contents and structure.

Later, Stalin's works on the subject established a rigid and formalistic division of Marxist–Leninist theory in the dialectical materialism and historical materialism parts. While the start was supposed to be the key method and theory of the philosophy of nature, the 2nd was the Soviet version of the philosophy of history.

A dialectical method was primal to Western Marxists such as Karl Korsch and Georg Lukács. Certain members of the Frankfurt Schoolhouse also used dialectical thinking, such as Theodor W. Adorno who developed negative dialectics. Soviet academics, notably Evald Ilyenkov and Zaid Orudzhev, continued pursuing unorthodox philosophic report of Marxist dialectics; besides in the West, notably the philosopher Bertell Ollman at New York University.

Friedrich Engels proposed that Nature is dialectical, thus, in Anti-Dühring he said that the negation of negation is:

A very simple process, which is taking place everywhere and every day, which whatever child can understand as soon every bit it is stripped of the veil of mystery in which it was enveloped past the onetime idealist philosophy.[44]

In Dialectics of Nature, Engels said:

Probably the aforementioned gentlemen who upwardly to now have decried the transformation of quantity into quality equally mysticism and incomprehensible transcendentalism will now declare that information technology is indeed something quite self-evident, trivial, and commonplace, which they have long employed, and so they have been taught zilch new. But to have formulated for the offset fourth dimension in its universally valid class a full general law of development of Nature, order, and thought, will always remain an act of historic importance.[45]

Marxist dialectics is exemplified in Das Kapital (Capital), which outlines two fundamental theories: (i) surplus value and (ii) the materialist conception of history; Marx explains dialectical materialism:

In its rational form, it is a scandal and abomination to bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because information technology includes in its comprehension an affirmative recognition of the existing state of things, at the aforementioned fourth dimension, also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary being; because it lets cipher impose upon information technology, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.[46]

Grade struggle is the master contradiction to be resolved by Marxist dialectics, considering of its fundamental office in the social and political lives of a society. Nonetheless, Marx and Marxists developed the concept of form struggle to comprehend the dialectical contradictions between mental and transmission labor, and betwixt boondocks and country. Hence, philosophic contradiction is central to the evolution of dialectics – the progress from quantity to quality, the acceleration of gradual social modify; the negation of the initial development of the status quo; the negation of that negation; and the high-level recurrence of features of the original condition quo.

In the USSR, Progress Publishers issued anthologies of dialectical materialism by Lenin, wherein he likewise quotes Marx and Engels:

Every bit the near comprehensive and profound doctrine of development, and the richest in content, Hegelian dialectics was considered by Marx and Engels the greatest accomplishment of classical High german philosophy.... "The dandy basic thought", Engels writes, "that the world is non to be comprehended as a circuitous of ready-made things, just as a complex of processes, in which the things, patently stable no less than their mind images in our heads, the concepts, become through an uninterrupted change of coming into beingness and passing away... this neat primal thought has, especially since the time of Hegel, so thoroughly permeated ordinary consciousness that, in its generality, it is now scarcely always contradicted. But, to acknowledge this primal thought in words, and to apply it in reality in particular to each domain of investigation, are two different things.... For dialectical philosophy nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; zip can suffer earlier information technology, except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy, itself, is nothing more than than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain." Thus, according to Marx, dialectics is "the science of the general laws of motion both of the external globe and of human thought".[47]

Lenin describes his dialectical agreement of the concept of evolution:

A development that repeats, as it were, stages that accept already been passed, but repeats them in a different way, on a college basis ("the negation of the negation"), a evolution, so to speak, that proceeds in spirals, not in a straight line; a development by leaps, catastrophes, and revolutions; "breaks in continuity"; the transformation of quantity into quality; inner impulses towards development, imparted by the contradiction and disharmonize of the various forces and tendencies acting on a given body, or within a given miracle, or within a given order; the interdependence and the closest and indissoluble connexion betwixt all aspects of any phenomenon (history constantly revealing ever new aspects), a connexion that provides a uniform, and universal process of movement, one that follows definite laws – these are some of the features of dialectics as a doctrine of development that is richer than the conventional ane.[47]

An instance of the influence of Marxist dialectic in the European tradition is Jean-Paul Sartre'due south 1960 volume Critique of Dialectical Reason. Sartre stated:

Existentialism, like Marxism, addresses itself to experience in gild to detect in that location concrete syntheses. It can conceive of these syntheses only within a moving, dialectical totalisation, which is naught else but history or—from the strictly cultural betoken of view adopted here—'philosophy-becoming-the world'.[48]

Dialectical naturalism [edit]

Dialectical naturalism is a term coined by American philosopher Murray Bookchin to describe the philosophical underpinnings of the political plan of social ecology. Dialectical naturalism explores the circuitous interrelationship between social problems, and the direct consequences they have on the ecological impact of human social club. Bookchin offered dialectical naturalism every bit a dissimilarity to what he saw equally the "empyrean, basically antinaturalistic dialectical idealism" of Hegel, and "the wooden, often scientistic dialectical materialism of orthodox Marxists".

Theological dialectical forms [edit]

Baháʼí dialectics — dialectical science and faith [edit]

Baháʼí Faith doctrine advocates a form of dialectical science and organized religion. A dialectical relationship of harmony betwixt religion and scientific discipline is presented, wherein science and religion are described every bit complementary, mutually dependent, and indispensable knowledge systems.[49] Baháʼí scripture asserts that true science and true organized religion can never be in disharmonize. 'Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that organized religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He likewise admonished that truthful religion must arrange to the conclusions of science.[50] [51] [52] As a modern, globalist organized religion, the Baháʼí Faith defies simple categorisation into any of Western, Eastern, Northern, Southern, or other philosophical forms. Still, the principled dialectical approach to harmony between scientific discipline and religion is non unlike social ecology's implementation of dialectical naturalism to moderate the extremes of scientifically unverified idealisms with scientific insight.

Dialectical theology [edit]

Neo-orthodoxy, in Europe likewise known every bit theology of crisis and dialectical theology,[53] [54] is an arroyo to theology in Protestantism that was developed in the aftermath of the First World War (1914–1918). Information technology is characterized as a reaction against doctrines of 19th-century liberal theology and a more than positive reevaluation of the teachings of the Reformation, much of which had been in decline (especially in western Europe) since the late 18th century.[55] It is primarily associated with two Swiss professors and pastors, Karl Barth[56] (1886–1968) and Emil Brunner (1899–1966),[53] [54] fifty-fifty though Barth himself expressed his unease in the use of the term.[57]

In dialectical theology the difference and opposition between God and human beings is stressed in such a mode that all human attempts at overcoming this opposition through moral, religious or philosophical idealism must be characterized as 'sin'. In the expiry of Christ humanity is negated and overcome, merely this judgment besides points forwards to the resurrection in which humanity is reestablished in Christ. For Barth this meant that but through God'southward 'no' to everything human can his 'yes' be perceived. Applied to traditional themes of Protestant theology, such as double predestination, this means that election and reprobation cannot exist viewed equally a quantitative limitation of God's action. Rather it must be seen every bit its "qualitative definition".[58] As Christ bore the rejection also as the election of God for all humanity, every person is bailiwick to both aspects of God'due south double predestination.

Dialectic prominently figured in Bernard Lonergan's philosophy, in his books Insight and Method in Theology. Michael Shute wrote virtually Lonergan'south use of dialectic in The Origins of Lonergan'south Notion of the Dialectic of History. For Lonergan, dialectic is both individual and operative in community. Simply described, information technology is a dynamic procedure that results in something new:

For the sake of greater precision, let united states say that a dialectic is a physical unfolding of linked but opposed principles of change. Thus there will be a dialectic if (1) at that place is an aggregate of events of a determinate grapheme, (2) the events may be traced to either or both of ii principles, (3) the principles are opposed yet leap together, and (iv) they are modified by the changes that successively result from them.[59]

Dialectic is one of the eight functional specialties Lonergan envisaged for theology to bring this discipline into the modern globe. Lonergan believed that the lack of an agreed method amidst scholars had inhibited substantive understanding from being reached and progress from being made compared to the natural sciences. Karl Rahner, S.J., however, criticized Lonergan's theological method in a brusk article entitled "Some Disquisitional Thoughts on 'Functional Specialties in Theology'" where he stated: "Lonergan's theological methodology seems to me to exist so generic that it really fits every science, and hence is non the methodology of theology as such, but only a very general methodology of scientific discipline."[60]

Criticisms [edit]

Karl Popper has attacked the dialectic repeatedly. In 1937, he wrote and delivered a paper entitled "What Is Dialectic?" in which he attacked the dialectical method for its willingness "to put upwardly with contradictions".[61] Popper concluded the essay with these words: "The whole development of dialectic should be a warning against the dangers inherent in philosophical system-building. It should remind us that philosophy should not be made a basis for whatever sort of scientific system and that philosophers should be much more than modest in their claims. One task which they tin can fulfill quite usefully is the study of the critical methods of science" (Ibid., p. 335).

In chapter 12 of volume two of The Open up Guild and Its Enemies (1944; fifth rev. ed., 1966), Popper unleashed a famous assail on Hegelian dialectics in which he held that Hegel'southward thought was to some degree responsible for facilitating the rise of fascism in Europe by encouraging and justifying irrationalism. (This was unjust in the view of some philosophers, such equally Walter Kaufmann.[62]) In section 17 of his 1961 "addenda" to The Open up Lodge, entitled "Facts, Standards and Truth: A Further Criticism of Relativism", Popper refused to moderate his criticism of the Hegelian dialectic, arguing that it "played a major office in the downfall of the liberal movement in Federal republic of germany [...] past contributing to historicism and to an identification of might and right, encouraged totalitarian modes of thought. [...] [And] undermined and eventually lowered the traditional standards of intellectual responsibility and honesty".[63]

The philosopher of scientific discipline and physicist Mario Bunge repeatedly criticized Hegelian and Marxian dialectics, calling them "fuzzy and remote from science"[64] and a "disastrous legacy".[65] He concluded: "The so-called laws of dialectics, such as formulated by Engels (1940, 1954) and Lenin (1947, 1981), are faux insofar equally they are intelligible."[65]

Ceremonial [edit]

Since the late 20th century, European and American logicians have attempted to provide mathematical foundations for dialectic through formalisation,[66] : 201–372 although logic has been related to dialectic since aboriginal times.[66] : 51–140 There have been pre-formal and partially-formal treatises on argument and dialectic, from authors such as Stephen Toulmin (The Uses of Argument, 1958),[67] [68] [66] : 203–256 Nicholas Rescher (Dialectics: A Controversy-Oriented Approach to the Theory of Knowledge, 1977),[69] [70] [66] : 330–336 and Frans H. van Eemeren and Rob Grootendorst (pragma-dialectics, 1980s).[66] : 517–614 Ane tin include works of the communities of informal logic and paraconsistent logic.[66] : 373–424

Defeasibility [edit]

Edifice on theories of defeasible reasoning (see John L. Pollock), systems have been built that define well-formedness of arguments, rules governing the process of introducing arguments based on stock-still assumptions, and rules for shifting burden.[66] : 615–675 Many of these logics appear in the special area of artificial intelligence and constabulary, though the computer scientists' interest in formalizing dialectic originates in a desire to build decision support and reckoner-supported collaborative work systems.[71]

Dialog games [edit]

Dialectic itself can be formalised as moves in a game, where an advocate for the truth of a proposition and an opponent argue.[ citation needed ] Such games can provide a semantics of logic, one that is very full general in applicability.

Mathematics [edit]

Mathematician William Lawvere interpreted dialectics in the setting of categorical logic in terms of adjunctions betwixt idempotent monads.[72] This perspective may be useful in the context of theoretical estimator science where the duality between syntax and semantics can be interpreted every bit a dialectic in this sense. For example, the Back-scratch-Howard equivalence is such an adjunction or more generally the duality between closed monoidal categories and their internal logic.[73]

Encounter too [edit]

  • Dialectical beliefs therapy – Psychotherapy for emotional dysregulation
  • Dialectical research – Form of qualitative research which utilizes the method of dialectic
  • Dialogic – Use of conversation to explore the meaning of something
  • Doublethink – Simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct
  • False dilemma – Informal fallacy involving falsely express alternatives
  • Reflective equilibrium
  • Relational dialectics – Interpersonal communication theory
  • Tarka sastra
  • Unity of opposites – Cardinal category of dialectics, said to be related to non-duality in a deep sense
  • Universal dialectic

References [edit]

  1. ^ see Gorgias, 449B: "Socrates: Would y'all be willing so, Gorgias, to go on the discussion as we are at present doing [Dialectic], past way of question and answer, and to put off to another occasion the (emotional) speeches [Rhetoric] that [the Sophist] Polus began?"
  2. ^ Corbett, Edward P. J.; Robert J. Connors (1999). Classical Rhetoric For the Modern Student (4th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. ane, 18. ISBN9780195115420.
  3. ^ Ayer, A. J., & O'Grady, J. (1992). A Dictionary of Philosophical Quotations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. p. 484.
  4. ^ McTaggart, J. M. East. (1964). A commentary on Hegel'south logic. New York: Russell & Russell. p. 11
  5. ^ Diogenes Laërtius, 9 25ff and 8 57 [i].
  6. ^ Critique of Pure Reason, A 61
  7. ^ "Elenchus - Wiktionary". eight February 2021.
  8. ^ Wyss, Peter (October 2014). "Socratic Method: Aporeia, Elenchus and Dialectics (Plato: Iv Dialogues, Handout 3)" (PDF). open.conted.ox.air conditioning.uk. Academy of Oxford, Department for Standing Education.
  9. ^ Popper, K. (1962) The Open up Society and its Enemies, Volume 1, London, Routledge, p. 133.
  10. ^ Reale, Giovanni. (1990), History of Aboriginal Philosophy, 5 vols, trans. past John R. Catan, Albany: Country University of New York, vol two, p. 150
  11. ^ Blackburn, Simon. 1996. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford
  12. ^ Rapp (2010). Aristotle's Rhetoric. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/
  13. ^ Abelson, P. (1965). The vii liberal arts; a written report in mediæval culture. New York: Russell & Russell. Page 82.
  14. ^ Hyman, A., & Walsh, J. J. (1983). Philosophy in the Middle Ages: the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co. Page 164.
  15. ^ Adler, Mortimer Jerome (2000). "Dialectic". Routledge. Page 4. ISBN 0-415-22550-7
  16. ^ Herbermann, C. G. (1913). The Catholic encyclopedia: an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, and history of the Cosmic church. New York: The Encyclopedia press, inc. Folio 760–764.
  17. ^ From topic to tale: logic and narrativity in the Middle Ages, by Eugene Vance, p.43-45
  18. ^ "Catholic Encyclopedia: Peter Abelard". Newadvent.org. 1907-03-01. Retrieved 2011-11-03 .
  19. ^ William of Sherwood'south Introduction to logic, by Norman Kretzmann, p.69-102
  20. ^ A History of Twelfth-Century Western Philosophy, by Peter Dronke, p.198
  21. ^ Medieval literary politics: shapes of ideology, by Sheila Delany, p.11
  22. ^ "Cosmic Encyclopedia: St. Thomas Aquinas". Newadvent.org. 1907-03-01. Retrieved 2015-10-xx .
  23. ^ Nicholson, J. A. (1950). Philosophy of religion. New York: Ronald Press Co. Page 108.
  24. ^ Kant, I., Guyer, P., & Wood, A. W. (2003). Critique of pure reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Folio 495.
  25. ^ Henri Lefebvre'southward "humanist" dialectical materialism (Dialectical Materialism [1940]) was composed to directly claiming Joseph Stalin's own dogmatic text on dialectical materialism.
  26. ^ Historische Entwicklung der spekulativen Philosophie von Kant bis Hegel, Dresden-Leipzig (1837), p. 367 of the fourth edition (1848).
  27. ^ The Accessible Hegel by Michael Allen Fox. Prometheus Books. 2005. p. 43. Likewise see Hegel's preface to the Phenomenology of Spirit, trans. A. V. Miller (Oxford: Clarendon Printing, 1977), secs. 50, 51, pp. 29, 30.
  28. ^ See for a give-and-take of the historical development of the triad. Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln Four, Hegelian Dialectical Assay of U.S. Voting Laws, 42 U. Dayton L. Rev. 87 (2017).
  29. ^ Hegel: A Reinterpretation, 1966, Anchor Books, p. 154)
  30. ^ G. E. Mueller (June 1958), "The Hegel Legend of 'Thesis-Antonym-Synthesis", 166ff
  31. ^ Hegel, Werke, ed. Glockner, Xix, 610
  32. ^ See 'La différance' in: Margins of Philosophy. Alan Bass, translator. University of Chicago Books. 1982. p. 19, fn 23.
  33. ^ Hegel. "Department in question from Hegel'south Science of Logic". Marxists.org. Retrieved 2011-11-03 .
  34. ^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford Academy Printing. Note to §81
  35. ^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Press. §§107–111
  36. ^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Printing. §§108–109
  37. ^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Press. §108
  38. ^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Press. §93
  39. ^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1874. The Logic. Encyclopaedia of the Philosophical Sciences. 2nd Edition. London: Oxford University Press. §95
  40. ^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1812. Hegel's Science of Logic. London. Allen & Unwin. §§176–179.
  41. ^ Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. 1812. Hegel'southward Scientific discipline of Logic. London. Allen & Unwin. §185.
  42. ^ Marx, Karl (1873) Capital letter Afterword to the 2d German language Edition, Vol. I [2]
  43. ^ Marx, Karl. "Afterword (Second German Ed.)". Capital. 1: 14. Retrieved 28 December 2014.
  44. ^ Engels, Frederick, (1877) Anti-Dühring, Part I: Philosophy, XIII. Dialectics. Negation of the Negation.
  45. ^ Engels, Frederick (1883). "Dialectics of Nature: II. Dialectics". Marxists.org . Retrieved 2011-11-03 .
  46. ^ Marx, Karl, (1873) Capital letter Vol. I, Afterword to the Second German Edition.
  47. ^ a b Lenin, 5. I., On the Question of Dialectics: A Collection, pp. 7–9. Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1980.
  48. ^ Jean-Paul Sartre. "The Search for Method (1st office) Sartre, 1960, in Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, transl. Hazel Barnes, Vintage Books". Marxists.org. Retrieved 2011-11-03 .
  49. ^ Inquiry Department of the Universal House of Justice (August 2020). "Social Action". Baháʼí Reference Library. Coherence Betwixt the Material and Spiritual Dimensions of Existence. Retrieved 2020-08-30 .
  50. ^ Hatcher, William (September 1979). "Science and the Baháʼí Religion". Zygon. fourteen (iii): 229–53. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9744.1979.tb00359.ten.
  51. ^ Smith, P. (1999). A Concise Encyclopedia of the Bahá'í Faith. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. pp. 306–07. ISBN978-1-85168-184-6.
  52. ^ Mehanian, Courosh; Friberg, Stephen R. (2003). "Religion and Evolution Reconciled: 'Abdu'50-Bahá's Comments on Development". The Journal of Baháʼí Studies. 13 (one–four): 55–93. doi:ten.31581/JBS-thirteen.one-four.3(2003).
  53. ^ a b "Original Britinnica online". Retrieved 2008-07-26 .
  54. ^ a b "Britannica Encyclopedia (online)". Retrieved 2008-07-26 .
  55. ^ "Merriam-Webster Dictionary(online)". Retrieved 2008-07-26 .
  56. ^ "American Heritage Dictionary (online)". Archived from the original on 2005-05-10. Retrieved 2008-07-26 .
  57. ^ Run into Church Dogmatics III/3, xii.
  58. ^ Karl Barth, The Epistle to the Romans (1933), p. 346
  59. ^ Bernard J.F. Lonergan, Insight: A Study of Human Agreement, Nerveless Works vol. 3, ed. Frederick East. Crowe and Robert M. Doran (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1992, pp.217-218).
  60. ^ McShane, Southward.J., Philip (1972). Foundations of Theology. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Printing. p. 194.
  61. ^ Karl Popper,Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Cognition [New York: Basic Books, 1962], p. 316.
  62. ^ Walter Kaufmann. "kaufmann". Marxists.org. Retrieved 2011-11-03 .
  63. ^ Karl Popper,The Open Order and Its Enemies, 5th rev. ed., vol. 2 [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966], p. 395
  64. ^ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1981). "A critique of dialectics". Scientific materialism. Episteme. Vol. nine. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Bookish Publishers. pp. 41–63. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-8517-9_4. ISBN978-9027713049. OCLC 7596139.
  65. ^ a b Bunge, Mario Augusto (2012). Evaluating philosophies. Boston studies in the philosophy of science. Vol. 295. New York: Springer-Verlag. pp. 84–85. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4408-0. ISBN9789400744073. OCLC 806947226.
  66. ^ a b c d e f g
  67. ^ Toulmin, Stephen (2003) [1958]. The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge, Great britain; New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511840005. ISBN978-0521827485. OCLC 51607421.
  68. ^ Hitchcock, David; Verheij, Bart, eds. (2006). Arguing on the Toulmin model: new essays in argument analysis and evaluation. Argumentation library. Vol. ten. Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-4938-five. ISBN978-1402049378. OCLC 82229075.
  69. ^ Hetherington, Stephen (2006). "Nicholas Rescher: Philosophical Dialectics". Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews (2006.07.16).
  70. ^ Jacquette, Dale, ed. (2009). Reason, Method, and Value: A Reader on the Philosophy of Nicholas Rescher. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag. doi:10.1515/9783110329056. ISBN9783110329056.
  71. ^ For surveys of work in this area encounter, for example: Chesñevar, Carlos Iván; Maguitman, Ana Gabriela; Loui, Ronald Prescott (December 2000). "Logical models of argument". ACM Calculating Surveys. 32 (4): 337–383. CiteSeerX10.one.i.702.8325. doi:10.1145/371578.371581. And: Prakken, Henry; Vreeswijk, Gerard (2005). "Logics for defeasible argumentation". In Gabbay, Dov M.; Guenthner, Franz (eds.). Handbook of philosophical logic. Vol. 4 (2nd ed.). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 219–318. CiteSeerXten.i.one.295.2649. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0456-4_3. ISBN9789048158775.
  72. ^ Lawvere, F. William (1996). "Unity and identity of opposites in calculus and physics". Applied Chiselled Structures. 4 (two–three): 167–174. doi:10.1007/BF00122250. S2CID 34109341.
  73. ^ Eilenberg, Samuel; Kelly, One thousand. Max (1966). "Closed Categories". Proceedings of the Conference on Categorical Algebra: 421–562. doi:ten.1007/978-3-642-99902-4_22. ISBN978-3-642-99904-8.

Further reading [edit]

  • McKeon, Richard (October 1954). "Dialectic and Political Thought and Activity". Ideals. 65 (1): ane–33. doi:ten.1086/290973. JSTOR 2378780. S2CID 144465113. The essay contains iii parts: (1) a brief history of dialectic, designed to focus on these questions past tracing the evolution of various trends of dialectical method in the low-cal of the development of culling methods; (2) a statement of the nature and varieties of dialectic, designed to bring out differences of methods and to indicate the possibility of common conceptions and common aims; and (3) an exam of the problems of mutual understanding and common action posed past the difference of dialectical and nondialectical methods of thought today.
  • Postan, Michael 1000. (Apr 1962). "Role and Dialectic in Economic History". The Economic History Review. 14 (3): 397–407. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0289.1962.tb00058.x. JSTOR 2591884. The trouble about the dialectic is non that it is wholly inapplicable to history, merely that information technology is so oftentimes applied to fields in which it happens to be least useful. If function and dialectic are to be reconciled and allowed their proper identify in historical work, it will perchance be necessary to move a phase beyond the philosophical position which Marx took up in the 1840s. Having put the dialectic on its head, and made it materialist, Marx has directed it into regions to which this posture is unsuited. If we complete the somersault and put the dialectic on its feet again, we might thereby return it to where it belongs.
  • Rescher, Nicholas (2007). Dialectics: A Classical Approach to Inquiry. Frankfurt; New Brunswick: Ontos Verlag. ISBN9783938793763. OCLC 185032382. A broad survey of various conceptions of "dialectic", including disputational, cognitive, methodological, ontological, and philosophical.
  • Spranzi, Marta (2011). The Art of Dialectic betwixt Dialogue and Rhetoric: The Aristotelian Tradition. Controversies. Vol. 9. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. doi:10.1075/cvs.9. ISBN9789027218896. OCLC 704557514. This volume reconstructs the tradition of dialectic from Aristotle'due south Topics, its founding text, up to its 'renaissance' in 16th century Italian republic, and focuses on the role of dialectic in the product of knowledge.

External links [edit]

  • v:Dialectic algorithm – An algorithm based on the principles of classical dialectics
  • "Hegel'due south Dialectics" entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

weddlepilthand.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

0 Response to "The Art of Reasoning an Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking Fourth Edition Pdf"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel