Dialectics

[Anonymous No.16097662]

What are dialectics? I've read the wikipedia page, a few different philosophy sites and checked the archives here and I'm still confused. Although I mostly attribute this to people using the term seemingly randomly in contexts that change its meaning.

What is a dialectic in modern in philosophy? Is the Hegelian dialectic radically different from other types of dialectics?

[Anonymous No.16097691]

This is dialectics and the means of extracting the series from the most generic member. It means nothing other than this.
Plato defines it thus in the Sophist and Statesman.
Elenchus is 'doing' dialectics.

[Anonymous No.16097704]

>>16097691
From sophist directly

[Anonymous No.16097709]

>>16097704
>>16097691
Deconstruction is then to do Dialectics without telos.

[Anonymous No.16097922]

Reconciling differences in a new notion that grounds the previous terms

[Anonymous No.16097998]

watch the half hour hegel video series

[Anonymous No.16098101]

bump

[Anonymous No.16098117]

Hegel's dialectic was an attempt to continue Kant's project of critical philosophy, and an attempt to justify his own metaphysics.
The notion that the limits of what can be said was important to Hegel - as we land in trouble when we try to apply our thoughts which are finite in nature to the infinite, as these thoughts are only valid in explaining finite experience.

At this point, Hegel makes an even more radical claim, in that Kant had failed to investigate the inherent logic of concepts themselves by simply classifying them as either subjective or objective.
Further, Kant's claim that we must use a criterion of knowledge prior to actual knowledge was a knowledge claim in itself - we cannot criticize the forms of thinking without already having used them.

Also, it should be noted that Hegel saw metaphysics as having primacy to epistemology, as he felt that to claim epistemology was somehow autonomous and could solve its own problems (the massive issues caused by the noumena/phenomena division) was misguided.

The hallmark of the dialectic was avoidance of a priori principles in forming a criterion of a given thing. That the standards, rules and what have you, of a given thing were the result, and not the starting point of an investigation.
From this, "the concept" - the inner purpose of a thing - is grasped. The dialectic is then what follows from the thing, and is in no way prior.
Method is a posteriori.

In his Encyclopedia, Hegel details three stages of the dialectic (though he often strays from this formula for reasons outlined above), and they are (i) the moment of abstraction, (ii) the negatively rational moment and (iii) the positively rational moment.

(i) The understanding postulates a thing absolute, and attempts to conceive of this thing were it totally independent. Pushing the metaphysical claim that something exists in-itself and independently.

(ii) At this moment, something is found to not in fact be independent, and is only able to be understood by its relation to other things. There is a contradiction in that something absolute was posited, but it can only be understood in terms which relate it to other things - reasons outside itself. The thing is thus conditioned and unconditioned.

(iii) The resolution to this conflict is thus, to grasp the absolute thing as not the thing alone, but the whole of that thing and those others upon which it depends.
This move is Aristotelian, in that we ascend from the things to the view of the whole. These things are parts of the whole, and the relations are within it, self-relations.

The dialectic continues from this point, until we find the absolute whole.
(from a /lit/ post i saved)

[Anonymous No.16098302]

>>16097704

Socrates didn't make money.