G.W.F. Hegel believed that the aim of philosophy is to develop the conceptual apparatus necessary to understand the whole of reality, or, as he called it, "Absolute Spirit."

Progress toward this goal occurs via a dialectical process, whereby less adequate conceptions of reality are overcome by, but nevertheless, reatined within, the improved conceptions that replace them. The dialectic has a triadic structure: in general terms , the idea is that any given concept or phenomenon (thesis) will manifest within itself contradictory aspects (antithesis), which require a movmement toward resolution (synthesis).

Thus, a particular concept or thesis (concept 1) will not be sufficient to describe reality, and will contain within itself contradictions that imply its opposite or antithesis (concept 2.

The solution to this tension is a movement toward a synthesis (concept 3), which preserves the original thesis and antithesis, while negating their logical opposition.

This is an ongoing process. Something I have seen on these philosophical threads for awhile now. A never-ending contradictory cycle.

Concept 3 will become a new thesis, which will contain within itself its own antithesis(concept 4). This usually results in creating a new thread in the philosophy thread.

and it continues on to concept 5 then 6 and so forth!

According to Hegel, dialectical progress will continue in this manner until the Absolute Spirit becomes aware of itself as pure freedom.


So let us wrap all this up in a few words shall we -

According to Hegel, our understanding of the Universe develops in a never-ending struggle between contradictions. As each opposing viewpoint is reasoned away, we edge ever closer to the truth.

Well at least we always hope we do.

From a practical standpoint, I think that an understanding of “who” is proposing the theses is critical to the success of the methodology.

If it is a single individual, who is seeking a logical explanation for two apparently contradictory observed phenomena, then it is a workable method. That individual can accept or dismiss various factors at will.

The problem comes in when there are two individuals, with conflicting theses.

In order for there to be agreement on the synthesis, one or the other (or both) individuals must alter their thesis (i.e. compromise their personal viewpoint).



Another problem I have is with the proposal that any concept “will not be sufficient to describe reality, and will contain within itself contradictions that imply its opposite or antithesis”.

I flatly reject that idea.

Partly because, if that is true, then the whole process is, by definition, neverending.

And partly because it says that it is not possible for any concept to be sufficient to describe reality, which I don’t agree with.

And partly because it says that every concept will always contain inherent contradictions, which I also don’t agree with.

Dialectical thinking is falacious by nature-which is why it dominates American political thought.

Gotta love these philosophers. Once they figure out logic is never going to work they just blurt out a spiritual solution about 'pure freedom' or 'pure love' or 'pure bliss', and ultimately surrender to an 'all-perfect' Goddess.

Not that I'm suggesting there is anything wrong with that. I think that does represent pure freedom. But I'm just saying that it was a clever and creative way of abandoning logic whilst pretending that it's some sort of absolute logical conclusion.



I tend to agree and disagree with Sky simultaneously.

I also tend to reject the idea that every concept will always contain inherent contradictions. I have ideas of reality that I feel contain no contradictions at all. (at least not 'self-inflicted' contradictions). My philosophy may very well contradic ideas that demand strict physical explanations however. But since my philosophy does not demand strict physical explanations there are no contradictions inherent within the philosophy itself.

One spirit is permitted to be an 'explanation' than any an all contradictions can simply be washed away by saying "Spirit did it".

And isn't that what Hegel ultiamtely did in his conclusion?

He just gave up and basically said, "You ultimately become aware that you are spirit and your free from all this logic crap."



But that's true. If spirit is real then logic is meaningless. Because there's nothing logical about spirit in the first place.

But then again, as Hegel points out, there's nothing logical about the universe either. So if you're going to believe in something illogical you may as well go with spirit.

That actually makes the ultimate "logical" sense in the end.

\

Not sure what you mean by “fallacious by nature”, but without trying to be contrary, I do see it as having some use.

If two people have differing viewpoints, and they both desire to resolve those differences, then the delineation of the exact differences can help in coming to an agreement. Either by recognizing and agreeing on the commonalities, or by more closely examining the composition of the differences to determine if any of those components may be misunderstood on either side.

I'll try to explain further when I have more time. Nice seeing you!

is it never-ending? Then how come it will end at one point?

I grew up in a communsit country where the state ideology was Marxism which was based, partly, on Hegel's dialectics, and taught that history is a series of a never-ending struggle of the classes, in which a ruling class is pitted against a working class, and out of their struggle will be born a new class, [while, I guess, they did not explain this, one of the two existing classes ceases to be] which will begin its struggle against the class that gave it birth.

I.e. in feudalism in which peasants and nobility were pitted, the working class gave birth to the city-dwellers, who rebelled against the rulers, the nobility and the king; and the new ruling class, the bourgeois, gave birth to the industrial workers, which eventually, with the help of the peasantry, killed off the bourgeois, and became the ruling class and the working class in one, and it will stop there, amen, ite missa est.

There were huge gaping contradictions in both insisting this class-struggle corresponds to the Hegelian dialectic, and insisting that it will never end and then ends.

Hegel's point makes sense to me, it is an entomological model. It just fails to nail it down whether this would end or not, and therefore it takes the middle-of-the-road solution of calling it a truce with spiritual overtones, declaring both "ending" and "everlasting" winners, which is of course a logical impossibility.

Sorta like the old joke, in which Jake takes Joe to the Judge, "Joe took my hat, it's my hat, Joe must give it back to me", and the Judge says, "you're right." And then Joe says, "yes, but Jake bought the hat on money I lent him, and he hain't paid me back yet, I'm keeping the hat", and the Judge says, "yes, you're right." And then Joe says to the Judge, "yer Honour, we can't both be right!" and the Judge says, "yes, you're right."

Further, in a practical sense, seeing what science has achieved, we can see that Hegel's theory is unprovable with the history of science to the present.

In days of old, and going towards the present, the world view has been becoming more and more complicated and convoluted. This is due to some well-behaving progress, like how the Relativity model encompasses the Newtonian model of movement. Newton's model had its fair share of contradcitions, which the Relativity model smooths over while not contradicing it.

However, the quantum mechanics model has given rise to a new explanation, which is incongruous and contradictory to the Relativity model of motion, yet it is true (at the present time). They, the Relativity theory and the QM theory both explain the same thing, in completely different ways, and both are right.

We are now working or trying to work to bring the two together, since it is a major embarrassment to science that this could happen. This is an instance of how the Helegian dialectic is not at work.

Are any chicks diggin' this, Spock?

Trust me, communism still lives on to this day. Even here in America.



I see the evidence of it daily. Totalitarianism is rampant in the work force as well.

I totally agree.

I rampantly agree. It's self-evident.

I would definitely agree with that.

However, I think that is as it should be.

If one Is employed to do a job, I think it is the obligation of the employee to do exactly what they were hired to do, not what they think should be done or what they want to do. And if they don't do exactly what they were hired to do, I don't think the employer should have any obligation whatsoever to pay them for not doing it.

But when "the government" dictates what both the employers and the employees should be doing, it is then, by definition, totalitarian. It may be called "democracy" or "socialism" or "communism". But it is no less totalitarian.

Can we all take a deep breath and step away from the totalitarianism-in-the-USA Koolaid? The "total" in totalitarianism refers to the forcible elimination all competing allegiances, such as clubs, religions, etc. Nothing remotely approaching that has ever transpired in the US.

The very fact that so many things are so often disputed is evidence that there is at least something to the idea of a dialectic. A modern version that is of some use is "Polarity Management".

Welcome to the Sci&Phi forums, lowfat.

Personally, I don’t think anyone meant to imply that the U.S. was actually a totalitarian government. More along the lines of this definition of totalitarian (from dictionary.com)

“exercising control over the freedom, will, or thought of others; authoritarian; autocratic.”

Within that definition, it is perfectly valid to say that the government is totalitarian when it comes to, for instance, minimum wages, or income tax deductions.

And since it doesn’t say “absolute” or “always” it could really be applied to anything that is legally required or prohibited for either an employer or an employee – or anyone for that matter.

And thank the founding fathers for that. I for one am glad to live in a system where that is not only allowed, but often encouraged.