What is the Hegelian Dialectic?

[Bootstrap]

Its interesting that Hegelian dialectic can mean many things.

I don't think it can. I think Hegelian dialectic really should mean the dialectic of Hegel.

Wikipedia actually has a decent summary here:

Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus[27] as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction; an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis; and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. In more simplistic terms, one can consider it thus: problem → reaction → solution.[citation needed] Although this model is often named after Hegel, he never used that specific formulation. Hegel ascribed that terminology to Kant. Carrying on Kant's work, Fichte greatly elaborated on the synthesis model and popularized it.

On the other hand, Hegel did use a three-valued logical model that is very similar to the antithesis model, but Hegel's most usual terms were: Abstract-Negative-Concrete. Hegel used this writing model as a backbone to accompany his points in many of his works.

The formula, thesis-antithesis-synthesis, does not explain why the thesis requires an antithesis. However, the formula, abstract-negative-concrete, suggests a flaw, or perhaps an incompleteness, in any initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error, and experience. For Hegel, the concrete, the synthesis, the absolute, must always pass through the phase of the negative, in the journey to completion, that is, mediation. This is the essence of what is popularly called Hegelian dialectics.

According to the German philosopher Walter Kaufmann:

Fichte introduced into German philosophy the three-step of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, using these three terms. Schelling took up this terminology. Hegel did not. He never once used these three terms together to designate three stages in an argument or account in any of his books. And they do not help us understand his Phenomenology, his Logic, or his philosophy of history; they impede any 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.

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

[Josh]

Most people talking about a Hegelian dialectic usually mean pairing that dialectic with a Foucaltian worldview, i.e., applying that dialectic to Foucalt’s oppressor-oppressed dynamic. This has become so common it is a generally accepted term in academic literature now.

I usually prefer to refer to Foucault directly but I’m in the minority on that. The “Hegelian dialectic” as a useful term stands, even though Hegel had little do with what the term means today.

[Soloist]

Its interesting that Hegelian dialectic can mean many things.

I don't think it can. I think Hegelian dialectic really should mean the dialectic of Hegel.

Defend it with your own words then and maybe we can have a proper discussion on the logic of debate which goes much farther back then Hegel and Hegel is just rephrasing older debate logic.

Dialectic tends to imply a process of evolution and so does not naturally fit within classical logics, but was given some formalism in the twentieth century. The emphasis on process is particularly marked in Hegelian dialectic

Explain this in your own words please.

[Josh]

“Hegelian dialectic” doesn’t mean the original dialectic of Hegel, much as:

- A davenport is not necessarily a sofa from Iowa

- An afghan might not be made in Afghanistan

- Occam’s Razor is not necessarily what William of Occam used to shave his beard

- Devil’s food cake isn’t actually eaten by the devil

[Bootstrap]

Most people talking about a Hegelian dialectic usually mean pairing that dialectic with a Foucaltian worldview, i.e., applying that dialectic to Foucalt’s oppressor-oppressed dynamic. This has become so common it is a generally accepted term in academic literature now.

I usually prefer to refer to Foucault directly but I’m in the minority on that. The “Hegelian dialectic” as a useful term stands, even though Hegel had little do with what the term means today.

References, please? Who uses these terms this way in mainstream academia, and where can I find an article that describes this?

[Bootstrap]

Defend it with your own words then and maybe we can have a proper discussion on the logic of debate which goes much farther back then Hegel and Hegel is just rephrasing older debate logic.

A lot of Hegel is as simple as this. There's a belief. It's not quite true or not quite adequate, something comes along to show where it is lacking. Someone improves on the original belief as a result. That can happen in discussion, or it can happen in history - society changes over time to fix problems it runs into. Hegel applied it to scientific inquiry in general.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." There are always shortcomings in our theories that get exposed when they meet the real world.

Dialectic tends to imply a process of evolution and so does not naturally fit within classical logics, but was given some formalism in the twentieth century. The emphasis on process is particularly marked in Hegelian dialectic

Explain this in your own words please.

Classical logic is all about deduction, creating that perfect theory that may not survive first contact with reality.

[Ken]

Dialectic tends to imply a process of evolution and so does not naturally fit within classical logics, but was given some formalism in the twentieth century. The emphasis on process is particularly marked in Hegelian dialectic

Explain this in your own words please.

I'm guessing that classical logics represented by say, Aristotle or Plato sought to identify perfect forms or ideals that would be unchanging and universal. Aristotle, for example, wrote about the pursuit of perfection within the individual and identified perfect or ideal political forms such as the city-state. Universal Christian ideals would be more in line with Aristotle's way of thinking. They are fixed and unchanging.

Hegel's Dialectic saw the world (politics, philosophy, history) as a constantly changing process, the result of existing or conservative forces/ideals (thesis) and new or opposing forces/ideals (anthesis) that would eventually reach some synthesis of the two, and then the process would continue ad infinitum. Hegel would not of thought that there was some Aristotelian ideal out there that would stop the process of history once it is reached or approached.

One is focused on unchanging ideals. The other is a theory or description about how change actually occurs in the real world. So they are really talking about different things entirely and not really opposing philosophies.

One thing Hegel ISN'T is a roadmap or set of strategies for fomenting change within an organization or state. There are philosophers who did explore strategies for how to make change happen. Such as Machiavelli or Sun Tzu. But Hegel was not one of them. He was more interested in understanding the process of change, not driving it in any particular direction, or towards any particular ideal.

[Soloist]

A lot of Hegel is as simple as this. There's a belief. It's not quite true or not quite adequate, something comes along to show where it is lacking. Someone improves on the original belief as a result. That can happen in discussion, or it can happen in history - society changes over time to fix problems it runs into. Hegel applied it to scientific inquiry in general.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." There are always shortcomings in our theories that get exposed when they meet the real world.

Classical logic is all about deduction, creating that perfect theory that may not survive first contact with reality.

I disagree with what classical logic is in your eyes, however the vast majority of debates fit your definition.

There is no such thing as a perfect theory, but through use of a position and careful probing of an opponents argument can reveal flaws in their proposal. Anything proposed can have holes and its through discussion of those that the hole can be revealed to strengthen or weaken an argument. Generally speaking, someone who holds their position to be logical is going to reject something that does not fit in their view of their position. Very rarely do you find someone that changes views based on being shown holes in their argument.

Classical logic can be described as a belief that is explored and through use of words and debate often reveals its flaws and the argument is strengthened or weakened. Hegel wasn't reinventing the wheel. The use now often is not founded on rational science and often is used to justify flawed positions. 1+1=2 but the same cannot be said of much of the scientific process. The case for evolution for example claims that "A" evidence + "B" evidence means "C" position must be true. The starting bias causes the logical process to be founded on a faulty premise to view the world though. I claim the same preconceived bias and like them I claim it to be true.
There is no way to logically prove anything with concrete facts as there is always something that can be done to show an error.

Prove? what does prove even mean? that is the problem with logics.

[Bootstrap]

One thing Hegel ISN'T is a roadmap or set of strategies for fomenting change within an organization or state. There are philosophers who did explore strategies for how to make change happen. Such as Machiavelli or Sun Tzu. But Hegel was not one of them. He was more interested in understanding the process of change, not driving it in any particular direction, or towards any particular ideal.

I agree. And also more interested in how we know what we know and how we come to know better than we did before.

In general, Hegel is rather too abstract and hard to understand for revolutionaries, who tend not to think in philosophical abstractions and footnotes. Here's another useful summary of Hegel for anyone who is interested:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/

[Soloist]

One thing Hegel ISN'T is a roadmap or set of strategies for fomenting change within an organization or state. There are philosophers who did explore strategies for how to make change happen. Such as Machiavelli or Sun Tzu. But Hegel was not one of them. He was more interested in understanding the process of change, not driving it in any particular direction, or towards any particular ideal.

Sun Tzu was a visionary!


I loved his book and adopted many of his tactics in war games I played.