ComradeRed's Website
The Question of Dialectics, 4 December 2004
There are two stances on dialectics...one totally rejects as being voodoo, the other adopts as voodoo! Well, I decided to tackle this issue, using dialectics of course. The synthesis of the aforementioned thesis and antithesis would therefore make dialectics a form of reasoning.
Part I: What the Devil are Dialectics?
There are three "axioms" to dialectical reasoning. There is a primary idea which one begins with, a thesis. This has an opposite idea, contradicting the first thesis, called the antithesis. These two resolve into a new idea, a synthesis, which is also another thesis.
An example: there is everything (thesis), then there is nothing (antithesis); this resolves into something(synthesis). Something of either quality (thesis) or quantity (antithesis). This thereby resolves into measure (synthesis). Etc. etc. etc.
In dialectics, there are always opposites. In my dialectical reasoning, there will always be opposites even if our language cannot express the antithesis. For example: maybe (thesis) and anti-maybe (antithesis); this forms con-maybe (synthesis[1], with anti-maybe as its antithesis forming yes as the synthesis), and contro-maybe (synthesis[2] with anti-maybe it forms no as the synthesis).
Now, here is a tricky topic: change moves in spirals. What the hell does this mean? Well, as a spiral, its somewhat similiar to a circle but not a complete one...for example, when a seed is planted, it will yield (eventually) more seeds which are different than the original seeds. Hegel (the creator of this idea) quoted Heraclitus in that "You cannot stand in the same river twice." The result will be different from the original...even if that seed has the exact same DNA code it will still be a different seed.
The last axioms is fairly easy to understand...the snowball effect. Gradual changes leads to turning points...of course, the degree of the gradual changes(regardless if they aren't gradual whatsoever) will result in even more radical changes.
Part II: Dialectics, the super-science?!
Many Orthodox Leninists and Maoists are using dialectics as voodoo, attempting to foresee the future. That really isn't the point of dialectics, it can't look into the realm of of the supernatural and explain it to foresee the future...no one can understand the realm of bullshit-ism!
What will happen? We can "vaguely" guess, but we cannot know for certain!
DIALECTICS ARE NOT A "SUPERIOR" TO SCIENCE!!! Do I have to put it so bluntly? It could be used with science, but not instead of science!
It would be interesting to see a text book try to explain science in a dialectic manner, but it would be extraordinarily long.
The designed use for dialectics was a form of reason...you don't use logic to foresee the future. You use it to understand, not to create a hex.
Why Dialectics?
Why not trilectics? Well, it has to do with the axiom that everything has opposites...at least one opposite. If there are three, four, or more opposites, you apply dialectics two, three, or more times. Why? For several reasons:
1) Simplicity. It's easier to formulate one notion at a time, as opposed to trying to formulate twenty at once!
2) Depth. If you do formulate twenty at once, you can't go very far with it. You'd have to stop and do it one at a time.
3) Opposites. There is ussually only one opposite to an idea, notion, or concept; how could you formulate more than one notion when only one concept is there to be formulated?
"...dialectics is like silly putty; it will conform to any shape that you care to impose." -- Redstar2000
That is true...if you use it incorrectly! A car was designed to move from point A to point B, it can be used improperly to run people over.
The purpose of dialectics is not to foresee what will happen. The Leninists believe this to be so, but ask yourself: WHAT HAVE THEY EVER GOT RIGHT?
Most orthodox flagellants defend to their deaths their perverted dialectical method.
Post-Text: Historical Materialism and Dialectics
Recollecting my thoughts, it seems that these two ideas are untouched.
Historical Materialism is influenced by Dialectics. The idea being that in class society, two classes stand in opposition to each other.
There is change in the form of class society (primitivism to barabarism to oriental despotism to etc) in spirals. It moves from primitive equality to proto-classes to despotism (class peaks) to mini-despots to...advanced equality. Each slightly different than the last, and spirals into an advanced egalitarian society.
But wouldn't dialectics contradict the idea of a classless society? What would be the opposite of a classless society? Well, when there is no thesis (oppressing class) there is no antithesis (oppressed class).