FOUNDATIONAL THOUGHTS ON DIALECTIC

 

Thought itself stands as a hierarchy over dialectic, this is because it is the tool that led to the demarcation and discovery of dialectic. This means that there is a rational component to thought that allows it to stand in a critical position to itself. This component gives thought a transcendent quality, so that it has the ability to preside over the achievement of its own forms.

We need to know whether or not dialectic is true, because, if it's just a clever sophism, then we need to know this, so we are not deceived by it as a logical and rational form. And if we find out that it is in error, and there is another rational approach that stands above it as superior, then we need to know this, so we don't waste our lives on the inferiority of a sophistical form that is not conscious of itself; we need to know this, so we can become practitioners of this higher form.

The fact of the matter is that dialectic, rationally deconstructs, the most basic premises of our traditional logical forms (this is not something that can just be easily brushed aside, but is an event of great epistemological significance). To take the concept of identity, for example, and rationally dissect it into more basic parts, as dialectic does, manifests a higher rational approach than that which is attainable through identity. Dialectic succeeds in demonstrating that identity is a contradiction of itself and thus ends up negating itself, and through dialectic, ends up sublated into a more accurate, nuanced form.* This means that dialectic, as a legitimate rational form (legitimate in terms of its equivalent logical function), stands on solid ground as being a true rational form. 

If dialectic is a valid logical form, and not a clever sophism, then we should certainly be desirous to comprehend it and make use of it as we attempt to understand reality. (Dialectic promises an expansion of rationality). The act of comprehending dialectic, and what it means in relation to other modes of knowledge, is almost like traversing or mapping a new world. There are still many pioneering questions that have never been asked in relation to dialectic, and because of this, there are many things that we don't know about dialectic. 

First we must determine whether dialectic is a legitimate rational form, and if it is, we must discover what advantages (if any) it offers in relation to other rational forms. (It is possible that dialectic comes out to be a logic with limited application, because its form of sophistication, could end up creating more problems by increasing sophistication). In some cases, a more reductionist approach might yield a greater result. 

As thinkers, we must be willing to allow dialectic (to allow all rational forms) to stand in dock. Of course, dialectic welcomes this insofar as it outperforms and transcends the traditional procedures of logic. If dialectic is negated by a superior rationality, then it simply means that a dialectician has escaped an inferior rationality, been set free from a prison of false beliefs and discarded an inferior logic.

The foundation of dialectic is not merely the task of the demarcation of dialectic, but the task of asking questions that have to do with the substance and value of dialectic. (Defining dialectic is not the same as demonstrating its substance and validity as a logical form). One can construct any theory or form they desire, but this won't automatically attribute relevance or value to the form, for this, contextual application is required, contrast is required, evidence is required.

A thinker can never be too careful, although, existentially speaking, she can be too critical. The danger is that we expend our lives on irrelevance and lack of value because we were hijacked by our psychological desires to embrace concepts that made us feel powerful, comfortable, informed, superior. This is why we must subject our concepts to criticism, to get beyond our psychology! The thinker's rule is to bring everything into criticism, allow thought to have its way so that we can proceed in the direction of intelligence, instead of being led on by subconscious impulse.

--------------------------   

*Insofar as dialectic 'preserves' identity, it does so in a way that expands our comprehension of identity -- through dialectic the identity of identity changes as it comes to embody a necessary plurality (identity contains unity and difference within itself). So the dialectical preservation of identity is equally a refutation of the Aristotelian form, its preservation constitutes a new identity for identity.

 

 

-

-

-

THE DANGER OF IRRATIONALISM IN DIALECTIC

Nothing much is needed here, just the warning that dialectics must never come to occupy the space of an axiom. If all things are compared to it, if it becomes an autonomous standard, then it runs the risk of functioning as a form of irrational idealism that stands above reality, thereby distorting reality. (The same incompleteness charges it levels against other procedures of logic).

If dialectic is placed into a category that puts it beyond all criticism, it means the concrete death of thought to those who wield dialectic in such a way; it means that which began as a continuation of the enlightenment has morphed into an enemy of enlightenment. Such a regression cannot be allowed to stand, a dialectic that functions on the basis of authority functions against the progress of human knowledge. The authority of dialectic must be derived from its functional power as an agent of rationality, as an expansion of rationality, but this means that dialectic must still be subject, not only to revision, but also negation. The student who wields dialectic as an infallible authority has both betrayed and forsaken dialectic. (If such a thing can be said to be consistent with dialectic, on the other hand, then it would mean that dialectic itself fails, manifesting itself in its development as a form of advanced irrationality). 

Some people wield dialectic irrationality, from it, they end up locked in a dogmatic irrationality that stifles the progress of thought, of this they are unconscious, thinking they have arrived at the Ultimate Rationality, when in fact, they have locked themselves out of the rational process with their dogmatic use of dialectic. 

A dialectic that remains beyond all criticism is no longer a tool of rationality, but a defeater of rationality.

The danger is for the student to retreat into a formulaic structure and then wield the supremacy of this structure against all opposition, without actually considering the content of the opposition, the student then dismisses this content because it contradicts the structure of his dialectic. 

In the worst case, the student learns from dialectic to no longer consider content and merely to note the opposition of form, that is, the student thinks he has arrived at the highest rational authority and thereby proceeds to refute things on the basis of whether they conform to the orthodoxy of this form, opposition is dismissed as opposed to rationally engaged. This is a sure sign that one has fallen into irrationalism through dialectic. A process of reason is required for rationality, but in the student who has embraced irrationality through dialectics, this process is replaced with mere dismissal and evasion on the basis of thought's departure from the orthodoxy or affirmation of dialectic at the axiomatic level. This means that objections against dialectic are not considered. The student has merely learned to (stop thinking!) reject and dismiss anything that departs from his dialectical orthodoxy. This is the danger of irrationalism in dialectics.

 

-

-

-

THREE PHILOSOPHICAL CLIMAXES

 

[1] The going-beyond is the important thing. But in order for this 'going' to turn into something positive it has to pass through the nightmare of reality, unchained from cultural conditioning. This means 'the one going' is destined for suffering. However, beyond this waking nightmare of consciousness (because it's not a "dark night of the soul," but a terrifying luminescence whereby reality can be seen) lies the possibility (not the promise!) to learn how to act toward being with intelligence. The thinker who merely wants to dim the light of the clarity of this phenomenological vision will fail at transcendent-intelligence; will fail at creating or discovering a philosophy that empowers the sufferer to act, not only against his suffering, but also against the objective conditions that cause his suffering. 

[2] One can be taught to love nature, this is not the problem, the problem is that one can unlearn this love; one can learn to deconstruct its immediacy and impression. This leaves one in a place where they need to reconstruct its immediacy, to learn to love again, to see like a child.  

[3] Not high enough: the greatness that we can do, we either do in culture, and by culture, or we create a new culture. It's always most probable that one isn't aiming high enough; one's view of greatness is too much conditioned by culture. To be a conscious creator of culture means that one must be higher than culture; this is the highest philosophical plain; it means one has gone so far with thought that they can now create the world through it. 

We are masters at lying to ourselves, at deceiving ourselves, this is where we always find the strongest application of our genius. In order to transcend this inferior and primitive psychology it is necessary to have rational discipline, not only to let go of, but in some cases, to slay the abstraction we love.  

To what does this high wisdom call us? In short, it calls us to both intelligence and courage. Intelligence in that we must learn how to construct a more advanced and civil culture; courage in that we must learn how to strike out into the antithesis, into that which offends culture for the sake of transitioning into a higher culture. 

- 

- 

-