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.
-
-
-
