FAILURE TO CRITIQUE DIALECTIC

"For instance, if a novice asks 'What is the Idea?', in the hope of receiving a satisfactory answer, the dilemma of the dialectician will then be either to give an answer in one single proposition, deforming more than informing, in the following terms : 'The Idea is a twofold movement of subjectivation and objectivation' ; or to repeat the whole Logic, the latter playing the part of the required definition. At the beginning, then, the novice cannot obtain satisfaction for the 'short way' is too vague, and the 'long way' too complex." Problems of the Hegelian Dialectic, Menahem Rosen pg.151

This comes from a text that purports to critique dialectic, but this criticism is so pathetic. The objection amounts to the fact that a dialectical answer insults, and confuses, the natural disposition, which seeks to primitively navigate reality in terms of static images. But the dialectician does not merely invent his answer for the sake of sophistication! His answer is dictated by the nature of the object, by the dynamic process of reality itself!
 
The only one attempting to dictate reality, in this case, is the critic. Not content with nature's dynamic process, the critic demands regression to a method that is more palatable to the natural disposition. (Never mind whether or not, this more comfortable way of approaching the diversity of objects, actually distorts the essence of objects). That is not the concern of the critic. The concern of the critic is the psychological satisfaction of the inquiring novice.

Distortion of reality is always a danger with psychological subjectivity. This is as true for the novice as it is for the seasoned thinker. 
   

A FALSE STANDARD FOR DIALECTIC


"If dialectic intends to be a science in any sense whatsoever, it has to reject that peculiar subjectivity constituted by pure poetic language, despite its attractive richness and depth. For the thinker cannot confine himself to the spontaneous but non critical, creative intuition, however interesting it may be. Entirely turned towards the universal, in principle he has to talk a non poetic universal language, the sensual image being, at best, able to constitute a moment of the representation in its way up to the level of the concept-which is the specific element of philosophy." Ibid. pg.139

This is an interesting approach to the subject, but entirely dogmatic, and as it seems to me, upon critical examination, not thought out.

The demand that dialectic must speak in a universal symbolism of objectivity would seem to be a dogmatic fiction. Is there any language like this in the world? How can dialectic be judged on the basis of such a fantastic standard? Nevertheless, the question of language and dialectic is interesting, but one must be exceedingly careful at this point, lest they fall into analytical obscurity.

Dialectic, like every science, makes use of common symbolic structures. The only problem is when these structures fail in terms of explanation. The question should not be the certainty of the symbolic structure, but the concrete progress that can be made with it. According to this standard, dialectic is nothing short of revolutionary.


-
-
-