|
From my moodle site
I like what Andrew Nash wrote in page 16 of his book
Nash, A (2009). The Dialectical Tradition in South Africa Routledge, London,
Please compare and relate it to my lessons on Karl Popper's propositional logic and ways of constructing and validating theories, theses and ideas that I have placed in this moodle site
Remember and have a glace at the archives of our lessons what Popper and Aristotle said about Contradictions - Namely, that contradictions invalidate theories that cannot have contradictions. It is either A or B. Whereas the dialectic logic uses and fuses the contradictions to construct something stronger than before (remember my lesson on poiesis) - A + B = C
Please remember that Plato was Socrates' student who wrote down Socrates' lessons
Nash (2009)
p. 16
The method of Socrates was dialectical in at least three senses which are essential for any form of dialectical thinking. First, Socratic dialectic is a form of immanent critique – that is, it proceeds by questioning an interlocutor, discovering the contradictions involved in their beliefs, and enabling them to overcome those contradictions through a revision of their earlier beliefs. Second, Socratic dialectic is a form of determinate negation – that is, its discovery of contradiction is never an obstacle to enquiry, but rather a way of focussing it more sharply, an establishing what direction it must take. Third, Socratic dialectic is a form of rational historical agency – that is, it seeks to make the active exercise of human reason the basis for a social order which reflects the consciousness and considered purposes of its members.
But Nash also says in the same page that
The fundamental limitation of Socratic dialectic is that it is unable to locate the contradictions it discovers in any historical process.
The historical dialectic of Hegel and Marx is founded on its recognition that contradiction occurs not only in thought, but also in reality. There is considerable disagreement among those who seek to grasp the dialectical movement of history about the character of its contradictions, the degree to which their movements conform to ‘laws’, and much else besides. These disagreements often come to be reinforced by political and ideological divisions. In the process of defending specific models of dialectic as ‘correct’, it is all too easy to lose sight of the larger continuity of the dialectical traditions.
Nash, A (2009). The Dialectical Tradition in South Africa Routledge, London,
p. 14
a central theme in Louw’s work…provides… a more illuminating approach to the continuity examined here: that of oop gesprek (open-ended discussion)… Louw coined the term oop gesprek in introducing his regular column in Die Huisgenoot…in order to describe what he considered a long-established and enduring cultural practice in South Africa.
p. 123
Degenaar argues that oop gesprek requires an acceptance that meaning is always relational and never absolute. It calls upon people to examine their own lives, as the ‘unexamined life is not worth living’ (11) Because meaning is the product of a process, traditional values can never be adequate in their own right, but must always be critically questioned (11-2) . This questioning takes the form of a dialogue, in which the person who holds a different view is not seen as a threat but ‘as an essential element for the situation of seeking meaningful co-existence and shared understanding in one world’. Where monologue treats the other as a function of the speaker’s system of thought, dialogue ‘meets other people as autonomous beings, who have their own roles to play, which do not fit into the monological system’. The dialogical form requires the other ‘because of the importance of contact with other people, and especially with different-minded people, in order to be part of that meaning and learning for yourself (13)
Nash and ontological dialectical dialogue
by Alon Serper - Monday, 4 May 2015, 8:14 AM
I also like what Andrew Nash (2009, p. 123) says about ontological dialectical dialogue
oop gesprek (open-ended discussion)… calls upon people to examine their own lives, as the ‘unexamined life is not worth living’... Because meaning is the product of a process, traditional values can never be adequate in their own right, but must always be critically questioned.... This questioning takes the form of a dialogue, in which the person who holds a different view is not seen as a threat but ‘as an essential element for the situation of seeking meaningful co-existence and shared understanding in one world’. Where monologue treats the other as a function of the speaker’s system of thought, dialogue ‘meets other people as autonomous beings, who have their own roles to play, which do not fit into the monological system’. The dialogical form requires the other ‘because of the importance of contact with other people, and especially with different-minded people, in order to be part of that meaning and learning for yourself...
Nash, A (2009). The Dialectical Tradition in South Africa Routledge, London,
Recall the difference between this and the Popperian and Aristotelian propositional logic which does not permit contradictions and differences and invalidate theories that enable them: If A then not B
A debate works on invalidating the contradicting view, whilst dialogue does the above
|