Hegelian Dialectic: Controlling both sides of a debate = Success

[Peak_Oil]

In my opinion, both the Democratic and Republican parties are two sides of the same Corporatist/Fascist coins. The Democrats are currently pretending to be the People's parties, so let's see if they are interested in responding to the People rather than the Corporations.

Here's a little light reading on Hegel's dialectic.

Merriam-Webster's definition of the dialectic
Main Entry: Dialectic
Date: 14th century
1 : logic
2 a : discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b : the Platonic investigation of the eternal idea
3 : the logic of fallacy
4 a : the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process b (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences

snip

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dialectic&x=0&y=0

We think there's a very simple explanation for why the Hegelian dialectic is not simple, and why it can never be simplified. While the American's 18th century political system ranks among the top modern scientific achievements, the 19th century's educated imperialist writers pursued the highest achievements in irrational thinking about thinking. Hegel is at the top of the ACL's list of the world's most irrational thinkers.

How is it possible to consider a Hegelian argument? If the ideas, interpretations of experiences, and the sources are all wrong, can a conclusion based on all these wrong premises be sound? The answer is no. Two false premises do not make a sound conclusion even if the argument follows the formula. Three, four, five, or six false premises do not all combine to make a conclusion sound. You must have at least one sound premise to reach a sound conclusion. Logical mathematical formulas are only the basis for deductive reasoning. Equally important is knowledge of semantics, or considering the meanings of the words used in the argument. Just because an argument fits the formula, it does not necessarily make the conclusion sound. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel knew this when he designed his dialectic.

Hegel is an imperialist con artist who established the principles of dialectical "no-reason." Hegel's dialectic has allowed globalists to lead simple, capable, freeborn men and women back into the superstitious, racist and unreasonable age of imperial global dominance. National governments represent people who are free from imperial controls over private property, trade and production. National governments protect their workers from imperial slavery by protecting the worker's markets. But if you use Hegel's logical Marxism, the only way to protect people from slavery is to become the slave trader, just for a while. Twisted logic is why cons are so successful, and Hegel twisted it in such a way as to be "impenetrable." Like Hegel and Marx, the best street con knows his spiel has to use logic to bend and distort the story, and good cons weave their lies on logical mathematical progression. The fallacy is in the language, not in the math. Detective Phillip Worts' 2001 article Communist Oriented Policing is a nice explanation of Dialectical Materialism's influence on America.

http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html

[Vladimir]

1. There is no such thing as 'light' reading

of Hegel (as confirmed by the length of the text you link to). I am at the moment trawling my way through 'Phenomenology of the Mind' and it is the most incomprehensible tract I have ever laid my eyes on. The weird thing is that for every 4 or 5 paragraphs of insanity, you get the odd lucid sentence where it feels as if the author has come to his senses - then you resume searching for the next nugget of sense in a sea of dense verbage.

However ther are some plain factual errors on the site: for example, the Phenomenology, which certainly introduces the dialectic, was published in 1807, not 1812, which rends a lot of the argument about the American revolution a wee bit moot. I may go through it with a finer tooth comb when I am done reading the book, which at the current rate may take a good few months...

[DenverDem]

2. The power elite runs the world like pro wrestling.

The marks think that there is a baby face and a heel shooting in the ring but it's a total work, the booker has predetermined the finish and the combatants shower together in the locker room.

[cthrumatrix]

3. we are being played.... corporations/global elite own and orchestrate

all that we hear and see...

we don't have the choices we think we have in america

If so...why do we pay the most for "drugs" when we use more than any country in the world...we are ignorant and TPTB like it that way.

[On the Road]

4. I Never Thought of It That Way

but that's exactly what's happened. Narrowing the terms of debate, as Chomsky says.

The basic idea of the dialectic is not that difficult and makes a lot of sense. For example, capitalism is opposed by Marxism which yields a synthesis -- the new paradigm of the modern mixed economy.

But as the article notes, the two opposing views can be arbitrary. If they're both skewed, the result will be skewed. Garbage in, garbage out. That's one reason it's important to RWers to limit the terms of debate and not let radical voices even even get heard. That way, they never become part of the synthesis.

But reading Hegel is worse than reading a lot of other philosophers. My ex had a PhD in this stuff. I don't know how she did it -- I could never penetrate it.

[Peak_Oil]

5. More... easier to digest...

Parenthetically, one might suggest to you that an interesting safeguard in maintaining our rationality and sanity, when presented with stories in the news is to discipline oneself always to ask: Does the illustration merit generalization? You will find that the answer is usually negative. Actually, it's a little more interesting than that. Now that you have learnt with me how this tool is used, let's harden our intellectual armor a little more.
If you encounter a news story that uses an example to imply a generalization (take, for instance, guns kill, therefore guns should be banned), you need to ask yourself about the motives of the promoter of the story. The newscaster, the person who paid for the program and, alas, occasionally the political agenda behind the news (propaganda would be a better word). Now regarding the dialectic, you will find that most issues are discussed on television, etc., where "both sides" are presented. This is the dialectic process on your screen every night. The mere presentation of both sides implies that there is no absolute truth. More importantly, it is very likely that the absolute truth is exactly what is not debated on whatever program it is you are watching. If you accept that the purpose of the debate is to bring you into a synthesis (the dialectic ultimate stage) of opinion, it is very likely that you have been given two false concepts to debate, and your attention will be drawn away from what might have been obvious otherwise, that the real issue lies elsewhere. I would propose to you, even, that the very essence of news casting, programming, advertising, television series, soap operas, and virtually everything that is promoted by the mass media, uses this extraordinarily effective tool, the dialectic.
In its modern incarnation, it contains also the concept of the package deal. 'The package deal' is a term Ayn Rand coined to imply that something in the discussion is not mentioned but taken for granted, and the participant, listener, reader is sucked in to accepting this taken-for-granted concept by sleight-of-hand, unawares as it were.

http://www.afn.org/~govern/dorman.html

I'm looking for more. I'll also try to summarize in a quick ABC picture.

There is a piece of cake on the table, two boys (A and B) want to split it. Mom is referee on the debate. One boy (A) wants whole piece, other (B) wants half. Mom listens to both sides and compromises. She divides the cake into three pieces, and gives two to A and one to B.

(A + B)/2 = fairness

What really happened? All that happened is that two sides were stated and the difference was split. Fairness was never on the table. It was never a fair debate.

Splitting the difference on two faulty premises does not yield a fair conclusion.

Hegel scholars, did I do it right? Was that a fair summarization?

[Vladimir]

6. I don't really understand what the analogy is meant to say

first of all, who judges the premises to be faulty, or if you prefer, in what way exactly are they faulty? Secondly, the premises as presented are not really opposites: if A wanted the whole, and B wanted the whole, and they split the difference they might be - but the dialectic does not seem to me to be about splitting the difference between two opposing points of view (as I read it, and my reading is limited so I am happy to stand corrected). The crux is rather that things become known (or the mind acquires knowledge about them if you like) only through the resolution (of an unspecified kind) of the fundamental conflicts within them. So... hm.

[Peak_Oil]

7. OK, I didn't do such a good job. I'll try again.

Two boys (A and B) to share a piece of cake. All other things being equal, Mom would normally cut the cake in two fairly equal pieces, one for each boy. On this occasion, though, boy A says he wants half of the piece of cake. In a bold move, boy B says he wants the whole cake.

Let's freeze it here and see what we've got. What is a fair distribution of cake between the two boys? That's not really discussed here at all. It's simply two sides to an arguement. One wants half, the other wants all. We never delve into how much each needs, or whether both boys are fat and shouldn't have any, or boy A didn't do his homework and B did and it's a small piece anyway. We never dig into any of this. All we do is take two sides of the arguement as presented and say OK, let's split the difference. One wants half, one wants all, so what do we do? Back to the analogy.

Mom hears both (BOTH, mind you. There are only two sides, and both are fully represented in this analogy. There's no possible other solution, like the daughter would like some too. We never find out whether there are other petitioners to the cake.) sides of the issue and splits the difference. Boy A gets one third, boy B gets two thirds.

Neither gets what they wanted, both think themselves slighted, and no other sides are represented.

Is that better? Seriously, I want to get this right.

[Vladimir]

8. You are quite right that fairness doesn't come into it

with Hegel, but the analogy still suffers from the basic flaw that its not about hearing both sides of an argument and splitting the difference, if for no other reason then because in real conflicts there is no easy arbiter to split the difference. The boys may well petition the mother with pleas about their weight, hunger, who got more of the cake last time, who got better grades in school, whatnot, and the outcome may well be different. In the absence of the mother it may be that the stronger, or faster or whatever kid gets what they want regardless.

PS Where does the concept of fair that you refer to all the time come from and who determines it? I don't mean to sound abrasive but you predicate your whole argument on the notion that there is a 'fair' solution to the problem, which seems to me a sort of absolute idealism too...

[Peak_Oil]

9. Reply

You are quite right that fairness doesn't come into it with Hegel, but the analogy still suffers from the basic flaw that its not about hearing both sides of an argument and splitting the difference,

I think that's part of it there. We're assuming both sides are heard. I think the important part of that last sentence is "both." That's assuming that there are two positions. IMO, there is a supposition behind the word "both" that the two positions are equally spaced away from the fair or right or true position that we make in thinking we've heard "both" sides of an arguement.

if for no other reason then because in real conflicts there is no easy arbiter to split the difference. The boys may well petition the mother with pleas about their weight, hunger, who got more of the cake last time, who got better grades in school, whatnot, and the outcome may well be different. In the absence of the mother it may be that the stronger, or faster or whatever kid gets what they want regardless.

I agree with the above paragraph. In my analogy above, none of these things are addressed. Each boy simply states his position, and the mother splits the difference.

PS Where does the concept of fair that you refer to all the time come from and who determines it? I don't mean to sound abrasive but you predicate your whole argument on the notion that there is a 'fair' solution to the problem, which seems to me a sort of absolute idealism too...

Excellent questions all, but I think outside the parameters of this post. All I'm trying to do is figure out whether I've got the Hegelian Dialictic right. I have another post ready once I'm convinced I've got this basic analogy right. I'd be interested in continuing this debate later, but for now let's see if we can figure out whether question 1 is answered before we move on to question 2.

[Vladimir]

10. I'm not sure you can make an analogy

of the Hegelian dialectic without considering these complexities, or at least it reminds me of an old joke/urban myth that did the rounds at Philosophy departments in Yugoslavia back when my mother was studying all this:

A professor says to his students: now, I will explain Hegel to you. That cockroach there, that's the thesis. My boot is the antithesis. And this (squashing cockroach), this is the synthesis!

You see my problem with the analogy is really that it is too specific for its own good, in that it mentions the mother as an arbitar and defines her actions (listening to both sides and then splitting the difference) too tightly for there to be a meaningful conflict. If Boy B knows the rules of the game, all he will do is demand the whole cake for himself too - thus forcing the splitting of the difference to grant him his true wish. I am not certain how to make it better though... so I guess if annyone else has ideas?

[Peak_Oil]

11. OK, here's Part Two.

For some reason, which boy gets how much cake is very important to thousands of people for some unknown reason. The event is actually being covered by their local freebie newspaper. The press is called in the morning to cover the distribution of cake.

In between that phone call and the meeting to distribute the cake, the mother says to Boy B, whom she always liked better, "Ask for the whole cake and I'll give you 2/3rds of it. I want you to have more."

The reporter shows up for the Debate.

Boys ask for cake.

Cake is split.

Reporter heads back to the newspaper to report that the debate took place, and Mother fairly split the difference, and all's right with the world.

We pick up the paper in the morning and find that Boy A and Boy B had a debate about the division of cake, and that Mother fairly divided the cake. We never learn the rest of the story, only that after a debate a fair decision was reached, and that A and B each got some cake.

[Vladimir]

12. Please elaborate

the above post could be making a dozen different points and I am not sure which one you are driving at...