By Aruna
The idea of Dialectics, though not new is not something familiar. I was quite intrigued by the idea of a discussion on Dialectics, and the same turned out to be a discussion on several things, relevant to and far from dialectics. The initial presentation was simple, to the point and a nice introduction to the various dialectic laws that can be applied. It was quite fascinating to imagine that individual, scattered events in one person's life are repeated with surprising similarity in almost everybody's life in the world; what I absorbed was that there are a few laws which dictate how our social lives span out, how all our social lives span out. There is a certain logic and order to the world and dialectic tries to define this order using a series of almost irrefutable laws.
In the discussion, something that I was trying to grasp was that the proof of dialectics is influenced greatly by how one approaches the situation or matter at hand. On the one hand there might be a certain statement that seems to defy dialectics but when seen from another perspective conforms willingly; while dialectic defines a series of laws, it does not define how one must approach these laws- in which situation, in what order, under what circumstances; as a newbie this confounded me the most. (I am talking about the 1+1=2 problem)
Some questions I have -
*Are there only finite areas that dialectics can help explain, or is it all encompassing?
*Further, unlike the singularity that science and logic demand, there are several ways to look at dialectics, what is the right way? Or is there no such thing as the right way? If there is no such thing as a right way, are we not fooling ourselves by reading these laws as being absolute?
*Doesn't every work of literature or the arts or even the simple act of thinking not use dialectics in some way?
I definitely want to understand dialectics better, but I would love to learn about it through examples - maybe movies that refute or support a dialectic claim, maybe a story, a song, a novel. The study of the laws, merely as themselves, would be far more interesting if discussed and debated as a group. I cannot imagine reading Engel's or Hegel's several observations all by myself, and subsequently trying to implement them. I would give up before learning, and that would be such a pity.
While my interest in dialectics has been kindled, it has not established itself soundly enough for me to sense the presence of dialectics all around me, this is something that I am hoping will happen when we have more meetings, and I can't wait!
The idea of Dialectics, though not new is not something familiar. I was quite intrigued by the idea of a discussion on Dialectics, and the same turned out to be a discussion on several things, relevant to and far from dialectics. The initial presentation was simple, to the point and a nice introduction to the various dialectic laws that can be applied. It was quite fascinating to imagine that individual, scattered events in one person's life are repeated with surprising similarity in almost everybody's life in the world; what I absorbed was that there are a few laws which dictate how our social lives span out, how all our social lives span out. There is a certain logic and order to the world and dialectic tries to define this order using a series of almost irrefutable laws.
In the discussion, something that I was trying to grasp was that the proof of dialectics is influenced greatly by how one approaches the situation or matter at hand. On the one hand there might be a certain statement that seems to defy dialectics but when seen from another perspective conforms willingly; while dialectic defines a series of laws, it does not define how one must approach these laws- in which situation, in what order, under what circumstances; as a newbie this confounded me the most. (I am talking about the 1+1=2 problem)
Some questions I have -
*Are there only finite areas that dialectics can help explain, or is it all encompassing?
*Further, unlike the singularity that science and logic demand, there are several ways to look at dialectics, what is the right way? Or is there no such thing as the right way? If there is no such thing as a right way, are we not fooling ourselves by reading these laws as being absolute?
*Doesn't every work of literature or the arts or even the simple act of thinking not use dialectics in some way?
I definitely want to understand dialectics better, but I would love to learn about it through examples - maybe movies that refute or support a dialectic claim, maybe a story, a song, a novel. The study of the laws, merely as themselves, would be far more interesting if discussed and debated as a group. I cannot imagine reading Engel's or Hegel's several observations all by myself, and subsequently trying to implement them. I would give up before learning, and that would be such a pity.
While my interest in dialectics has been kindled, it has not established itself soundly enough for me to sense the presence of dialectics all around me, this is something that I am hoping will happen when we have more meetings, and I can't wait!
Nice capture Raghavendra. I have tried here to answer your questions to a possible extent.
ReplyDeleteThe math problem 1+1=2 is very particular to abstract of mathematics. In biological reproduction, especially in asexual reproduction like mitosis, 1 cell becomes two. In sexual reproduction 1+1 can be said to become three. Numbers are just symbols added to quantify physical entity whose meaning may change in a given physical situation.
However, there are absolute constants like velocity of light, charge of an electron, mass of sub atomic particles, etc pose challenge to dialectics laws. According to Einstein, velocity of light is constant in all inertial frame of reference irrespective of the speed of the measuring device which is proved experimentally too.
Again, these constants are absolute in this universe. If this universe itself had an origin as claimed by big bang, then there may be other universe where velocity of light is different or mass of particles are some other numbers. Though this is just a hypothesis, Quantum Mechanics has interpretation like parallel universes - multiverse.
Q: Are there only finite areas that dialectics can help explain, or is it all encompassing?
A: As far I can see these laws are comprehensive enough to be applicable in this universe at this point of time. As dialectics tells nothing is absolute, it is applicable to its own laws too. After some years, there may be some other trielectics which may overthrow dialectics and give a better explanation of what is going on around us.
Q: Further, unlike the singularity that science and logic demand, there are several ways to look at dialectics, what is the right way? Or is there no such thing as the right way? If there is no such thing as a right way, are we not fooling ourselves by reading these laws as being absolute?
A: The idea is there is no one absolute right way. Instead of looking at what is the right way, dialectics asks us to recognise the unity and conflicts of opposite in any phenomena and how it evolves over the other. As I already mentioned, these are not absolute either.
Q: Doesn't every work of literature or the arts or even the simple act of thinking not use dialectics in some way?
A: I believe you will find your answer for this question once you go ahead with Dialectical Materialism. As you are rightly pointing out, Dialectics laws alone won't be the answer as it finally attributed by Hegel to absoluteness(some may call God). This is what is rectified by Dialectical Materialism which brings our logical next session on Dialectical Materialism.
Please read a lot more, try to apply it around to find flaws in it which would actually be a dialectical process to negate it. That exercise might help you to understand it better.
good write up .... Dmitri Mendeleev's periodic table in 1869 and God's particle in theory in 1964 and as practical particle in 2012 are example of dialectic ...
ReplyDelete