Question:
Is dialectic dead?
2008-03-24 19:09:33 UTC
"The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion."
Nine answers:
.
2008-03-24 19:14:21 UTC
It's difficult to come to a logically agreeable conclusion if you can't agree on premises.
?
2008-03-25 02:44:30 UTC
Dialectic does not necessarily mean resolving a disagreement through rational discussion. It usually refers to finding the truth through dialogues (such as how Socrates, as recored by Plato, was said to argue philosophy). While I think some forms of dialectical method are still around, I think that it has been on the decline. Back in the day Rhetoric classes were mandatory. Now most students don't even have an idea what "rhetoric" is. Debate clubs are often looked down upon and people are moving away from the importance of rhetoric skill. I would LOVE to be able to take Rhetoric classes, but it seems people just don't care for dialectic discussion as much as they used to.

(I blame the decline in education).
Hunny Bunny
2008-03-25 05:27:30 UTC
Isn't that interesting. You learn something new every day!



What *I* know about dialectics I learned in film history classes, and there is nothing very 'rational' about it; more than anything else it is frenzied. Its big, its bold, its fast, its exciting and its all about the dialectical CLASH! But yes, it is based on theory; theory that is brought to life on film. The best known film maker incorporating the principles of dialectics was Sergei Eisenstein. He manipulated his audience with the use of montage. The clash of the dialectic creates cinematic tension; " it was Eisenstein's hope to harness that frenzy for revolutionary purposes...". Of his films the best known was 'Battleship Potemkin' (1925) made about the failed 1905 uprising in pre-revolutionary Russia. The 'Odessa Steps' sequence is absolutely legendary and is probably the best known example of dialectical montage ever made. Every great action film depends on the principles of rhythmic montage that the Russian formalists forged.



In my film history class I learned there are three elements of a dialectic (thesis, antithesis and synthesis):



"Crucial to understanding what Eisenstein was striving for cinematically is his seminal 1931 essay “A Dialectic Approach to Film Form”. Just as the conflict of classes drove history – with the bourgeoisie as thesis clashing with the proletariat as antithesis to yield the triumphant progressive synthesis of the classless society – so too (famously, in Strike!) shot A of the workers' rebellion being put down is juxtaposed with shot B of cattle being slaughtered and the synthesis yields the symbolic meaning C, that the workers are cattle. This technical innovation (which Eisenstein dubbed “intellectual montage”) resulted from his studies of Kuleshov's famous experiments (which demonstrated that the meaning of any shot is contextual) and of Japanese ideograms (where two separate symbols can be juxtaposed to create a third meaning, e.g. child + mouth = scream, white bird + mouth = sing) (3). Less famously, in that same essay, Eisenstein distinguished between ten different types of dialectical conflict at the level of shot composition alone, many of which are utilised in the Odessa Steps sequence in Battleship Potemkin."
Capone
2008-03-25 02:26:14 UTC
I believe we are getting close to that kind of society. Between social engineering and political correctness, our society shuns away from discussions that examine truth. We are starting to live in a society where the pursuit of happiness has replaced the pursuit of truth. In my experience, this is not the result of Religious individuals, but the result of modern Liberalism. Their nihilistic views have done more damage to society in the last 50 years than any other movement. If there is no truth, then there is no good or bad behavior, just cause and effect. If the truth sets you free, then lies will enslave you
johno
2008-03-25 02:26:31 UTC
I have never heard of it, but rational discussion should be the way to resolve all matters, they should bring it back.
2008-03-25 14:22:40 UTC
It seems that way. I want to know why people can't face a difference of opinion without coming apart at the seams.
2008-03-25 02:24:46 UTC
I tend to doubt it was ever really alive in the first place. Except in very small circles.
Lyanthya
2008-03-25 02:19:59 UTC
There are just very few people who know how to do it.
2008-03-25 02:17:54 UTC
Dead and buried.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...