Talk:Dialectic/Archive 1

external link
This page: http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html should be added somwhere. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.35.12.196 (talk &bull; contribs) 08:54, 23 July 2004 (UTC).

Robert Pirsig
"Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" contains, among other things, a critique of dialectic and the socratic method. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.10.231.231 (talk &bull; contribs) 05:37, 22 August 2005 (UTC).
 * more like a vindication of the dialectic. not of simple logic and rationality- but that's not what the socratic method is about.  ;) --Heah (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

triads
I took out the reference, in the Marxist dialectics section, to "other schools of thought that use the triadic model", since they weren't identified and I couldn't figure out what the point of that section was. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * i guess it was referring to fichte . . . ;)--Heah (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * But I mean, they were presented as critiques of Marxian dialectics. I'm not aware of any modern Fichtean school that criticizes Marxism from that perspective.  Or was I missing something? Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Exposition needs revamping
The musicologist bit belongs in the body of the article IMO. There should be something clearer to explain dialectic up front. Pazouzou 00:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * What are your objections? It is a clear real world example that also illustrates the importance of the concept. Hyacinth 00:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I think relational dialectics should be covered somewhere. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.183.187.47 (talk &bull; contribs) 15:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC).

"sinister dialectic"
I just moved the following new paragraph to this Talk page, because I have no idea of what it means, and no examples were given: "In some political analysis, this sort of dialectic has taken on a more sinister meaning, whereby both sides in a conflict are either directly controlled or indirectly manipulated in order to control the change which results." Although it sounds like an interesting idea, I couldn't figure out what it means, whether it's reporting on some current useage of "dialectic" or is original research, etc. If the person who added it would give some examples, that would help. Jeremy J. Shapiro 04:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Trichotomy
I think that this article is misleading as are most discussions of the concept of Dialectic because they portray dialectic as dinstinct from or in opposition with Classical Logic. Which is to say that Dialectic does not allow for an "actual contradiction" or violation of Identity and Law of Excluded Middle, rather it identifies contradictions in terms or argument, which are cause for revision of premise or conclusion. In this sense the Law of Identity is central - something and it's contradiction (i.e. A and ~A) cannot both be true. If it is realized that two statements which are seemingly opposite are either both true or both false it means that they do not have a genuine inverse truth relation. Dialectic is the study of trichotomies. It is the process of realizing this "seeming contradiction" and resolving it by resort to some other statement which has a genuine relation. It is stripped of its of glorified philosophy terminology - trial and error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikkyu~enwiki (talk • contribs) 07:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rosa L wrote:
 * Well, Hegel fans often say things like the above, but the so-called 'Law of Identity' (unknown to Aristotle) has nothing to do with the 'Law of Non-Contradiction'.


 * The former, in its traditional (i.e., pre-Leibnizian) form concerns the alleged relation between and object and itself; the latter relates to the truth-functional implications that hold between a proposition and its negation. Since propositions cannot be treated as objects without destroying their logical form, the 'law of non-Contradiction' is not about objects.


 * [And if, per impossibile, a proposition could fail to be identical with itself, it would not be a proposition, and hence nothing could follow from it.]


 * Of course, Hegel had rather odd views about 'judgements' and 'propositions' themselves, but unless one is fluent in Martian, they make no sense. [On this see John Rosenthal 'The Myth of Dialectics' (Macmillan, 1998).] But even so, a judgement cannot be an object, nor yet the name of one, without destroying its logical form, too.


 * So, this part of 'dialectics' is based on seriously defective logic (and this is so whether or not it is true that Hegel accepted/rejected these alleged 'laws' of logic in the dialectical or the speculative part of his philosophy), as indeed are others.


 * All of which vindicates Bertrand Russell's claim that the worse a man's logic, the more interesting are the conclusions that are alleged to follow from it.


 * More details here and here. RL 29/08/06 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.14.196 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote from Marx under Marxist Dialectic
I'm changing the first use of the word "ideal" to "Idea" — I think this was a (slightly confusing) typo. Please revert if I am mistaken, but post me a brief response why "ideal" is right (unless, of course, it is just that that is what Marx actually wrote; I can't check, as there is no citation.) Lewallen 18:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I googled and found that that was indeed the correct quote, so I reverted... but it still doesn't make perfect sense to me. Lewallen 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is not "ideal" in the sense of a Platonic ideal, but simply an adjective derived from the noun idea. Forgive me if I'm just pointing out what you already know. Franklin Dmitryev 01:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think most modern writers would put 'conceptual' to avoid confusion, but Marx could conceivably have found such a confusion a fertile one, given his revolutionary, materialist perspective. Likewise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.138.136.91 (talk) 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC).
 * khm, you must be forgetting that marx was german? are you giving yourself enough credits to criticize him? matt.

dialectic application to ecology
does the concept of 'niche contruction' (and the conflict with evolutionary theory/natural selection) arise from the application of dialectic thinking to ecology? That is, does the phrase 'not only does the environment cause changes in species, but species also cause changes in their environment' represent a dialectic argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CornColonel (talk • contribs) 14:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Given that Lewontin is one of the main people to popularize the niche concept, I'd say yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cellulator (talk • contribs) 16:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Proudhonian concept of dialetics, anyone?
Hi, last year I did a dissertation on the politics and philosophy of the 'Anarchist' writer, journalism and philosophy of P-J Proudhon. He had a slightly different concept of dialectics. His theory that there was always be thesis and anti-thesis, and that there could be no synthesis. So there would be uneasy relationship between the two opposing ideas until it was superseded by different, 'superior' or more appealing ideology/philsophy. I'm not too confident to write a new chapter on this on this subject. But if anyone else wants to write about it they are welcome to do so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.6.163.65 (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC).


 * Proudhon therefore appears to present a concept of a non-synthesis. But surely that inevitably forms an antithesis to the thesis of a synthesis, resulting in...? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.138.136.90 (talk) 00:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Aristotle
Some of the opening remarks seem to me to reflect the Aristotelian tradition. "It is one of the three original liberal arts or trivium (the other members are rhetoric and grammar) in Western culture. In ancient and medieval times, both rhetoric and dialectic were understood to aim at being persuasive (through dialogue). The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion." One could perhaps either insert, "originating with Aristotle" or, I wondered whether they might be better moved to an Aristotle section, perhaps with his ideas on dialectics made more explicit and the opening summary remarks made into a summary of sections that follow? Andysoh 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

first line
I think this article is good but I'm not sure about the first line. Is there a source in classical philosophy (other than Fichte) where dialectic is posited as thesis, antithesis, and synthesis? If so, why not specify the earliest origins? Is it Aristotle?

Alternatively, I wonder if this description should say something like:

"In philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is commonly described as an exchange of propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses) resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue."

Dialectics is often attributed to the Ancient Ionian philosophical school, particularly Heraclitus as per the wikipedia entry. Perhaps some acknowledgement of this?

Socrates seems to have combined something of this school with the best of the old Sophist tradition (which some trace back to the ionian school anyway), from where the term dialectic may have originated.

Plato's development may have been to make dialectics more of a mystical type of enlightenment (in his republic, for instance).

Andysoh 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

More details, less rhetoric.

 * Many philosophers have offered critiques of dialectic, and it can even be said that hostility or receptivity to dialectics is one of the things that divides twentieth-century Anglo-American philosophy from the so-called "continental" tradition, a divide that only a few contemporary philosophers (among them Richard Rorty) have ventured to bridge.

So what does the "Anglo-American philosophy" do - agree with dialectic or disagree? For that matter, what does one who disagree with dialectic believe? How does non-dilectic philosophy disagree with dialectic philosophy?
 * It's generally thought that whilst on the continent of Europe dialectics has entered the cultural as a legtimate part of thought and philosophy, it is generally misunderstood, disregarded, ridiculed or treated with great suspicion in the UK and the USA, and plays no discernable part in their culture with their strong mechanical positivist bias. Of course there are many notatble exceptions to this. Andysoh 00:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Parts of this page sounds like it was dumped from someone's honors thesis - good, but a little unapproachable for someone without a good grounding in philosophy. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.104.114.136 (talk &bull; contribs) 21:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC).

Pierre de la Ramée (Petrus Ramus)
We appear to have a big gap in the story of dialectic between Socrates (circa 470–399 BC) and Hegel (1770-1831) - but what of Pierre de la Ramée (aka Petrus Ramus, 1515–1572) and his once canonical (even in England) Dialectique (dates varying between English and French Wikipedias)? Does the development of dialectic really jump from one philosophical 'Herrenvolk ' to another, without the inspirational influence of a French revolutionary? BTW, I just noticed that the evidence of editor opposition to the orthodox, mainpage summary of dialectic as Socratic-Hegelian reads 'Kant... Ramus.' :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.138.189.76 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC).


 * In addition, Hegel acredits Kant as being the first to revive ancient dialectics. I am not sure that "instead of regarding the contradictions into which dialectics leads as a sign of the sterility of the dialectical method, as Kant tended to do in his Critique of Pure Reason" is correct. I thought his four cosmological antimonies (etc) were a celebrated reintroduction and redefinition of dialectics along more classical greek lines.
 * And I think there was around the time of Pierre de la Ramée a strong influence of the neo-platonists; perhaps one find more than one or two attempts to retreive dialectics from the Aristotelian grasp.
 * The article on Pierre de la Ramée does not indicate this influence however, nor does it indicate what his dialectic might have consisted of. Andysoh 21:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Much talk of ancient history, few examples of benefits
In all this deliberation on the precise provenance of the concepts, little has been done to demonstrate their day-to-day practical value, if any(?). :)


 * In relation to science, see the last section: Dialectical biology.


 * We could possibly make reference to http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/sn-cohenrs1.html, where there is a scan of a "Science and Nature" magazine sponsored discussion in the USA. Irving Adler (North Bennington, Vermont) makes by far the most useful points in my opinion. I think they have been shortened. There is much that is wrong with the editorial position of "Science and Nature" in relation to the dialectics of nature in my opinion, and that makes me hesitate.


 * Dialectics is (and always was, going right back to Anaxamander in 600BC Miletus in ancient Ionia in my opinion) a logic of revolution, or a logic given birth to by revolutionary times, and in relation to society its practical value extends to those who wish to understand revolutions, that is, sudden changes, upheavals, coming-into-beings and passings away.


 * In cosmology, see "phase change" and its significance in understanding the cosmos. Phase change is an example of quantity into quality or vice versa. One could say that an awareness of the possiblity of encountering dialectics of nature in the form of a phase change could help predict, or does help predict, developments in nature. cf, for example, Brian Greene, 'The fabric of the cosmos'.


 * So - day-to-day practical value? ... you might say, no, not to you and me, not every day, just some days - exceptional days. :)

Andysoh 00:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure dialectics hasn't got day-to-day practical value, which is perhaps what someone new to the subject most needs to know. In authoritarian behaviour, people tend to accept what they're told about things by anyone remotely suggestive of authority, and are trained/reared to view contradiction as perverse, disobedient, disloyal. But when one adopts dialectics as part and parcel of one's day-to-day examination of reality, it becomes a routinely liberating mind-tool. Thus, for example, instead of meekly accepting your authoritative-sounding conclusion to the effect that dialectics may lack day-to-day value, I simply, routinely, explore the antithesis, resulting in a quite revolutionary, if not necessarily original(?) conclusion.
 * I would also really want to place these observations near the commencement of the systems analysis entry, but a cursory glance at it seems to suggest that, as often happens, the Wiki entry (and possibly the subject itself) has been cornered and monopolised by established idées fixes, which the simple application of dialectics at once exposes.
 * N.b.,: What would happen were one to propose to a student of dialectics? ;|
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.100.250.225 (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I agree, actually. Some people think in rigid categories, and are the worst at practical things, and are always taken by surprise when the thing in question turns out to be many sided, appoproximate, full of contradictions, subject to sudden change (such as snapping off...) So it is useful, but not mysterious, and possibly not so easily accessible as an idea to new people as when one discusses big things, like big science or revolutions.
 * I wonder whether the systems analysis people would violently object to a criticisms section, in which one could perhaps place something? The only problem is, without some good sources, (Wittgenstein's later stuff, or something really heavy like that - his critique of logic and embracing of a holistic approach is the first step on the rung of dialectics) they will just laugh like a drain - and who could blame them - they're not philosophers.
 * Now the logicians might be fair game, although I've been reading a few critiques suggesting that hegel and trotsky misrepresented logic. I suspect the critiques take an ahistorical approach, and that hegel and trotsky correctly represented the logic, as it existed in their time. But its just a suspicion at this stage. Andysoh 20:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I finally did get around to criticising the Systems analysis article: see |Why Why can't a subject be what it says?

--

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote:

I do not know why you are repeating these hoary old falsehoods. I have taken them all apart at my site -- not one single dialectical idea works (where any sense can be made of them, that is).

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/

Rosa Lichtenstein 21:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a female problem to me. It's also quite offensive to accuse us of 'repeating hoary old falsehoods' when in fact we are simply paying homage to a simple, everyday mental process of lateral thinking in the contemplation of alternatives. Also, if you're still allowed your Wiki ID, you're not truly as radical/original as you pretend - radicals/originals are always banned, here - well our IDs, anyhow. Not that that really matters, as the truth is 'out there' - unpatentable, beyond copyright, anyway. I can't help thinking that your German/German-Jewish ID gives you an unfair advantage, also, with regard to the type of 'PC,' authoritarian policebots who run this joint.

article may contain original research or unverified claims?
Can anyone list the original research or unverified claims? J. D. Redding 14:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

original research
Here for OR. J. D. Redding

unverified claims
Here for UC. J. D. Redding

It was tagged (not by me, I hasten to add) on 2 January 2007 for lack of citations: "tagged for lack of sources". This suggests the tag should be "This article does not cite its sources" etc, and it would be great to have so direct references (author, book, page), then we could remove the tag.

The article starts off with classical philsophy, etc, and I'm sure all can be sourced, but I'd certainly be happier if someone had time to make the first paragraph to be more clear on which of the various interpretations of dialectics is being referenced, by original author if possible.

I did ask about this a bit further up on the talk page. It may be that the "tagger" (to coin a phrase), read the opening paragraphs and felt it was little a bit 'ad hoc', but could easily be squared up with some quotes and citations.

Andysoh 20:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you please list individual statements that need citations? J. D. Redding 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

---


 * Switched tag to need references instead of original research ... unless you can state individual lines of OR ... if no, then leave this tag.
 * If you want to keep the need sources tag, PLEASE list individual statements that need them. J. D. Redding 00:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi J D Redding, I'd be interested in references in the places indicated below (I personally don't like tagging an article itself)


 * In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is an exchange of propositions (theses) and counter-propositions (antitheses) resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions, or at least a qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue.

Citation? By "classical" is this a reference to ancient Greek classical, Plato presumably? In particular, is this correct about the "Synthesis" here? Is this what modern scholoarship suggests, or is this a reference to the Fichte or post-Hegelian rendering of the dialectic? Or should we remove "sythesis" at this point, or say, "later interpreted as arriving at a synthesis (ref, etc)". If Plato, can you give the best Socratic dialogue for this? Plato also discusses the dialectic in his Republic but here is it not rendered differently?
 * It is one of the three original liberal arts collectively known as the trivium (the other members are rhetoric and grammar) in Western culture.

Originally Aristotle? Can you state which work?
 * In ancient and medieval times, both rhetoric and dialectic were understood to aim at being persuasive (through dialogue).

This again has its origins in Aristotle I think, although perhaps 'dialogue' is Plato, and are we also refering to the medieval scholastic traditions? Are there any references we could give?
 * The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational discussion.

According to whom? I think this might be Aristotle again. (Socrates, for instance, argues that he only shows what he doesn't know although this often seems disingenuous, perhaps though Plato's intervention. It would not be the Kant, Hegel or Marx tradition I think.)

(My own opinion is that there are two distinct renderings of "dialectics" in Socrates/Plato, and another distinct one in Aristotle, whilst the Ionian school supplies another which they both pick up on / build on from time to time.)

A bit further down we read:


 * (instead of regarding the contradictions into which dialectics leads as a sign of the sterility of the dialectical method, as Kant tended to do in his Critique of Pure Reason)

I'm not sure about this. Kant re-introduced the dialectical method because of the sterility of the existing philosophical schools, and to reflect the conflicts in philosophy (the four cosmological antimionies, etc.). I don't think this would reflect the general outloook of Kant Kant appears to see both of the dialectical propositions of each of the cosmological antimonies, for instance, as valid. This line might be better to simply read, that Hegel was building on the earlier work of Kant, Fichte and Schelling. Andysoh 00:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great ... getting somewhere now ... put the fact tags in .. and I'll start looking for references for these ... J. D. Redding 00:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Tag should now surely go. Any objections to unreferenced assertions remaining should be tagged at that place, or raised in this discussion page, rather than tag the entire article. Andysoh 17:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, whilst the person who inserted the reference to Heraclitus was adding an essential reference, I'm not sure that one could say "Since Heraclitus was the first person in the Western World to create a robust philosophical system" since I would have thought this would be attributed to Thales, and in writing, to Anaximander. This description appears in the wikipedia Heraclitus entry, without challenge in the talk page, so perhaps there is more scholarship to it that I haven't seen.


 * However, both provided elements that Heraclitus took further, and I would guess there is little doubt that Hegel and others regarded him as the father, or perhaps the originator of dialectics, which is a different matter, and should be kept.Andysoh 17:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * History of Classical Literature By Robert William Browne .... cites all these people ...
 * dialectics (dynamical theory) are terms that come up .... still have momre looking into it though ... J. D. Redding 20:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll see if I can find any more refs for that ...
 * I also removed ref needed tag too ...
 * J. D. Redding 19:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

More unverified claims?
Please list more unverified claims. Otherwise, the tag should be removed. J. D. Redding 01:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thesis question from article page
The following student question was left on the article page:
 * I have a question!!!
 * In the first line, from the 'Engles explains..', where did Engels say this? There is no citation... It's really important and interesting issue for my thesis.
 * Please answer for it by sending email to me jinhyungjung@yahoo.com...
 * Thank you.

Reposted by  maxrspct  ping me  22:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Rosa L:
 * In response to the student above, Engels says this in Dialectics of Nature, page 223 (in my edition), or here (1/4 of the way down the page -- search with the word "Buddhists"): 1. Rosa Lichtenstein 15:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

George Orwell
While I agree that doublethink is not a dialectic, I would argue that it is the absence of a dialectic - the elimination of the ability for people to think of things other than the mainstream. To me, 1984 was about breaking the historical cycle, leading to the stagnation and eventual death of society as we know it. For example, if in a country there were very weak exective powers and a strong parliament, then it might be very difficult to react quickly enough to situations where time is short. After such an event, people might change their government to have stronger exective powers (etc.). In 1984, there would be no reaction, no change, and no dialectic. So I would say that 1984 is actually about how crucial a dialectic is to a living society. --Ignignot 16:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Orwell's 1984 shows what could be the result of a widespread controlled dialectic. This would be the desired end result such controllers presumably would seek.  Problem, Reaction, Solution is the method used to bring about further control or other desired result that would in any other situation be completely unacceptable to the general population, e.g. loss of liberty, privacy invasion, war. --Shink X 19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

HIndu and Buddhist Dialectics
Whoever has written about hindu and buddhist dialectics, seems to have a little knowledge about various forms of dialectics. Hindu and buddist persepctives are full of dialectics some of which are similar to synthetic(hegelian) and others are totally different. One needs to see closely how Nagarjuna and Shankara championed negative and synthetic dialectics so as to develop the notion of Shunyata and Brahman/Atman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.248.130 (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: (The Essence of Buddhism in its original form possesses a rational core, and most of the elements of dialectics were present in it, but they were present only in Theravāda Buddhism presently practiced in Thailand, Burma and Sri Lanka, similar to the early Greek philosophies. This represented the first faltering steps of dialectical philosophy). This is a gross miskate, and an attempt to subordinate Eastern logics under the Western/Greek logocentrism. There are more differences than similarities.

Buddhistic Dialectic
Apparently, the sub-entry just relates what Engels thought he understood of it. That is POV and should be marked as such. Engels is not an authority on the matter. -- ZZ 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's pretty pointless. ALL citations on controversial issues are POV, because obviously everybody has an opinion on nearly anything. The NPOV stance does not apply to citations, it applies to the Wikipedians. We should try to be objective, not the sources, so there is really nothing gained by indiscriminately tagging articles where both sides of an inconclusive argument are exhibited. --84.186.249.142 02:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the statement about the buddhist dialectic, but did Engel's really state such a thing? If so where?  Somehow I'm skeptical.  Is there an actual citation for this somewhere?
 * Regardless of whether Engles is an aithority on anything, the entire section fails utterly to convey the notion of dialectic in Buddhist training.
 * "Elements of dialectics are found in Buddhism, Engels explains. The Buddhist doctrine was argued in a highly consistent and logical way in the 2nd century by Nagarjuna, whose rationalism became the basis for the development of Buddhist logic. The logic of Buddhism was later developed by other notable thinkers such as Dignaga and Dharmakirti (between 500 and 700). This laid the basis for later idealist schools such as Madhyamaka, Vijnanavada, and Tantric Buddhism."
 * This entire paragraph is simply silly and wrong.


 * To begin, Nagarjuna is the founder of what we call Madhyamaka (English: Middle Way), which was extensively developed by the others referenced above, and by Chandrakirti who isn't even mentioned. The entire point of Madhyamaka is not to prove something, but to show that all conceptual explanations of reality fail because they fall into the trap of duality. Madhyamaka is a skillful means (Skt: upaya) to move the practioner beyond mental fabrications. In Tibet, and in Tibetan schools in the west, it is practiced as a form of debate. (In the Zen tradition, koans are a form of upaya.)The purpose of such activities is not philosophical games, but deep penetration into the false assumptions we all make about what is real, and to liberate our minds from making mistakes that cause suffering to ourselves and others. Without complete confidence that the purpose of discussion within a Buddhist context is to free our minds rather than to arive at a verbal "truth," one will not understand much.


 * I have seen a bumper sticker that reads, "You don't have to believe everything you think." This is so much more profound than the attempts to misunderstand Buddhism as some sort of rational philosophical school, that it should give one pause before saying more. If we could understand this, how many silly discussions and brutal wars could be avoided!


 * Somewhat as an aside, no Buddhist school has ever adopted a view which amounts to "idealism."
 * As a Trotskyist, my devotion to Engels and Marx is comparable to a cultist's dedication to his cult. However I am not yet fully blind and realize that Engels is indeed not an expert on Buddhism, thus if his opinion on Buddhist dialectics is the only thing that says that it existed. Then clearly there may not be such a thing as Buddhist dialectics in the first place. Although it does make some sense, that Buddhism is tied to dialectic thought. Have any Buddhists validated this claim perhaps? (Demigod Ron 04:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC))