Talk:Dialectic/Archive 3

dialectic
the criticisms at the end of this section seem only to be directed at a specific kind of dialectics, namely the dialectics that started with hegel and possibly plato.

to criticize dialectics in general and say it is not part of anglo-american philsophy fudges different meanings of it. anglo-american try to avoid the hegelian dialectic, and especcialy the idea that systems, and reality, have as part of their structure, contradictions.
 * "Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to pursue truth by seeking agreement with one another"

if the above is seen as a general definition of dialectic then all philosophys have some kind of dialectic.

maybe i am wrong but i think what popper is criticzing should be made clear, but i have only read his criticism of hegel, and never read "what is dialectic". if he was cricizing dialectic in general, than i would disagree with him but that is by the by. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.243.105 (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Round 2
 * "He wrote that in Kant’s work the triadic form “was still lifeless and uncomprehended” but that “since then [since Kant] it has, however, been raised to its absolute significance."
 * This characterization SEEMS to take Dialectic and the "triadic form" as synonymous particularly because the author has to add the phrase triadic form to what he quotes from Hegel. In fact nothing can be further from the truth. Yes one can approach Hegel's work with a preconcieved idea and say oh look. we have Indeterminate being, Indeterminate nothing and determinate being. Voila we have thesis-antithesis-synthesis! Yet does Hegel mention anything about proceeding by some triadic formula. Does Hegel's dialectic get applied or is dialectic in Hegel the underlying logic. Hegel doesn't go hey I have concept A over here and now I need to hunt its opposite down so I can come up with some sort of resolution. Hegel seeks to elicit the attributes of a concept while avoiding certain philosophic problems. Indeterminate being doesn't stand antithetically with indeterminate nothing. It is the same! The tension is INTERNAL not applied. While indeterminate being and indeterminate nothing share the same substance lack of distinction, they are still different. Nothing is nothing and being is being. Thus first distinction is determinate or specific being. The crucial question here is how the distinction is brought out. Is the distinction inherent in the concept or do we apply some formula in search of some compromise? Spiker 22 (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis
Hegel never used these terms so their application is a bit too simplistic in the understanding of Hegel. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.104.198.235 (talk &bull; contribs) 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC).
 * "Hegel never used these terms" is a myth. He did use them, but more often he used substitute terms with the same meaning.  Let's start with "dialectical."  In Phenomenology Hegel wrote that skepticism "exhibits the dialectical movement which Sense-certainty [thesis: general or "universal"], Perception [antithesis: particular], and the Understanding [synthesis: general = particulars, or one = many] each is" (Miller translation, para. 203).  "Dialectical" is again mentioned in para. 205.  Also see paras. 65 ("dialectical movement"), 66 ("dialectical movement," "dialectical form"), 130 ("dialectical movement"), 132 ("the dialectic of . . ."), and 233 ("dialectical movement").  More often Hegel uses equivalent terms such as "triadic form" (para.50), "these three moments" (para. 767), "three distinct moments" (para. 770), and "triple process."


 * "Thesis" becomes "primitive stage," "first stage," "first moment," and other substitute terms. "Antithesis" occurs frequently throughout the text, though often in reference to the clash between thesis and antithesis rather than to the antithesis itself.  "Negation," "the negative element," "second moment," "middle term," and "estrangement" are among the terms that refer to antitheses.  "Synthetic unity of the first two propositions," "synthetic connection," "third moment," and "negate the negation" (a term later adopted by Marx) are among the references to syntheses.Atticusattor (talk) 21:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hegel never specifically used these terms is in fact true but that does not mean that Hegel did not use terms with similar meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 23:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * According to Kaufmann, "Fitche introduced into German philosophy the three-step of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, using these three terms. Schelling took up this terminology. Hegel did not. He never once used these three terms together to designate three stages in an argument or account in any of his books. And they do not help us understand his Phenomenology, his Logic, or his philosophy of history; they impede any open-minded comprehension of what he does by forcing it into a scheme which was available to him and which he deliberately spurned...The mechanical formalism...Hegel derides expressly and at some length in the preface to the Phenomenology.(Hegel:A Reinterpretation, 1966, p.154).


 * Kaufmann also cites G.E. Mueller's "The Hegel Legend of 'Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" 166ff and adds "the only place where Hegel uses the three terms together occurs in his lectures on the history of philosophy, on the last page but one of the section on Kant-where Hegel roundly reproaches Kant for having "everywhere posited thesis, antithesis, synthesis (Werke, ed. Glockner, XIX, 610).

moved Literature section here
I just moved the so-called "Literature" section here because I don't see what it adds to the article, is just some disconnected factoids, and in my view detracts from the article and makes it less encyclopedic. Half the literature ever written could be analyzed as dialectical or anti-dialetical. If someone really has something to contribute here, they should really explain what it is rather than stick in disconnected facts. Here's what I moved:

In Literature:

The Fountainhead is a 1943 novel by Ayn Rand critical of dialectics. Interestingly, Chris Sciabarra in Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical argues that Rand's method is dialectical.

Does anyone really believe that this should be in a general article about dialectics? Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Only in a high-quality article, but not for Wikipedia level. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey 68... : Don't forget you're saying something about yourself, not about The Fountainhead, or Wikipedia. ;) --lifeform (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * i don't. --Heah talk 07:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm
should this site (http://anti-dialectics.co.uk/index.htm ) be added on external links as part of the critisism on dialectics? Also I think that we should talk about communist anti-dialectics in the criticism.
 * Agreed. Commies and philosophers who ignore facts and basic observable reality (replacing them with a priori "proof by assertion" are amusing! 68.83.72.162 (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Link updated. Rosa Lichtenstein (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hegelian dialectics and user Atticusattor
Hegelian dialectics section seems to be rewritten almost completely recently. I'm no expert on Hegel, rather I came here to find out about his thought. However, what I can say about that part of the article is that while there seem to be some sources given for the new material, it is written in highly confrontational and patronizing style with occasional original research thrown in. The section states for example that an earlier version of the material under this heading revealed a common misconception about Hegel's thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics, which are quite real. Also, most of the edits claim to "correct" some differing views which are then removed or reworded to appear as if they were incorrect or just wild speculations, although some of the stuff "corrected" was properly sourced.

It seems that user Atticusattor who made these edits is pushing some kind of an agenda here, as he has also rewritten an article on Master–slave dialectic and many other Hegel-related articles almost completely, with the same aggressive style. In most of the edits he seems to emphasize the claim that Hegel was an atheist and that his main agenda was to covertly "spread" atheism. As I said, I'm not that familiar with Hegel but that sounds like a very fringe theory to me and I've never ever heard such claims before.
 * You say "I've never ever heard such claims before" (claims that Hegel was an atheist). You also admit, "I'm not that familiar with Hegel," which would explain your unfamiliarity with his atheism.  I have cited numerous interpreters who have identified Hegel as an atheist: Findlay, Tucker, Kaufmann, Solomon, McCarney, Hyppolite, Pinkard, Westphal, Beiser, and Wheat.


 * And where was it said that Hegel's "main agenda was to covertly 'spread' atheism"? That was not his main agenda.  As Solomon and Pinkard have explained, his main agenda was to write a book that would qualify him for a professorship.  At the same time, he wanted the book to covertly express the atheism found in his early religious writings.  So he adopted the almost incomprehensible obscurantist language for which he is famous.  He also used hidden dialectics rather than open remarks to express his atheism -- dialectics so well hidden that most of his interpreters (but not two other dialecticians, Marx and Tillich) have denied that Hegel even used dialectics.  And, of course, he now and then referred to his nonsupernatural Spirit as "God" so as to confuse people into believing that he was a theist, whereas the "God" he was referring to was a redefined nonsupernatural God, loosely equivalent to the nonsupernatural God "Nature" that self-described pantheists endorse to hide the fact that they are really atheists, who are unpopular in our society.  Kaufmann,who accurately identifies Hegel as a humanist, wrote that Hegel's writing "should have caused no misunderstanding, had it not been for Hegel's occasional references to God" (Hegel: A Reinterprtation, p. 273).Atticusattor (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Pinkard definitely doesn't think that Hegel is an atheist. I'm looking at his biography right now; see the stuff on pantheism on pp. 579-80. Also, Hegel's metaphysical or ontological views are extremely controversial. This is a very basic fact about Hegel scholarship, not something that will be decided in a Wikipedia talk page. See the SEP article on Hegel for numerous sources who interpret Hegel's philosophy as a religious metaphysical account. Also, the following line of argument is overtly synthetic and therefore inappropriate editorializing in an encyclopedia article: Hegel thought x, x amounts to atheism (whether Hegel thought this or not), so Hegel was an atheist. But the arguments in the above paragraph more or less amount to this style of argument. So they don't decisively show for the purposes of Wikipedia that Hegel should be listed as an atheist.68.80.219.115 (talk) 05:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be great if someone who knows their Hegel would take a look on these articles. 94.101.2.145 (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. More importantly, the content added here was also added by the same user, Atticusattor, to the article about Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (see specifically the section titled [|“Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis "Dialectical" Triads”]) and to an article about “Hegelian dialectic”. Major sections of the information provided is simply copied-paste from one article to the other. The least that should be done would be to centralize this information in one place and add redirection everywhere else. That being said, the neutrality of this significant intervention remains open for discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parneix (talk • contribs) 15:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge redundant article
There's been several calls over the years to merge the at thesis, antithesis, synthesis. It should go ahead and happen. Any special terminology issues are better dealt with individually: antithesis has its own article, synthesis (rhetoric) needs its own (see, e.g., Roger Bacon's Summa Grammatica, where synthesis is one of the 5 rhetorical devices addressed), and thesis (rhetoric) could be created if people didn't think it was already covered by thesis statement or proposition. — Llywelyn II   22:34, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Aristotelian Dialectic
Aristotle’s contribution to the notion of dialectic is important to recognize because in order to gain a more holistic perspective on the term, one must understand its origins. Although Plato, Aristotle’s teacher, was the first to use the actual term ‘dialektike,’ Aristotle had a large impact in its development. The essence of Aristotelian dialectic lies in the pursuit for the ‘truthful opinion.’ It starts with some available topic, and seeks to produce insight as to why things are the way they are. It provides a way of hypothesizing, testing, convincing, and coming to a justified and sufficient conclusion of some question. In other words, dialectic is primarily about reaching a collective acceptance of something as true. Aristotle uses the principle of endoxa to explain that the opinion of the wise or of the majority holds more credibility than that of the individual. A reputable idea that is supported by such a majority has authority to it, simply because so many people believe it is true. The first line of Aristotle’s Rhetoric reads, “Rhetoric is the counterpart to dialectic.” The two are used in complementary ways to reach that goal of the accepted truth. In fact, Brunschwig says, “Rhetoric is to public discourse… what dialectic is to private, conversational and dialogic discourse,” meaning that dialectic plays a huge role in everyday interpersonal communication and persuasion. Accordingly, in Aristotle’s view, everyone already practices the art of dialectic. Since we are the ones who partake in it, dialectic produces something “clearer and more knowable” for us. Furthermore, Aristotle claims that dialectic is an “art” (‘techne’), or a “science of words” (‘episteme logon’), because it comes from the combination of practicality and intellect, as well as common experiences. Amrb15 (talk) 00:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not use footnotes on talk pages. — Llywelyn II   22:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

(Dia)logue has no etymological connection to "two"
The prefix dia- is not etymologically related to the Greek word for "two," which is duo. dia is a preverb meaning "through, between, among." It still implies a plurality of speakers in the discussion, but not precisely "two." Should be changed. --152.3.244.148 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC) I looked at the passage about "(dia)logue" and etymology more closely, and I really think that the offending portion here is out of place and poorly written. There are grammatical errors (mistakes in subject verb agreement) too. Much of it deals with Hegel and not Plato, thus shouldn't be in a section on Socratic dialectic. I am going to delete these 4 paragraphs, even though the author will probably soon revert the change, alas. --152.3.244.148 (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see anyone defend the section on Socratic dialectic that I have been deleting. If anyone tried to revise it and delete the plainly wrong parts like the idea that dialectic has some etymological connection to "two," then be my guest. --152.3.116.68 (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dialectic is a discussion between two or more people. Dialectic consists of statements and questions that elicit responses. Rhetoric is a speech by one person. Rhetoric consists of statements without responses. It's that simple. Dialectic = dialogue. Rhetoric = monologue. Lestrade (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * I agree that dialectic requires at least two people, but there is absolutely no etymological link between dialectic and "two." The Greek word for two is, by the way, duo. --152.3.244.148 (talk) 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. — Llywelyn II   23:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Mr., Miss, or Mrs 152.3.244.148: You are right. The Greek dyo or duo means "two." the Greek dia means "between" or "through." As you say, though, dialectic occurs between at least two people. The Hegelian German Idealists used the word as a kind of mystical, hieratic incantation. All it means, though, is simply "discussion."Lestrade (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * No, s/h/it is mostly wrong in the thrust of h/i(t)s/er point; you are completely wrong. The Greek di- means "two; twice" and the mistake is a far more honest one than was originally conceded. In fact, the prefix dia- is itself derived from di- (i.e., it's properly "between" and not "among") and the "error" is minimal. The title of this section is incorrect.


 * Similarly, the Hegelians use it as an incantation because that is how it functions for them and in English for the entirety of the word's existence. Our article on discussion is at conversation. Dialectic is an entirely different thing with a far different and has been since Latin. Philosophical dialectic can be written by a single author. —  Llywelyn II   23:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless in both cases the speaker is engaged in persuasion and uses techniques that make his effort more effective.-Vakeger (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In bridging "both cases", you transcend the negation from above. In true dialectical form, well done.. err.. doing ;) --Dialectic (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dialectic is simply a discussion or dialogue between two or more people, as opposed to rhetoric, which is a monologue. There is no "transcending negations" in dialectic.Lestrade (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Nope. Go read the article. — Llywelyn II   23:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Enormous Mistake
The article makes a major error by beginning with a definition of dialectic as consisting of a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. This triad, borrowed from Kant, was described in the writings of Fichte and has often been mistakenly attributed to Hegel. The ancient Greeks, however, considered dialectic as being merely distinct from rhetoric. Rhetoric, to them, is a monologue or oration in which one person speaks without interruption. Dialectic is a dialogue in which two or more people speak alternately in a logical discussion. "Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, VII. 42" Lestrade 15:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Good addition, but is it an 'enormous mistake,' or an accurate representation of a modern understanding of an ancient practice?
 * Since, in our time, there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect, then it is not an enormous mistake. Mistakes, errors, misapprehensions, misunderstandings, and misconceptions presuppose a standard of correctness. Lets just say that originally dialectic meant logical dialogue and today, thanks to academic writers, it means the Hegelian three–step. Who cares?Lestrade 22:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
 * You obviously do. Hyacinth 22:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not any more.Lestrade 22:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
 * What kind of logical dialogue could there be, apart from the Fichtean three-step?
 * Modern news. But if you mean productive logical dialogue... well, there's always simple refutation where the original thesis was simply wrong. (Being on the winning side of such exchanges was mostly what the Greeks were going for. Socrates doesn't emend his own views much: the other side is just a foil for common mistakes and/or to make the preferred side look better.) Dialectic is the interesting productive logical dialogue, but not the only form. — Llywelyn II   23:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This kind of triad is also expressed in the Bible interpretation method of Pierre Abelard. The terms thesis, antithesis, synthesis seems to be modern however. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dialectic and dialectic
Being mainly German I took a look on the german article first, but they made the same mistake as it here is being made. I added that it was Zeno who invented dialectic in the introduction in opposition to the idea that it was Heraclitus, because in antique thinking Heraclitus had nothing to do with dialectic what so ever. There is a big difference between what you could call dialectic as method and dialectic as principle, the first being represented by Zeno and Plato (and others), the second by Heraclitus and Hegel (and obviously, some others). I'll go swimming now and reveal the big truth later. Thomas Arnold —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * back from swimming. For Plato a dialektikos is a person, who grabs the logos of the essence of things (ton logon hekastou tes ousias, rep. 534) - that roughly means he grabs the part of a thing that can be put to words and be reasoned about - and also one who can "question and answer" (krat. 390). Dialectic is episteme and methodos, it's analysis of ideas (so explained in the Sophistes). If you translate the word, you'll find it rather strange that nature and world and everything should follow a principle of dialectic, because that'd mean the world would follow a principle of "talking it through" or "thinking something in all directions". A notion or meaning of a word might be divided into two opposite elements - as "human" into "male" and "female" - or it might be put together under a higher notion with its opposite - "girl" and opposite "boy" under "child" or whatever else you want - thus creating the triad thesis antithesis synthesis. So, Hegel: principle, Plato: method. T. A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)
 * Dialectic is a discussion between two or more people. Dialectic consists of statements and questions that elicit responses. Rhetoric is a speech by one person. Rhetoric consists of statements without responses. It's that simple. Dialectic = dialogue. Rhetoric = monologue. Contrary to what the Hegelians say, there is nothing arcane here.Lestrade (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Please exclude my middling, err, meddling, as my heart and mind dialectically advance. --Dialectic (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Dialectic employs obscure, meaningless language. This may be the result of exposure to Hegelian literature. Middling means medium or moderate. The heart is an organ that pumps blood. The mind is a postulated entity that supposedly resides in the brain and performs mental activity. Dialectic is discussion, debate, dialogue, or argument. Advancement is a spatial direction that depends on a subjective point of view. Please exclude my middling, err, meddling, as my heart and mind dialectically advance is therefore a senseless request which communicates no meaning.Lestrade (talk) 13:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade
 * Thank you for your opinion Lestrade, but we're actually discussing what others, f.ex. Plato, says about dialectic, in order to make the article more precise. We cannot cite the talk page when updating the article. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That has not been the meaning of "dialectic" for the entirety of the English language. User:Dialectic may be very unhelpful in her phrasing but (a) this article is not in Attic Greek, (b) the Hegelian term is not a simple "conversation", and (c) it was an (unfunny) joke, not a senseless request. —  Llywelyn II   00:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How did you disagree with him? You just went from Method:Plato::Principle:Hegel to Principle:Hegel::Method:Plato. — Llywelyn II   00:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The criticism section concerning Popper should clarify more of Popper's response
Right now the criticism section basically says, "Popper says this is irresponsible hogwash GODWINNED the world ", but doesn't do a good job of explaining what Popper would replace the dialect with. I don't think this does this article, Hegel, or Popper any justice.

I suspect many of us grew up being taught both the Hegelian Dialectic as well as the Scientific Method and the two seem largely very compatible and not as opposed as this section would leave me to believe.

I would appreciate learning more of Popper's specific complaints and any responses to those complaints. 75.208.25.102 (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat baffling to me why people attack Hegel on specifics when it is quite apparent to me that his intent was mainly to produce a logical dialectic which others could use to further complex social thought. I personally think it is because the Cognitive Dissonance inherent in Hegelian Dialectic makes people very uncomfortable.  They would rather say that Nietzsche hated Hegel instead of focusing on the fact that Nietzsche often times used abstracted dissonances to create his own ideas.  People get scared around powerful tools. MicrocreditSA (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Given that he considered himself the summation of human history, no, it wasn't just a tool for others to advance beyond him. — Llywelyn II   00:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Article too long and confusing
I believe that this article should be more concise and clear. Particularly, the sections on Hegelian and Marxist dialectics are too long, considering that there are specific articles dealing with them. I might add the cleanup-rewrite rewrite template (I cannot myself restructure the entire article), unless perhaps whoever is more involved with the article can address this issue. Gabsvillalobos (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree, but I think its the nature of the beast that it should be so long and wandering. Ceoil (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that Plato, in Republic, explain [ the dialectic process ]. It goes down to the [ forms ] & from them, up to the conclusion. Better see Plato's own words. It's NOT, [ at least in this case ] an argument, it's an [ involution / reflexion ].--173.220.180.218 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several dialectical processes. He wasn't complaining about the treatment of the Platonic version. — Llywelyn II   00:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism
How can Russell's legendary delivery of smack—"the worse your logic…"—to Hegel not be in this article?

Also the insight of Landauer—"the dialectical manure of the Marxists"—must be inserted into the text. 86.168.142.77 (talk) 22:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 86...; Apparently you're not inclined to explain what, if any, substance Mr. Russell's or Mr. Landauer's venting would add to the article. Haters will hate. --lifeform (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe he was arguing from although this is such a rarified topic that I'm not sure how generally notable such "smack" actually is. Any philosophy profs want to weigh in?


 * edit: Having looked at the "smack" in greater detail, it's not included because it's off-topic. Russell was discussing Hegel's conception of identity and definition, not his dialectic. — Llywelyn II   00:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Rothenfelde modern dialectics
I was reading through the article and came to this section. As it stands, it is awkward and doesn't add anything meaningful; it reads as someone's research notes. I've moved it here so someone can work on it and add it later if necessary.  freshacconci  talk talk  03:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Like the Schopenhauer three-step, I understand your resistance, and celebrate it. However, in the spirit of a consistent developmental progression, let the additional framework stand on the page, and be shaped proportionally by a democratic Wiki process. Thanks. --Dialectic (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, this sort of development should be done off the main page. It has nothing to do with being democratic. At the end of the day we are creating an encyclopedia that needs to be useful and accessible. This section of text is neither.  freshacconci  talk talk  13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's kind of democratic. We agree that we don't want things like this in our articles. For that matter, there's not much purpose in cluttering the talk page, either. Commented out below. — Llywelyn II   00:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Middle ages
In the article on Aquinas' Summa Theologica, there is a section Summa_Theologica that describes dialectic in the Middle Ages. But it is described (documented) no place else that I can find. Should this be a separate article? Or at least in this article, where it appears to be skipped? Seems to me that it should be separate so it can be linked to by other editors trying to explain how questions were argued (resolved) back then. Student7 (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Medieval dialectic should be addressed as a section here and then forked into its own article once there's enough material to justify that. — Llywelyn II   00:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Self-destructive
Fichtean/Hegelian Dialectic contains within itself the seed of its own destruction. If everything evolves out of its opposite and becomes absorbed into some other thing, then dialectic itself should turn into its opposite and become lost in some further combination. In this way, it should mercifully disappear from existence.Lestrade (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * WP:TPG: Stay on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.
 * Yes, agreed verily! "Debunking" dialectic have no place here. But User:Kudpung who added the comment in 00:24, 11 May 2010 could at least have added a to date the notice post (please?). Rursus dixit. ( m bork3  !) 07:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointing out the logical inconsistency of (some iterations of) the concept certainly has business being here and should be mentioned in the article if reliable sources can be found. — Llywelyn II   00:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Completely puzzled
If you don't know what the word dialectic exactly means, like me, reading the article from top to bottom doesn't do very much to help understanding it. The article states in the first paragraph that "changes move in spirals, not circles" without any explanation whatsoever. Another "basic concept" is that "everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides", which is fortunately explained in detail by the word "contradictions" in brackets. Maybe some dialectician could explain what the word really means, and may be even elaborate on the "three (or four)" basic concepts? Joepnl (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Dialectic means the same difference as every other persistent spacetime object. It's an axiom that begs for opposing differentiation in time and space (Ф). The reference in the article that differentiates a circle from any other differentiation, simply illustrates scalar progressions that make up reality. So a singularity, causes a linear circle (2D), causes a 3D spiral, to what our current best math is in 11-dimension String Theory, M-Theory. A sustainable model, such as Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, applies such progressions in its classic dialectical opposition of basic, essential science, to aesthetic variations of religion (hopefully you'll start to get the gist of necessary oppositional ranges by seeing more scientific extrapolations at the bottom of the Hierarchy, as opposed to the more free, aesthetic variables at the top of the progression). Now given this polarized differentiation from religion to science, one might argue there's more scientific dialectics on this discussion page, than there is in the article. I'm hoping to inspire that unbalance be sequentially corrected, from posts such as this. Then, eloquence shall be best served by an eventual article consequence. Thanks for your contribution. --Dialectic (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, too. Even more puzzled now :) Really, this article sucks at explaining the very title of it and adding Maslow, singularities, String Theory or any other theory (you must have forgotten Gaia hypothesis, Chaos theory or Chariots of the Gods?) doesn't help.. Joepnl (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So you have a limited understanding of scalar differential equations, and the simple axiom that dialectics (at its root) is. But hey, don't let my "theory" sustain your law! ;-) --Dialectic (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, what is the simple axiom at the root of dialectics and why is it not in the article? It would be extremely helpful to grasp the very idea. Joepnl (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dialectic, you really need to learn how to write to an audience. Describing a technique of forming arguments in terms of angular momentum, M-theory and advanced psychology really is gobbledegook of the utmost extreme. Eloquence ≠ Logorrhoea. OrangeDog  (τ • ε) 11:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What a load of totally  incomprehensible jargon  in answer to User:Joepn's dilemma. Wikipedia pages often go far beyond the scope of encyclopedic articles required  by subjec-innocent visitors looking for a concise,  reasonably  short explanation on  something they  are looking  up. This is mainly  due to  the lack  of control on  one hand, and the enthusiasm of some Wikipedia  editors to  show off their knowledge on  the other. Such is the case with  our article on  Dialectic. Dialectic  does not  really  mean different  things to  different  people, but  it  does have slightly  different  meanings (all  within  the philosophy of discussion) depending  on the context  of its use. I  agree that  the Wikipedia fails to  give a clear answer here for laypersons,  and the answers given on this talk page are deliberately  contrived to confuse the non-doctorates amongst  us. The  Wikipeada article of course  seriously  needs pruning  and cleaning up to  make it  more intelligible for us mere mortals, (see for example the britannica on  dialectic) but it  might  be hard to achieve this without polemic, and, yes, dialectic! --Kudpung (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dialectic is simply one person speaking and another person responding, as in an argument or discussion. This is in contrast to rhetoric, which is merely one person speaking and no other person responding, as in oratory. That is why a speaker is said to be asking a rhetorical question when asking a question that does not require an answer from another person. Lestrade (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Lestrade
 * That is where dialectic came from, not what it is. In any case, Joepnl, you saw that this article attracts writers like User:Dialectic who are more interested in sounding erudite than in being intelligent and helpful but do you think the present form of the article is still unhelpful and needs work? — Llywelyn II   00:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)