Dialectical, as in the Socratic dialogues, insofar as reasoned arguments tend towards a truth? Yes, as long as philosophy is discussed among rational folks. Philosophy isn’t dialectical at all, if a single rational folk is just trying to figure stuff out for himself. — Mww

I'm not quite sure. It seems to me that philosophy is a dialectic act. One opposes a different opinion through dialogue.

One opposes a different opinion through dialogue. — Wallows

True. That is dialectic conversation. Reasoned argument between opposing positions, or as you say, philosophy progresses in a dialectical manner. Nonetheless, a guy can.....and I’m of the mind that everybody does......have his own personal philosophy he only discusses with himself, or from which he views the world in general, in which case it is not a dialectic conversation. You don’t have to do philosophy in public.

It takes time to communicate, so time exists independent of minds, therefore transcendental idealism is wrong. If minds are seperate, that implies that space exists independent of minds (what is it that seperates minds?), therefore transcendental idealism is wrong.

Idealism of any form inexorably leads to solipsism (either that or idealism refutes itself by becoming some form of realism). And if solipsism, then the world is exhausted by your experience of it, therefore solipsism (and idealism) is a form of direct realism. I already went over this but it was ignored or missed.

Coming to think philosophically at all can be understood to be a dialectical process. Hegel's notion of dialectic is roughly that every idea presupposes its possible negation, and that they are united in a sublation which in turn presupposes its own negation, and so on.

Coming to think philosophically at all can be understood to be a dialectical process. — Janus

Agreed, this kind of dialectic would be an internal process of understanding. But still, not a conversation, more like a private theater.

Why not a conversation with oneself; an "internal dialogue"?

Why not a conversation with oneself; an "internal dialogue"? — Janus

In the event of a conflict, which member of the dialogue would be the decision maker?

I suppose, though, an internal dialogue is no worse for intelligibility that the classic dichotomy of “I” the thinking subject vs the “I” that is the object to which thoughts belong.

Humans. The only known animals that intentionally confuse themselves.

In the event of a conflict, which member of the dialogue would be the decision maker? — Mww

I would put it in terms of 'which voice is listened to?', and I'd say that it would hopefully be the most rational one.

it would hopefully be the most rational one. — Janus

Which begs a MAJOR question......how is most rational decided?

Really, when the lights go out, when the outside noise has gone away.....are there really two (more than one) of you up there, between your ears?

You know, I can easily bring up a representation of any person I choose, have a discussion with him, even picture him is the attire and accoutrements of his day. But I have never ever had the occassion of us communicating simultaneously.

Really, when the lights go out, when the outside noise has gone away.....are there really two (more than one) of you up there, between your ears? — Mww

I haven't said there are "more than two of me", though. When I pit ideas against each other in my own thoughts that takes the form of a conversation between different voices. The voices are not mine specifically (they are the voices of the culture), although the thoughts are.

that takes the form of a conversation between different voices. — Janus

OK, if that’s how it seems to you.

I know it seems like quibbling, but you started by saying “internal dialogue” which to me means at least two conversants, otherwise it would be an internal monologue. I don’t have an issue with a thinking subject pitting itself against a variety of ideas, but it really doesn’t suit me to permit ideas to take the form of cultural voices. There are ideas which are bereft of any cultural bias, after all.

There are ideas which are bereft of any cultural bias, after all. — Mww

Perhaps, but all ideas have a cultural origin. To have ideas you need languages and languages are culturally evolved.

For sure what I call an internal dialogue--- "talking to yourself"--- could instead be called an internal monologue. But since you are talking to yourself and listening to yourself, and then responding to yourself, it seems better to me to think of it as being a dialogue.

Similarly with self-awareness, there is the self you are aware of and the self who is aware. i think all thought has an inherently binary and 'subject-object' nature. It doesn't follow from that that reality is dualistic; more likely it just appears that way to the binary mind.

i think all thought has an inherently binary and 'subject-object' nature. — Janus

I can dig it!! Although, if one holds with the representational system of human cognition, he is met with a logical dilemma, insofar as the subject that thinks (half your binary nature) is at the same time the object to which the thoughts belong (the other half).

Agreed, reality isn’t dualistic, in and of itself. It just appears that way from the perfectly obvious reason that there are no basketballs in my head but I’d know a basketball if I saw one.

A few quotes from Charles Sanders Peirce seem relevant here.

• "Just as we say that a body is in motion, and not that motion is in a body, we ought to say that we are in thought, and not that thoughts are in us."
• "Thinking always proceeds in the form of a dialogue--a dialogue between different phases of the ego."
• "It is not merely a fact of human Psychology, but a necessity of Logic, that every logical evolution of thought should be dialogic."
• "All thinking is dialogic in form. Your self of one instant appeals to your deeper self for his assent."
• "Even in solitary meditation every judgment is an effort to press home, upon the self of the immediate future and of the general future, some truth. It is a genuine assertion, just as the vernacular phrase represents it; and solitary dialectic is still of the nature of dialogue."

Those are some very interesting quotes; thanks.

A few quotes — aletheist

Yes, interesting. Thanks.