Greatest work of philosophy ever. I completely disagree with it.

That is a fair challenge after you give some kind of reading of Hegel that could serve as a point of departure. So far, there is no way of knowing what you think Hegel said.

Whatever the dialectic is, it is not logic in the modern sense. — Banno

In his 1958 book, Physics & Philosophy, Werner Heisenberg tried to explicate -- for a general audience -- his key concept of "Quantum Uncertainty". So he contrasted the fractional statistical nature of quantum superposition with the integral factual assumptions of Aristotelian Logic. Apparently, he coined the term "Quantum Logic"*1, but today we might substitute the term "Fuzzy Logic"*2. Early quantum physicists were grappling with the ambiguous reality of super-posed particles that are not-yet particular, but holistic, as-if merely waves in a universal fluid medium*3.

Since, in dual-slit experiments, sub-atomic particles acted-as-if continuous & undefined -- until the moment of measurement -- the statistical status of their pre-measurement existence seemed too vague to be real --- for those accustomed to yes/no classical Logic. So, Heisenberg proposed a new way of thinking about statistical "expectations", which he called "Uncertainty" or "Undecided". Hence, describing particles in their statistical-state, he said "one might call it an objective tendency or possibility, a 'potentia'*4 in the sense of Aristotelian philosophy".

In the math of Schrodinger's equation, that not-yet-real state exists as a fraction of the whole system of Potential + Actual physics. Hence, the necessity to include an "imaginary" number*5 in the equation. Like "Zero", we can imagine the concept of a fractional object, but we can't measure it in situ. So, our statistical expectations are based on an internal dialectic of Possible / Actual = Probable or Potential --- a state we can imagine mathematically, but can't measure physically. In the Dialectic, Thesis & Antithesis are fractional (possible) facts (opinions), and only become whole & real upon Synthesis into a complete universal system (truth).

Ironically, Quantum Logic is a Complementary concept, as illustrated in the Yin-Yang symbol. Which may explain why the pioneers of Quantum Physics began to use some of the Holistic language of Eastern philosophies. Which you could call the dialectic logic of post-modern post-classical Quantum Physics. Maybe that East-West Dialectic didn't "break the world", but merely undermined the certainty of Classical worldviews. ☯

*1. Quantum Logic :
"quantum logic" describes uncertainties of the real world (to be more precise, the uncertainty of our best theory of the world), while "fuzzy logic" described the uncertainty of our reasoning. https://scholarworks.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&context=cs_techrep

*2. Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth value of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 ___Wiki
Note -- those numbers between 1 (something) and 0 (nothing) represent fractions of whole reality : fractional facts.

*3. Space as Aether :
The story of how early relativity experiments proved the aether doesn't exist isn't really true. What they showed was that the aether isn't needed to explain the results. By the 1970s it was demonstrated that if an aether exists it must be completely undetectable by relativity experiments
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2018/04/06/the-tale-of-a-1986-experiment-that-proved-einstein-wrong/?sh=517781273ed3
Note -- Aether (fluid space) is like Dark Matter (non-physical matter), undetectable or uncertain, but useful as a hypothetical model of cosmic physics.

*4. Potential / Actual :
Aristotle insists later on that while potentia can be characterized by its relation to actus, actus in the sense of an actuality is a undefinable
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/actus%20and%20potentia.pdf
Note -- Actual is what we call "Real", while Potential is statistically (ideally) Possible, but not physically Real.

*5. Imaginary number :
To understand fractals, you need to understand complex numbers. Complex numbers are a way to put two coordinates (x,y) into one number with two parts. One is a real number, which is any regular number like 3, 8.5, or 12/45. The other is an imaginary number, which is defined as the square root of a negative number,
Note -- Fractals are images illustrating the strange (infinite ; undefined) properties of fragmented (fractional ; incomplete) reality. Maybe the undefined margins of reality are the realm of not-yet-real particles?

THE BLACK AREAS OF A FRACTAL ARE INFINITE, HENCE UNDEFINED

:lol:

I wonder how many have heard of, let alone read, this "book that broke the world." Or Hegel, for that matter. The pretensions of philosophy...

It's largely intellectuals that change history. Hegel influenced a lot of people

People worry they are not properly understanding Hegel and so give up reading him. But they should instead be confident that your interpretation of Hegel is one out if many valid interpretations all of which were intended in some way by Hegel when he wrote them.

It's largely intellectuals that change history. — Gregory

I think that's an exaggeration. Intellectuals largely influence other intellectuals, who then write history in which their fellow intellectuals loom large.

:up: :

I didn't notice this until now.

I don't see how it addresses the point of mine that you quote:

Whatever the dialectic is, it is not logic in the modern sense. — Banno

Here is a link to an account of logic: The Open Logic Text complete build (Large file). it's pretty much a summation of the core ideas of Logic as presently understood.

Neither Hegel nor Dialectic are mentioned.

“Hegel provides the most extensive, general account of his dialectical method in Part I of his Encyclopaedia of
Philosophical Sciences, which is often called the Encyclopaedia Logic [EL]. The form or presentation of logic, he says, has three sides or moments (EL §79). These sides are not parts of logic, but, rather, ... — Joshs

Here direct quotations:

"VI. Logic Defined & Divided

§ 79

In point of form Logical doctrine has three sides: [a] the Abstract side, or that of understanding; [ b] the Dialectical, or that of negative reason; [c] the Speculative, or that of positive reason.

These three sides do not make three parts of logic, but are stages or ‘moments’ in every logical entity, that is, of every notion and truth whatever. They may all be put under the first stage, that of understanding, and so kept isolated from each other; but this would give an inadequate conception of them. The statement of the dividing lines and the characteristic aspects of logic is at this point no more than historical and anticipatory.

§ 80

[a] Thought, as Understanding, sticks to fixity of characters and their distinctness from one
another: every such limited abstract it treats as having a subsistence and being of its own.
...

§ 81

[b) In the Dialectical stage these finite characterizations or formulae supersede themselves, and pass into their opposites.

(1) But when the Dialectical principle is employed by the understanding separately and independently — especially as seen in its application to philosophical theories — Dialectic becomes Skepticism; in which the result that ensues from its action is presented as a mere negation.
...

§ 82

[c] The Speculative stage, or stage of Positive Reason, apprehends the unity of terms (propositions) in their opposition - the affirmative, which is involved in their disintegration and in their transition.
...
(1) The result of Dialectic is positive, because it has a definite content, or because its result is not empty and abstract nothing but the negation of certain specific propositions which are contained in the result - for the very reason that it is a resultant and not an immediate nothing.

(2) It follows from this that the ‘reasonable’ result, though it be only a thought and abstract, is still a concrete, being not a plain formal unity, but a unity of distinct propositions. Bare abstractions or formal thoughts are therefore no business of philosophy, which has to deal only with concrete thoughts.

(3) The logic of mere Understanding is involved in Speculative logic, and can at will be elicited from it, by the simple process of omitting the dialectical and ‘reasonable’ element. When that is done, it becomes what the common logic is, a descriptive collection of sundry thought-forms and rules which, finite though they are, are taken to be something infinite."

“Fichte 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... — Dermot Griffin

Interesting note from Kant about "trichotomies":

"That my divisions* in pure philosophy almost always turn out tripartite has aroused suspicion. Yet that is in the nature of the case. If a division is to be made a priori, then it will be either analytic or synthetic. If it is analytic, then it is governed by the principle of contradiction and hence is always bipartite (quodlibet ens est aut A aut non A). If it is synthetic, but is to be made on the basis of a priori concepts (rather than, as in mathematics, on the basis of the intuition corresponding a priori to the concept), then we must have what is required for a synthetic unity in general, namely, (1) a condition. (2) something conditioned, (3) the concept that arises from the union of the conditioned with its condition; hence the division must of necessity be a trichotomy."

* Kant refers to his various "tables" consisting in three concepts e.g. table of categories


https://monoskop.org/images/7/77/Kant_Immanuel_Critique_of_Judgment_1987.pdf

↪Gnomon
I didn't notice this until now.
I don't see how it addresses the point of mine that you quote:
Whatever the dialectic is, it is not logic in the modern sense. — Banno
Here is a link to an account of logic: The Open Logic Text complete build (Large file). it's pretty much a summation of the core ideas of Logic as presently understood.
Neither Hegel nor Dialectic are mentioned. — Banno

My post was intended to address your conditional assertion that The Dialectic is not logical*1. Says who? As presently understood, by whom?

Since you didn't define "modern logic", or specify which canon of modern logic you considered authoritative, I felt free to introduce some alternative views, that I consider pertinent to the OP. I quoted two modern (20th & 21st century) definitions of Logic*1 that go beyond the ancient categorical Logic of Aristotle, extending its scope to include Quantum & Information sciences.

The OP may be interpreted to imply that the Linear Logic*2 of Classical science & history was "broken" (or bent) by the antitheticall discovery of Non-linear Logic at the foundations of Physics. So IMHO, a 21st century synthesis of philosophy & science should make allowance for the inherent uncertainties & ambiguities of human understanding, while still pursuing practical & logical conclusions.

The Open Logic Project*3 seems to be mostly linguistic & mathematical, and ignores the practical & historical & evolutionary logic of Hegel and the physical Fuzzy Logic*4 of Quantum science. Which I think are pertinent to the OP topic. So, please pardon me, if I took liberties with your undefined quote. My response may not address your (ambiguous) intended point, so I inserted my own definitions into the gap.

BTW, please don't take my quotes to be arguing in favor of Marxism*5. Politics makes for strange philosophical bedfellows. Yes, I had an ax to grind, but it was philosophical, not political. :smile:


*1. "Dialectic, also called dialectics, originally a form of logical argumentation but now a philosophical concept of evolution applied to diverse fields including thought, nature, and history."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectic-logic

*2. "Linear logic is deeply ingrained in the Western mind set. There is one ‘right’ answer, and we need to find it. . . . This might have been true until quantum mechanics introduced an element of normative chaos into the natural sciences. Perhaps Western thinking must now learn to embrace opposed or parallel truths".
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-19093-8_16

*3. Note -- The Open Logic Project does include Many Valued Logic, which is one way to label Quantum Logic. But it misses the historical & scientific implications of those non-linear patterns of causation.

*4. "Dialectical logic is the system of laws of thought, developed within the Hegelian and Marxist traditions, which seeks to supplement or replace the laws of formal logic. The precise nature of the relation between dialectical and formal logic was hotly debated within the Soviet Union and China." ___Wikipedia

*5. "It is the “dialectics,” however, that is commonly found as the universal law in “quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, the law of evolution of living organisms, the law of evolution of societies” and even “in the law of development of thought.” Therefore, it may be regarded as “the logic of nature.” In view of this fact, quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and indeed every science can be understood only by the logic of dialectics. The confusion brought about on the interpretation of quantum mechanics had its main origin in the fact that physicists did not have the logic of dialectics."
https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakata/ch01.htm

some people look past the text’s attempt to analyze consciousness and the meaning of geist there are harsh criticisms that the book has inspired fascism, communism, and overall totalitarianism. I — Dermot Griffin

.

In reading the Phenomonolgy of Spirit, I understood his discussions of topical situations to be created as examples, to illustrate our tendency to want to think in dichotomies, and not a claim about the state of the world. I find this use of examples like Wittgenstein's--though not as self-aware, open to acknowledging his limitations, less humble--in Witt's investigation of our tendency to desire certainty. My understanding of the terms is that this focus is analytical (about us, our desire for simplicity) rather than continental (a comment on society, e.g., Arendt or Foucalt), but to discuss our concpts is to discuss the world, so maybe it's a matter of interest.

My post was intended to address your conditional assertion that The Dialectic is not logical* — Gnomon

But I've made no such claim.

I said Dialectic is not logic. That is quite different.

After Frege, logic came into it's own, developing rapidly in many and varied directions. That's the topic oft he book linked previously. Whatever Hegel is doing, it's not what is now called logic. As explained above I'd be more inclined to count it as rhetorical.

You are stretching a very long bow. I've set my case and am content.

I said Dialectic is not logic. That is quite different.

After Frege, logic came into it's own, developing rapidly in many and varied directions. That's the topic oft he book linked previously. Whatever Hegel is doing, it's not what is now called logic. As explained above I'd be more inclined to count it as rhetorical. — Banno

Deleuze referred to this way of thinking about logic as ‘the dogmatic image of thought’.

“Dialectic is the art of problems and questions, the combinatory or calculus of problems as such. However, dialectic loses its peculiar power when it remains content to trace problems from propositions: thus begins the history of the long perversion which places it under the power of the negative.” Deleuze, Difference and Repetition).

I agree with those philosophers who link post-Fregean notions of logic to metaphysical presuppositions which confuse as much as they enlighten.

We're "here" engaging in dialectics due only to applications of modern logic – the practical difference it seems between semantic play (i.e. "rhetoric") and syntactical transformation (e.g. constructing algorithms), respectively.

Read (skim) both Hegel's System of Logic and Frege's The Foundations of Arithmetic for a comparison.

I said Dialectic is not logic. That is quite different. — Banno

I assume that by "logic" you mean a canonical form of reasoning, as defined by your preferred authority. By "logical" I meant merely any formal process of inferring truth from premises. That is "quite different : Authoritarian vs Liberal. I apologize for implying that you dismissed Dialectic as illogical. :smile:

Logical : characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.

Rhetoric implies form, not content. There is no clear boundary to what pure logic is except that it deals with symbols

...this way of thinking — Joshs

What way of thinking? Making use of logic?

I assume that by "logic" you mean a canonical form of reasoning... — Gnomon

No, I mean an explicit form of reasoning.

Discussions around Hegel, as this one, are for me both obtuse and opaque. His fans don't agree amongst themselves what the supposed "calculus" is. Rather I see a desire for dialectic to take on the vestments of "a canonical form of reasoning", expressed rhetorically by disparaging formal logic.

Again, it is clear that whatever dialectic is, it is not part of the field of research called "logic". Perhaps it could be. But that will not be achieved by waving hands, pointing at "fuzzy logic" or chanting "quantum".

So if you want to be impressive, fill your rhetoric in with some sound reasoning.

Perhaps an application of dialectic might help: Analytic philosophy began as critique of Hegelianism. So, what did Hegelians learn from that critique? Apart, perhaps, from being overtly defensive.

Analytic philosophy began as critique of Hegelianism. So, what did Hegelians learn from that critique? Apart, perhaps, from being overtly defensive. — Banno

And it is being buried by its own progeny, who associate the beginning of its demise with the drawing realization that its adherents were not able to read Hegel, so simply ignored him and stuck with Kant or Hume. This is why Rorty, in questioning the value and legitimacy of formal
logic, referred to his camp as ‘we Hegelians’.

“Reading McDowell's daring and original book side-by-side with Brandom's helps one to grasp the present situation in anglophone philosophy of mind and language. One way of describing that situation is to say that whereas Sellars and Davidson use Kantian arguments to overcome the Humean dogmas retained by Russell and Ayer, Brandom and McDowell supplement Kantian arguments with Hegelian ones. Most anglophone philosophers still do not take Hegel seriously, but the rise of what Brandom and McDowell refer to as their "Pittsburgh School of neo-Hegelians" may force them to. For this school holds that analytic philosophy still must pass over from its Kantian to its Hegelian moment.”

Most anglophone philosophers still do not take Hegel seriously, — Joshs

Yep.

What did Hegelians learn from analytic philosophy? The comments here indicate that the ubiquitous sweeping generalisations remain fashionable in Hegelian circles.

I'll leave you to it. I don't see anything positive here.

"Metaphysics is the science that aspires to dispense with symbols" Henri Bergson, 1903

I assume that by "logic" you mean a canonical form of reasoning... — Gnomon
No, I mean an explicit form of reasoning. — Banno

I've never read Hegel, and I'm not a disciple of Marx, so I don't care what you think about their philosophy, which is usually characterized as a form Idealism. For the purposes of this thread, my interest is in the Dialectic dynamic as the logical process of competition, for weaning-out the unfit or untrue, which is more like brutal Realism . So, let's get real.

In the vector geometry of Physics, causal energy consists of both force-value and spatial direction. In Philosophical dialog, arguments have both truth-value (force) and ideological direction (e.g Idealism ; Realism ; Marxism). We make our dialectical arguments "explicit" by defining our terms. And if necessary, by numbering our premises & conclusions. And if challenged further, by abstracting the original thesis, the antithetical argument, and the logical conclusion in conventional symbols.

On this layman's forum though, we seldom get that explicit, and the format of argumentation typically strays from any officially-approved structure. However, you can't get much simpler than (a)Thesis > (b) Antithesis > (c) Synthesis, or (a) Premise > (b) Counter-premise > (c) Mutual Agreement. Is that too Ideal for you?

In Evolution, random mutation produces multiple novel combinations that are selected by the the life-or-death-dialog of striving to survive. The physical criteria for bare survival typically mean that the bigger, stronger, or faster get to reproduce. But the philosophical criteria for progress is to be smarter, or in some way more suitable, for whatever niche is available. Homo Sapiens didn't get to its dominant position by imposing its physical advantages, but by using its philosophical prowess.

In Quantum physics, Heisenberg, among others, compared the non-classical philosophical dilemmas & physical paradoxes as the result of a dialectic process of Potential becoming Actual. Of course, any reference to "dialectic" will be popular with Marxists, but I'm talking about physicists. And Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis is not inherently ideological, but essentially mathematical & physical (billiard balls). The concept can be expressed symbolically as an interaction between vectors with direction & value, as illustrated below. Is that explicit enough for you? :smile:

PS__I've enjoyed this dialectic dialog, but I don't expect to reach a mutual conclusion. Historically, in a less-than-ideal world, the Synthesis stage of a Dialectic process is usually immediately challenged by a new or mutated Antithesis. Philosophy never ends.

Dialectic :
also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

The Quantum Dialectic :
The thesis will end with a conclusion of the quantum paradox by juxtaposing anti-materialist Martin Heidegger with quantum founder Werner Heisenberg. Our conclusion will be primarily a discussion of how we understand the world, and specifically how our understanding of the world creates potential for truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

Formal Dialectical Approaches :
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-90-481-9473-5_6


DIALECTICS OF BILLIARDS

:up: :up:

I've never read Hegel ... — Gnomon

Proud D-K savant, of course you haven't.