Dialectics and the Refusal to Let Go (or How I Learned to Hate Hegel and Socrates)
On nearly every subject, we have ideas and opinions. We believe in things, we like things and we accept concepts as facts. Furthermore, we are constantly met with ideas and opinions that vary from ours. How do we cope with contradiction? Well, there seem to be a few methods.
Socrates had a method. Say you have an idea like “John is a nice guy”, but you are also able believe that everything that your friend, Max, says is truth. Say Max says, “John is an asshole”. What to do? Well, Socrates would say that if Max speaks truth, than John cannot be a nice guy. This is pretty simple and pretty logical. If you have a hypothesis and something comes about that is in contradiction, the hypothesis is false. Game over.
Of course, human beings are not so logical and much more practical. Along came Hegel with a different method (well, in truth it wasn’t really Hegel, but everything is attributed to him anyway). Hegel claimed there is a thesis, which is supposed truth. An antithesis then comes about which contradicts it. From the thesis and antithesis comes a synthesis, which is closer to the real truth and which becomes the new thesis. Say you believe “John is a nice guy”, the thesis. Max who speaks truth claims, “John is an asshole”, the antithesis. A synthesis might form of “John is a nice guy, but Max perceives him as an asshole”, “John is an asshole, but I perceive him as a nice guy” or “John is somewhat of a nice guy”.
Now, there is a problem with both methods. For being truth-finders, they do a pretty shitty job. Say a person believes the Bible is absolute truth and along comes Darwin with a thesis about natural selection. With the Socratic method, they reject Darwin outright. With the Hegel’s dialectic, they synthesize the thoughts into intelligent design. Sure, with Hegel, one is closer to the truth, but if one started with Darwin and was presented the Bible, one would end up further from the truth. Basically, both Socrates and Hegel can be used to find the truth, but can just as easily fail.
What neither of system tests is the validity of assumptions. Read any of Socrates’ dialogues and you can easily pin point where his opponents go wrong. They all end up agreeing to bad assumptions and then get trapped and end up conceding to ridiculous contradictions. Why would anyone agree that “good” and “evil” are inherently separate? Why would anyone believe that Max speaks truth? Why would anyone believe the Bible is the absolute authority?
Hegel is even worse in that he is not even logical. Antitheses, which are infinite in number, are chosen and, therefore, subjective. This makes the new synthesis subjective and rhetorical. I can choose the antithesis of “clouds are red”. The synthesis, no matter what it is, will involve the putrefication of this ridiculous idea.
Most practical people do not live entirely by the Socrates and Hegel. Most people let things go. Eventually, enough evidence appears that they go back and change assumptions. Eventually, enough fossils are found in the ground to show that Darwin is correct and the Bible is not. Eventually, Max says some things that are not true. Eventually, Bush does enough insane shit to lose support.
It usually takes an overwhelming amount of evidence to overturn an assumption. I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing. How many times must someone wrong one before they are not assumed to be a friend? How many political beliefs must one have to switch one’s party? Who knows? I know my grandfather will never switch any of his assumption until he dies. He’s one-hundred percent Socrates.
But, as they say, when you “assume”, you make a reasonable conjecture based on given facts.
Socrates had a method. Say you have an idea like “John is a nice guy”, but you are also able believe that everything that your friend, Max, says is truth. Say Max says, “John is an asshole”. What to do? Well, Socrates would say that if Max speaks truth, than John cannot be a nice guy. This is pretty simple and pretty logical. If you have a hypothesis and something comes about that is in contradiction, the hypothesis is false. Game over.
Of course, human beings are not so logical and much more practical. Along came Hegel with a different method (well, in truth it wasn’t really Hegel, but everything is attributed to him anyway). Hegel claimed there is a thesis, which is supposed truth. An antithesis then comes about which contradicts it. From the thesis and antithesis comes a synthesis, which is closer to the real truth and which becomes the new thesis. Say you believe “John is a nice guy”, the thesis. Max who speaks truth claims, “John is an asshole”, the antithesis. A synthesis might form of “John is a nice guy, but Max perceives him as an asshole”, “John is an asshole, but I perceive him as a nice guy” or “John is somewhat of a nice guy”.
Now, there is a problem with both methods. For being truth-finders, they do a pretty shitty job. Say a person believes the Bible is absolute truth and along comes Darwin with a thesis about natural selection. With the Socratic method, they reject Darwin outright. With the Hegel’s dialectic, they synthesize the thoughts into intelligent design. Sure, with Hegel, one is closer to the truth, but if one started with Darwin and was presented the Bible, one would end up further from the truth. Basically, both Socrates and Hegel can be used to find the truth, but can just as easily fail.
What neither of system tests is the validity of assumptions. Read any of Socrates’ dialogues and you can easily pin point where his opponents go wrong. They all end up agreeing to bad assumptions and then get trapped and end up conceding to ridiculous contradictions. Why would anyone agree that “good” and “evil” are inherently separate? Why would anyone believe that Max speaks truth? Why would anyone believe the Bible is the absolute authority?
Hegel is even worse in that he is not even logical. Antitheses, which are infinite in number, are chosen and, therefore, subjective. This makes the new synthesis subjective and rhetorical. I can choose the antithesis of “clouds are red”. The synthesis, no matter what it is, will involve the putrefication of this ridiculous idea.
Most practical people do not live entirely by the Socrates and Hegel. Most people let things go. Eventually, enough evidence appears that they go back and change assumptions. Eventually, enough fossils are found in the ground to show that Darwin is correct and the Bible is not. Eventually, Max says some things that are not true. Eventually, Bush does enough insane shit to lose support.
It usually takes an overwhelming amount of evidence to overturn an assumption. I am not sure if this is a good or bad thing. How many times must someone wrong one before they are not assumed to be a friend? How many political beliefs must one have to switch one’s party? Who knows? I know my grandfather will never switch any of his assumption until he dies. He’s one-hundred percent Socrates.
But, as they say, when you “assume”, you make a reasonable conjecture based on given facts.
posted by American Dilettante at
4:32 PM
2 Comments:
Thesis: clouds are white, or gray, or black.
Antithesis: The Dilettante says clouds are red.
Synthesis: I hear that Socrates just ripped The Dilettante a new asshole over his crazy cloud rants. Then they watched the sunset together, noted that the clouds looked red, and started making out.
By
mizerock, at 8:58 AM
Socrates is so not my type!
I would be like "You annoy me, you giant prick!",
and he would be like "Is it not true that a prick is something that gives? Does it not push out urine and semen and fuck other things?"
"Why certainly"
"Annoyance, though, is it not a taker of things? Do not annoying people take peace from the minds of those around them?"
"Yes, Socrates,"
"Than a prick cannot be annoying as it is a giver and not a taker,"
"By the dog!"
By
American Dilettante, at 10:21 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home