Dialectics

I've been trying to get my head around dialectics in order to deliver you (my reader) with a clear, amusing and educational five minutes diversionary reading, but I fear that this subject is one of those subjects that won't jump into my brain properly; every time I think I have squeezed some sort of understanding between my ears, another bit of understanding pings away like a grasshopper whose just been tickled on the behind by a curious finger. Retaining this information feels a bit like attempting to carry a whole shopping-load in from the car in one go: fingers go numb from strangulation by plastic bag straps; the red wine smashes to the ground and you just know that the eggs have failed to make the journey intact. That kind of chaos went on in my brain during every Science lesson at school and whilst in the past I would have walked from the battle bloodied and beaten, this time I will fly the flag of victory above my brain and leave you confuzzled and no less knowledgeable than you were when you started reading my ramblings.

Okay, dialectics is a type of argument where you attempt to arrive at the truth by the exchange of logical yet opposing arguments. It's been developed over time by the likes of Plato, who didn't like the sophists who took pride in their ability to make nonsense sound true, Georg Hegel, a 19th century German philosopher, and the big-bearded Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who were also German philosophers, but they disagreed with Hegel on a number of points.

There are apparently four main rules of dialectics, but one of them is controversial and not accepted by all dialecticians.

Rule One: Everything is made up of opposites - Objects need opposing forces to hold them in place apparently. The earth and the sun attempt to escape each other's company, but gravity holds them in place, thus the opposing force of gravity makes the earth-sun combo work for us. Dialectics says that this works for things like hunger as this desire leads us to eat stuff. I guess this works for things like love and hate too. Loving someone combines itself with the opposite emotion of hate in that you intensely hate harm that could come to the loved one. This in argumentative terms means that understanding the opposing argument to the one you are espousing needs to be understood and debated before you can arrive at genuine understanding. This demands a willingness and openness to listen to others.

Rule Two: Gradual change leads to turning points - This is the idea that lots of quantitative changes will end up in a qualitative change. This idea fits with politics in that lots of rule changes for the better will end with quality of life being improved in a qualitative way. This can be demonstrated in simpler ways: after you study and think for a while, you get to a point of understanding.

Rule Three: Change moves in spirals, not circles - Dialectics reckons that change doesn't move round and round in circles, but rather in spirals with some degree of change coming about after every rotation (I'm starting to confuse myself). I guess every day feels quite similar, especially when you're going to school, but after each rotation the student returns slightly different. Politics feels like it keeps going round in circles with the Labour Party passing the baton onto the Conservative Party and repeating the process a few years later, but change has occurred for better or worse on each rotation.

The Controversial Rule Four: Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time - I don't quite know how this affects arguments, but it seems to me that a faith in God questions this rule, as God would not need to operate within time's constraints although I guess he might choose to do so.

In terms of coming to definitive truth in dialectical terms when in debate then, we should seek to understand the opposing opinion to our own, recognise that changes in our thinking and decisions result in changes in who we are and recognise that repetition isn't always repetition - there will always be some subtle difference.

I'm sure my understanding is flawed and I guess the one thing that seems positive about this is that it encourages people who disagree to seek understanding of each other's viewpoints. Too often unnecessary tension is created by disagreement, no more so than between people who hold different faiths. I'm a Christian and believe God exists, but I make a mistake if I don't seek to understand why and how people have come to different conclusions to the one I have, and from my very simple understanding, dialectics seems to create this safe place for debate.