You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
1

[–] abwydyn 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If OP is trying to tie Hegel's dialectic to Marx et al., a) Marx inverted the dialectic, and b) the Left doesn't use dialectical but eristical argumentation, which is aimed act victory rather than truth. R. G. Collingwood writes pretty clearly on this.

All logic is concerned with discussions; but Plato distinguished two kinds of discussions, 'eristical' and 'dialectical' (Meno, 75 c-d).

What Plato calls an eristic discussion is one in which each party tries to prove that he was right and the other wrong.

In a dialectical discussion, you aim at showing that your own view is one with which your opponent really agrees, even if at one time he denied it; or conversely, that is was yourself and not your opponent who began by denying a view with which you really agree.

The essence of dialectical discussion is to discuss in the hope of finding that both parties to the discussion are right, and that this discovery puts and end to the debate. Where they 'agree to differ', as the saying is, there is nothing on which they have really agreed.