Dialectics

{{hatnote|Not to be confused with the concept of {{wpl|Dialects}}}}
{{sources needed}}{{philosophy}}
'''Dialectics''' is a [[philosophy|philosophical]] journey to find [[truth]] via [[Reasoning|reasoned]] [[argument]] in dialogue, not unlike the [[Socratic method]] of questioning until you discover a new answer.  The difference is that in the Socratic method, questions are asked, answers given and evaluated, then more questions to further explore an idea, whereas in dialectics, two people hold different positions and via this logical argument, they circle the topic until truth is found. It is, of course, assumed that there is "truth" to be found.

The development of dialectics is generally formally attributed to [[Socrates]], who offered this reasoned approach as an alternative to the classical [[Greece|Greek]] view that ''arete'' (beauty, quality) is what should be most praised in life, including explorations of so-called "truth".  Socrates believed true ''truth'' came from analysis of the ideas, via [[logic]] and not a simple esoteric view of their perceived perfection or quality artistically.  However, dialectics, as a "not formally defined" approach to problem-solving or fact-finding, has been a central part of ancient Western thought long before Socrates, as well as Indian philosophy and argument.

The ultimate intent for dialectics is to reason out an answer to a disagreement via logic. The goal is not to compromise (arbitration), nor persuade (as an [[Emotional appeal|emotive argument]], for example), nor "win" via [[bullying]] or pressure, nor win by a 3<sup>rd</sup> party judge decided who presented the best argument.  In dialectics, the actual process is to improve everyone's understanding of the issue, and come to a single stance of what is ''the'' true or correct resolution.  Dialectics does not give formal weight to "experts", but allows them to simply be one voice of several.  The assumption is that an "expert" will know more relevant points to help center the argument, but the expert's word alone is not more important than the non-expert.

Dialectics generally assumes that the process is as important as the outcome, and that problems do not need immediate resolution, as the process can take a while. (That is to say, it is probably not a good idea to suggest a dialectic study on the best way to fix a broken pipe in your home, pouring gallons of water onto your nice new rug &mdash; probably best go for 'expert' at that point.)

==Philosophical traditions in dialectics==
===Hegelian (Fichtean) dialectics===
*Everything is finite, everything is transient, and everything exists within time.
*Everything is composed of opposition. (hopefully equal but always opposite forces)
*Over time, gradual changes cause crises at a point when one force overpowers the other
*All change is spiral (a growth), not circular which would simply reverse the position.
Given the fact that Sir [[Karl Popper]] refuted Hegelian dialectic(s) as early as 1937<ref>"What is Dialectic?"</ref>, we can safely say that Hegelian/ Fichtean dialectic is scientifically worthless.

===Other forms===
*[[Socrates#The Socratic method|Socratic method]] - A method of discourse that is typically dialectical
*Tarka sastra - a [[Sanskrit]] term for a method of discourse that is typically dialectical
*Historical materialism - associated with [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]], it applies a [[materialist]] conception of dialectics to society, specifically, the history of class struggle 
*[[Dialectical materialism]] - the extension of Marx and Engel's dialectics as applied to the [[Science|natural sciences]], which gained prominence in the [[Soviet Union]]
*[[Deconstruction]] — associated with [[Jacques Derrida]], it could be viewed as a [[postmodern]] version of dialectics, as it shares a logical basis with Hegelian and Marxist dialectics

==See also==
*[[Dialectical materialism]]

==Don't see also==
*[[Dianetics]]

==References==
<references/>
__NOTOC__