What is the Objectivist view on “dialectics”?

[belloid]

The law of dialectics are reportedly: 1) Every thing (every object and every process) is made of opposing forces or sides. 2) Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one opposite overcomes the other. 3) Change moves in spirals, not circles. The believers of dialectics think that these laws are taking place everywhere and every day, "which any child can understand."(Engels) As if they are axioms. But Objectivism doesn't take them as axioms. So how do Objectivism thinks about dialectics? Are they not real laws or not important laws?

[DavidOdden]

So how do Objectivism thinks about dialectics? Are they not real laws or not important laws?

I can't recall an official statement by Rand, but I think I'm safe in saying "That's just crazy talk". I've certainly hear of dialectics before, but I've never heard it characterised like that. That is some of the wildest nonsense I've heard in months.

[BurgessLau]

Belloid, I have not made a special study of dialectics, but from memory I would say that what you are describing is Marxist dialectical materialism -- the doctrine holding that history moves dialectically, that is, by drawing synthesis from the opposition of thesis and antithesis. Perhaps the roots of that doctrine go back to Hegel and from him back to Fichte. (I have studied neither in any serious way, so this is merely a suggestion for investigation.)

I would suggest that anyone interested in "dialectics" be sure to examine a competent philosophical dictionary (such as Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion) or encyclopedia (such as the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy). Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy, usually includes short entries for each item, but includes nearly a full page for "Dialectic" in its many metaphysical, epistemological, and socio-intellectual meanings. See also the entry for "Dialectical Materialism," which references Engels.

The original use of "dialectic" was to identify the process made famous by Socrates (as described by Plato): a process of talking between two or more individuals about a topic (such as the meaning of justice), each taking a different stance, perhaps, ending in some sort of resolution. Here "dialectic" has a meaning close to its etymological roots: dia means "between" and lego means "speak" or "say."

[BurgessLau]

The believers of dialectics think that these laws are taking place everywhere and every day, "which any child can understand."(Engels) As if they are axioms.

If that is what Engels said, then he got it wrong, as usual. Axioms are enormously abstract concepts (and concepts of a special kind). No child could explicitly understand, much less originally form, such a concept. Any claim that even a child could explicitly understand an axiomatic concept would raise suspicion that the speaker is an intrinsicist.

[drewfactor]

Based on my reading/self-study, the dialectic process is basically what you stated Belloid. It was Hegel who origicaned the idea, and he who based it upon the philosophy of Kant. Marx and Engels used the dialectic as applied to history to generate their ideas about communism.

As for an Objectivist view of the dialectic process, I think one would see it as an attempt to negate the more traditional (Aristotelian) notions of identity and causality etc... Certainly, if one observes reality one can see opposites or opposing forces in every aspect: Life and death, night and day, health and sickness, war and peace, happiness and sadness, triumph and defeat, reason and faith etc... My (Objectivist) interpretation is that although reality does seem to contain this process of thesis and antithesis, an individual's life requires values. Since life is both the root and reward of value, it makes human life conditional upon actions that further/promote life. This means that, usinMg my thinking ability, I can discern values and pursue them in accordance with my value-hierarchy. This means choosing exercise and good food over excessive tv and junk food. It means being productive over being non-productive. It means excercising reason over practicing faith.

I think a Hegelian would reject all of the above and say, for instance, that an individuals life is not absolute. Life and death are a mere part of a process, the unfolding of the dialectic, or whatever. Individualism and collectivism are a form of sythesis and antithesis, one not better than the other, but each is a component on the continuum that leads to sythesis (which is never defined and I assume is unkowable to man but maybe knowable to God).

To me it sounds like the Eastern mysticism of Yin and Yang.

[hunterrose]

I love dialectics, Jersey and Valley Girl in particular.

[jrs]

So how do Objectivists think about dialectics?

I think that Objectivism is the antithesis of dialectics.

To me it sounds like the Eastern mysticism of Yin and Yang.

You took the words out of my mouth.

[NAS]

We think about it? I don't, but then I don't think about little blue men from venus abducting me either.(except right now when I was thinking up an absurd example).