Dialectics & Roots of Sound Rational Thinking

http://plusroot.com/dbook/index.html

Even though our society is technically advanced beyond dreams of bygone days, most of us stubbornly refuse to examine the motor we use to drive our society? What is the answer to this mystery?

After stewing over dialectical conundrums for years, I see two solutions, one simple and one complex. The simple solution is to continue as we are and drive by “the seat of our pants”. Perhaps our native commonsense and good will holds enough power to bring civil discourse into dominance in the land.

We could. We, the moderate middle, have the power, by sheer numbers, to subdue the nefarious force of radical negative dialectics and demand that cultivated logical commonsense and fair play become the dominating method of political discourse. If we keep our feet on the ground, our head on our shoulders, and our heart in the right place we could squeeze out totalitarian propensities of social manipulators and not let the crazies in our society spoil the good life. This is a simple solution.

However, this simple solution does not always work. If the millions of tortured victims of Soviet Dialectic could speak, they would say it takes more than workaday commonsense to stand against the mesmeration of sophistic imperial dialectic once it penetrates the engines of power. Using the power of Radical Negative Dialectic, a deft autocrat can gain control behind the backs of the many and grab the wheel. If the dead victims of despotic dialectics could speak, they would tell us that there is an ever present danger, even in societies that claim to be free.

When logical intuition and rational commonsense are not enough to meet the challenge, we must have the courage to enter the realm of critical philosophy and intellectually study the matter. This brings us to my second answer, the complex solution. If we are to introduce a measure of intelligent control over powerful dialectical trends, then we must intellectually study the situation and make a conscious choice about which dialectic we prefer. This takes time and effort.

http://plusroot.com/page.html?a=129

Technically advanded yes however in education as a whole we have been dumbed down beyond belief. I dont think you could find 1 in 100,000 kids/adults who could write as eloquently or with as much variety of words as you could with a regular student in the 1800s, myself included. The plan has definitely worked.

Great link, the dialectics of philosophers.

"Now general logic in its assumed character of organon, is called dialectic. Different as are the signification in which the ancients used this term for a science or an art, we may safely infer, from their actual employment of it, that with them it was nothing else than a logic of illusion a sophistical art for giving ignorance the colouring of truth, in which the thoroughness of procedure which logic requires was imitated, and their topic employed to cloak the empty pretensions.[23]" On Kant

‘Motion itself is a contradiction.’ Lenin defined the law of the unity of opposites as ‘the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society)’ Are these views correct? Yes, they are. The interdependence of the contradictory aspects of a thing and the struggle between them determine the life and impel the development of that thing. There is nothing that does not contain contradiction; without contradiction there would be no world.”

I am sure I am missing something from this thought. is Engles here stating that contradiction is in everything? It seems to me that this is what all of the hegelian philosophers are stating. ex. Here is a glass of water. What is the contradiction in that? Picture, does the word picture imply contradiction? I will come back to this when I have more time as it is late but it seems to be me that it is a philosophy based purely on hate, ie they hate everything, especially concreteness. Whats good today may be bad tomorrow therefore they can rule on whatever whim they feel like ruling on. However if they were put into the guillotine by concrete thinkers do you think they would go happily? It seems like a lot of mumbo jumbo to me. I philosophically understand existentialism fully. Is Hegel's philosophy existentialist or is it something else. I dont read it to be "existential", it seems another flavor which is very hard for me to even understand by what they mean contradiction. Dualism.

Any simpler explanation would be much appreciated.

Also seems kind of funny that they do not like logic yet they build their state on it, centrally planned, even though it isnt logical. Oh contradiction.

http://plusroot.com/essays/001_Plus.html

Some good information on dealing with dialectics.

Hidden: Most people (group three) don't see the crucial dialectical controversy operating in current affairs. If you think it is impossible for people to be blind to urgent matters, read or reread BERLIN DIARY by William Shirer. It is stunning to realize how many people missed the obvious as World War II developed. We humans often overlook the most pressing demands of the moment.

Difficult Situation: Those of us who wish to defend the basic values of western civilization find ourselves in a difficult situation. The huge number of misrepresentations that need correcting create complex knots that are tedious to untangle. The language needed to defend classical ideals has been expropriated for other purposes. Being on the defensive, classically oriented analysts appear negative when it is really the other way around. Most people do not see the problem so they let things slide.
That which slides, tends to go down hill.

stilltrying wrote:

Also seems kind of funny that they do not like logic yet they build their state on it, centrally planned, even though it isnt logical. Oh contradiction.

Can you say, the promise of non-rational thought?

Their systems and logic do not have to be rational, just sell-able to a gullible public. That's the "problem", we mistakenly think that we can make sense of this. I think Screwtape says it best in the recent material posted here:

Bert.G wrote:

In another letter, Screwtape (the senior demon) is telling Wormwood (the junior demon) how relative truth and non-rational thought are employed to gain leverage over the patient (human subject who they are attempting to control).

"....if he had lived a few centuries earlier. At that time the humans still knew pretty well when a thing was proved and when it was not; and if it was proved they really believed it. They still connected thinking with doing and were prepared to alter their way of life as the result of a chain of reasoning. But what with the weekly press and other such weapons we have largely altered that. Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn't think of doctrines as primarily "true" of "false", but as "academic" or "practical", "outworn" or "contemporary", "conventional" or "ruthless". Jargon, not argument, is your best ally in keeping him from the Church. Don't waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That's the sort of thing he cares about."

Thanks One. This is a treasure trove of very good thinking. I am barely into it content wise but the in fo is great.

Negative Philosophy


Lenin (1870-1924) regarded all philosophy as a partisan weapon in the class struggle, and he wielded his own philosophy polemically in the interests of communists revolution. [B615/PhilDic/1995p429]
When ‘philosophy’ is used as a weapon, it is no longer ‘love of wisdom’. It is no longer a search for truth. Instead it becomes propaganda designed to deceive the gullible. This kind of negative practice is a perversion at the very heart of discourse. If Lenin’s attitude becomes entrenched in the style of a society, the affirmative enterprise must go underground. Although few people have been so candid in expressing the guidelines of negative oriented ideology, Lenin’s methodology is not new.

Very Simple to Understand

1. If everything changes, then Truth is either changing or it is nothing?


2. If Truth is in a continuous process of change, we can’t be expected to tell the Truth because by the time it is said it may have changed.


3. If Truth can’t be told, then there is no Truth to tell.

4. If Truth is nothing then it is impossible to tell the Truth because if there is nothing to say, we can not say it.

Silent Wind wrote:

Thanks One. This is a treasure trove of very good thinking. I am barely into it content wise but the in fo is great.

I've really pleased you are enjoying it. I'll try to keep up, but it's been quite some time since I reviewed their material. I invited the author to join us, but we will see.

Silent Wind wrote:

Negative Philosophy


Lenin (1870-1924) regarded all philosophy as a partisan weapon in the class struggle, and he wielded his own philosophy polemically in the interests of communists revolution. [B615/PhilDic/1995p429]
When ‘philosophy’ is used as a weapon, it is no longer ‘love of wisdom’. It is no longer a search for truth. Instead it becomes propaganda designed to deceive the gullible. This kind of negative practice is a perversion at the very heart of discourse. If Lenin’s attitude becomes entrenched in the style of a society, the affirmative enterprise must go underground. Although few people have been so candid in expressing the guidelines of negative oriented ideology, Lenin’s methodology is not new.

Lenin turned philosophy into a weapon, Adorno turned culture into a weapon, Marcuse turned activism through victim's groups into a weapon.... It's all become part of a weaponized Simulacrum. What kind a being does this?

Silent Wind wrote:

Very Simple to Understand

1. If everything changes, then Truth is either changing or it is nothing?


2. If Truth is in a continuous process of change, we can’t be expected to tell the Truth because by the time it is said it may have changed.


3. If Truth can’t be told, then there is no Truth to tell.

4. If Truth is nothing then it is impossible to tell the Truth because if there is nothing to say, we can not say it.

5. If Truth is manufactured, propagated and controlled by a few, then how can their be anything other than total chaos for those who do not control it?

Very interesting discussion.

I hope the "promise of non-rational thought" is now seen for what it really is.

Well, I had no illusions about it from the start. Just didn't suspect him of being duplicitous; I thought of him more as *misguided*, if you know what I mean.