Dialectics

[9/11-investigator]

As a student I was fascinated like so many else by the book 'Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance (http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Motorcycle-Maintenance-Robert-PIRSIG/dp/B000KRRAII/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295733134&sr=1-2)' by Robert Pirsig. One of the central themes was the concept pair: dialectic/rethoric. Later I discovered that Pirsig had 'borrowed' almost al ideas contained in his book from Nietzsche.

Later print of Pirsig's book (http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Motorcycle-Maintenance-Inquiry/dp/0061673730/ref=pd_sim_b_3) with nearly 600 reviews.

In this thread I want to dig up quotes from Pirsig and/or Nietzsche and hopefully generate stuff to discuss.

Dialectic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic)
Rethoric (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric)

I was stimulated to open this thread because I wanted to reflect on what we are doing her on this forum: dialectic pure.

[Soapy Sam]

Rhetoric.

[9/11-investigator]

Rhetoric.

From the wikipedia article about dialectic:

Dialectic (also called dialectics or the dialectical method) is a method of argument, which has been central to both Indic and Western philosophy since ancient times. The word "dialectic" originates in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato in his Socratic dialogues. Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason.

OK, I would propose that this forum is one gigantic dialectic process with rethorical elements interspersed. It is difficult to classify name calling as a 'wish to seek the truth of the matter'.

[9/11-investigator]

I have noticed that several forum posters are often accusing their opponents of using "fallacious arguments", like the ones listed under this link:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html

Being able to identify these kind of fallacious arguments can be seen as one of the most important skills of seasoned dialecticians.

BTW here are Plato's dialogues for future reference:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/plato/index.htm

[9/11-investigator]

Let's take this thread as an example of a dialogue:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=178524

I wanted to find out the truth about WW! and WW2.
I had read a book by Buchanan that I wanted to discuss with fellow posters here.

While the dialogue progressed soon many new insights and points of view arose.

[9/11-investigator]

If you want to be a master poster you have to become a master dialectician.
Here are books that can help you with your endeavour:

How to Win Every Argument: An Introduction to Critical Thinking (http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Every-Argument-Introduction/dp/1567313302) by Nicholas Capaldi

How To Win Any Argument: Without Raising Your Voice, Losing Your Cool, Or Coming To Blows (http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Any-Argument-Without/dp/1564148106) by Bob Mayer

How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic (http://www.amazon.com/How-Win-Every-Argument-Abuse/dp/0826498949/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1295882131&sr=1-1) by Madsen Pirie

Note that the first and second title are implicit dishonoust in intent and that they intend to give the paying reader a tool to win any argument, regardless whether the argument is worthy or not. At least the third book ackowledges that dialectics can be misused.

Dialectics is not an automatic tool for finding the truth, most importantly it is a tool to win an argument. Any argument. Dialectics can be a skill to outmaneuver your opponent. Dialectics is the core skill of any good lawyer. It is precisely for this reason that lawyers tend to have a bad name as hired guns rather than truth seekers. Only within the context of a non-corrupt court, based on free speech, where both accuser and defendant are represented by skilled dialecticians, can dialectics be used in an honorable way.

[calebprime]

... Later I discovered that Pirsig had 'borrowed' almost al ideas contained in his book from Nietzsche.

[...

Can you give an example or two?

[9/11-investigator]

Can you give an example or two?

[off-topic]
- Genius and madness. Just like Nietzsche, Phaedrus gets insane under the weight of his insights
- Classic/Romantic: that's Nietzsche's concept pair of Apollonian/Dionysian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Birth_of_Tragedy)
- The Plato versus Sofists theme
- The victory of the Parmenides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides)/Platonian Truth concept over that of Quality (Arete) advocated by the Sofists.
- Nietzsche's scepticism in regards of Socratian dialectics, which he identifies as a sign of decline of Greek aristocratic values (dialectics as the virtue of the sheepish Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_%28book%29) or in his wake, in historic sequence, of the low quality/low arete Communist Man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism), as I would add)

Just like Pirsig, Nietzsche wanted to rehabilitate the sofists, the teachers of Arete (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete)/Quality. They advocate the man of high quality, personified by people like Achilles or Hector. Great warriors, athletes, speakers, skilled people, people with charisma, not snarling and sneering dialecticians, the sort of people that populate stalinist courts, trying to establish whether the defendant is a 'class enemy' or not. Or on a lefty NWO forum, trying to establish whether the defendant is a 'racist' or not. Life affirming allrounders rather than bureaucrats, hidden in some large state run institution.
[/off-topic]

I am not going to elaborate on this theme due to the strict off-topic rules on this forum. You are invited to discuss Pirsig's/Nietzsche's idea concerning dialectics.

[BNRT]

Dialectics is not an automatic tool for finding the truth, most importantly it is a tool to win an argument. Any argument. Dialectics can be a skill to outmaneuver your opponent. Dialectics is the core skill of any good lawyer. It is precisely for this reason that lawyers tend to have a bad name as hired guns rather than truth seekers. Only within the context of a non-corrupt court, based on free speech, where both accuser and defendant are represented by skilled dialecticians, can dialectics be used in an honorable way.

I think you're confusing dialectics and rhetorics here...

[9/11-investigator]

I think you're confusing dialectics and rhetorics here...

Why do you think that?

[BNRT]

Well, according to the wikipedia article you quoted, "Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason."Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic) Seeking the "truth of the matter" is not about winning any argument. Rhetorics is more about winning arguments or debates, trying to persuade an audience. Something not aimed at seeking or finding truth.

[9/11-investigator]

Well, according to the wikipedia article you quoted, "Dialectic is based on a dialogue between two or more people who may hold differing views, yet wish to seek the truth of the matter through the exchange of their viewpoints while applying reason."Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic) Seeking the "truth of the matter" is not about winning any argument.


Sure, that's the fair weather description of dialectics: a method of finding the truth through debate. And in a situation of a court we know of no other method of approaching the truth. But the idea that the dialecticians in a court are looking for truth is... well untrue. A lawyer is not looking for truth, but is trying to get the best result for his paying client. Even if the lawyer knows his client is a murderer, he will try to get his client not convicted for murder. First he is paid to do so and second the lawyer is working on his track record and thus increase his market value if he wins his case. Same thing in any debate, like the ones we conduct here on this forum. It is a battle of egos, who have preconceived notitions of what the truth should look like and next use dialectics to battle the opponent(s).

Rhetorics is more about winning arguments or debates, trying to persuade an audience. Something not aimed at seeking or finding truth.

Rhetorics is not necessarily a debat. Rhetoric has more in common with poetry.... or is poetry. Here is the example of a rhetoric speech by Hector before his battle with Achilles:

Well do I know this, and I am sure of it: that day is coming when the holy city of Troy will perish, and Priam and the people of wealthy Priam. But my grief is not so much for the Trojans, nor for Hecuba herself, nor for Priam the King, nor for my many noble brothers, who will be slain by the foe and will lie in the dust, as for you, when one of the bronze-clad Acheans will carry you away in tears and end your days of freedom. Then you may live in Argos, and work at the loom in another woman's house, or perhaps carry water for a woman of Messene or Hyperia, sore against your will: but hard compulsion will lie upon you. And then a man will say as he sees you weeping, `This was the wife of Hector, who was the noblest in battle of the horse-taming Trojans, when they were fighting around Ilion.' This is what they will say: and it will be fresh grief for you, to fight against slavery bereft of a husband like that. But may I be dead, may the earth be heaped over my grave before I hear your cries, and of the violence done to you.'

There is no 'debate', let alone pedantic references to dialectic arrows like 'appeal to authority fallacy' or 'Red herring'.

It is speech that accepts the tragic character of life and yet affirms it in all it's potential greatness.

[BNRT]

Sure, that's the fair weather description of dialectics:

Well, I think it's more like the definition of dialectics (according to Plato). When a discussion does not correspond to the definition of dialectics, I wouldn't call it a dialectic debate. Just like I wouldn't call water a kind of bad beer.

a method of finding the truth through debate. And in a situation of a court we know of no other method of approaching the truth.

I would think some kind of evidence would enter the court at some point. Don't you?

But the idea that the dialecticians in a court are looking for truth is... well untrue. A lawyer is not looking for truth, but is trying to get the best result for his paying client. Even if the lawyer knows his client is a murderer, he will try to get his client not convicted for murder. First he is paid to do so and second the lawyer is working on his track record and thus increase his market value.

But not all people in a court are lawyers and not all lawyers are the same.

Same thing in any debate, like the ones we conduct here on this forum. It is a battle of egos, who have preconceived notitions of what the truth should look like and next use dialectics to battle the opponent(s).

Rhetorics! Have you even read the wiki-page on dialectics? Not that I'd say everyone here is a sophist.

ETA: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Rhetorics is not necessarily a debat. Rhetoric has more in common with poetry.... or is poetry.

Rhetoric is use of style to convince someone of your position, to persuade. You're right that you don't necessarily have to use that in a debate, but it can be used in one.

There is no 'debate', let alone pedantic references to dialectic arrows like 'appeal to authority fallacy' or 'Red herring'.

Pointing out fallacies in an argument isn't pedantic, it's showing someone doesn't have a valid argument.