I think dialectics would fit in nicely with Korzybski, of The Map is Not the Territory fame.
In the briefest terms, dialectical thinking is very similar to meta modeling, finding a model that expresses two competing models as two views of the same model.
In terms closer to General Semantics (as Korzybski’s system is generally called), you find a higher order abstraction that represents all the truth available in supposedly incompatible and contradictory abstractions.
I expect Mr. Kenneway could correct my comments on General Semantics and expound further.
I believe this is also close to what Hegel would say, going by what I’ve read of the Left Hegelians, though it’s been a while since I’ve read either.
I think dialectics would fit in nicely with Korzybski, of The Map is Not the Territory fame.
Dialectics isn’t in the index of Science and Sanity. The word was around before Korzybski did his work so Korzybski probably choose not to use it.
In terms closer to General Semantics (as Korzybski’s system is generally called), you find a higher order abstraction that represents all the truth available in supposedly incompatible and contradictory abstractions.
I think the claim of dialetics isn’t only that you combine two different model with have contradictions but that you get the best result if you maximize the contradictions of those models.
Looking at Korzybski reminds me of how Noam Chomsky finds no use for dialectics:
Dialectics is one that I’ve never understood, actually—I’ve just never understood what the word means. Marx doesn’t use it, incidentally, it’s used by Engels.7 And if anybody can tell me what it is, I’ll be happy. I mean, I’ve read all kinds of things which talk about “dialectics”—I haven’t the foggiest idea what it is.
For me the word appear like it doesn’t appear to pay it’s rent and doesn’t help us to understand things better and it’s probably more useful to frame the issues differently.
Dialectics isn’t in the index of Science and Sanity. The word was around before Korzybski did his work so Korzybski probably choose not to use it.
Like many systematizers, he made up a boatload of his own terms by choice. In his case, there were ideological reasons to do so, as from his perspective, the general level of semantic hygiene was so low that you’d be better off starting from scratch.
I think the claim of dialetics...
There are all sorts of claims made by people who use the word. Much of it seems like crap to me.
But I think what I described is the basic Hegelian insight, which is both useful and in line with insights from Korzybski. The concept that seeming contradictions from competing conceptual systems can be resolved by a more comprehensive conceptual system which preserves the truth of both is useful, IMO.
For a change, today I’m focusing on the wheat instead of the chaff.
the general level of semantic hygiene was so low that you’d be better off starting from scratch.
As far as terms with bad semantic hygiene “dialectics” seems to be a prime example and that might motivate us also to avoid using it.
The concept that seeming contradictions from competing conceptual systems can be resolved by a more comprehensive conceptual system which preserves the truth of both is useful, IMO.
I think the core idea is quite obvious if one has a good grasp on what a conceptual system happens to be.
The more complicated question would be in what sense the existing systems have truth that could be preserved. I don’t think the discourse about dialectics helps to answer that question.
I think dialectics would fit in nicely with Korzybski, of The Map is Not the Territory fame.
In the briefest terms, dialectical thinking is very similar to meta modeling, finding a model that expresses two competing models as two views of the same model.
In terms closer to General Semantics (as Korzybski’s system is generally called), you find a higher order abstraction that represents all the truth available in supposedly incompatible and contradictory abstractions.
I expect Mr. Kenneway could correct my comments on General Semantics and expound further.
I believe this is also close to what Hegel would say, going by what I’ve read of the Left Hegelians, though it’s been a while since I’ve read either.
Dialectics isn’t in the index of Science and Sanity. The word was around before Korzybski did his work so Korzybski probably choose not to use it.
I think the claim of dialetics isn’t only that you combine two different model with have contradictions but that you get the best result if you maximize the contradictions of those models.
Looking at Korzybski reminds me of how Noam Chomsky finds no use for dialectics:
For me the word appear like it doesn’t appear to pay it’s rent and doesn’t help us to understand things better and it’s probably more useful to frame the issues differently.
Like many systematizers, he made up a boatload of his own terms by choice. In his case, there were ideological reasons to do so, as from his perspective, the general level of semantic hygiene was so low that you’d be better off starting from scratch.
There are all sorts of claims made by people who use the word. Much of it seems like crap to me.
But I think what I described is the basic Hegelian insight, which is both useful and in line with insights from Korzybski. The concept that seeming contradictions from competing conceptual systems can be resolved by a more comprehensive conceptual system which preserves the truth of both is useful, IMO.
For a change, today I’m focusing on the wheat instead of the chaff.
As far as terms with bad semantic hygiene “dialectics” seems to be a prime example and that might motivate us also to avoid using it.
I think the core idea is quite obvious if one has a good grasp on what a conceptual system happens to be.
The more complicated question would be in what sense the existing systems have truth that could be preserved. I don’t think the discourse about dialectics helps to answer that question.
The OP was specifically asking about “dialectics” and Sciabarra’s use of it.
Also, it’s a fundamental concept in Hegelianism and it’s offshoots, so you shouldn’t try to avoid it there either.
But I agree with you in general. I find it a much overused and inconsistently used term, much like irony and paradox, and often used to shovel crap.
Well yeah, but I find that quite a big IF, don’t you?
Which would depend on the particulars of the existing systems in question.
He was also asking about why we don’t use it on LW and whether maybe we should use it if it’s a potent thinking tool.
But if not, I don’t think talking about dialectics has any use either. It will just seem like magic.