User Tools

Site Tools



This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

dialectic_vs_debate [2018/04/21 03:31] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +====== Dialectic Vs Debate ======
 +The dialectical method is a method of obtaining truth. If history is written by the winners then it contains no truth as Alex Haley proves, in a society that has advanced in dialectical truth it would not matter who the winners are, history would be the same. The truth is not something to believe in as with the corruption of truth in religions, it is something that is. Pythagoras Theorem is a2 + b2 = c2. This example of truth was that way in the beginning of time and will still be that way at the end of time, it is not a belief, it is truth. The utilization of the movement of truth in religion is a magian attack on the movement where subjectives are perfected for innocent minds. Truth is new, priest based societies pre-date truth.
 +The dialectical method is dialogue between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject, who wish to establish the truth of the matter by dialogue, with reasoned arguments. Dialectics is different from debate, wherein the debaters are committed to their points of view, and mean to win the debate, either by persuading the opponent, proving their argument correct, or proving the opponent'​s argument incorrect — thus, either a judge or a jury must decide who wins the debate. Dialectics is also different from rhetoric, wherein the speaker uses logos, pathos, or ethos to persuade listeners to take their side of the argument.
 +Socrates favoured truth as the highest value, proposing that it could be discovered through reason and logic in discussion: ergo, dialectic. Socrates valued rationality (appealing to logic, not emotion) as the proper means for persuasion, the discovery of truth, and the determinant for one's actions. To Socrates, truth, not arête, was the greater good, and each person should, above all else, seek truth to guide one's life. Therefore, Socrates opposed the Sophists and their teaching of rhetoric as art and as emotional oratory requiring neither logic nor proof.
 +The purpose of the dialectic method of reasoning is resolution of disagreement through rational discussion, and, ultimately, the search for truth. One way to proceed — the Socratic method — is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction;​ thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth (see reductio ad absurdum). Another dialectical resolution of disagreement is by denying a presupposition of the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby, proceeding to sublation (transcendance) to synthesis, a third thesis.
 +Dialectics (also called logic) was one of the three liberal arts taught in medieval universities as part of the trivium. The trivium also included rhetoric and grammar.
 +Based mainly on Aristotle, the first medieval philosopher to work on dialectics was Boethius. After him, many scholastic philosophers also made use of dialectics in their works, such as Abelard, William of Sherwood, Garlandus Compotista, Walter Burley, Roger Swyneshed and William of Ockham.
 +This dialectic was formed as follows:
 +      - The Question to be determined
 +      - The principal objections to the question
 +      - An argument in favor of the Question, traditionally a single argument ("On the contrary.."​)
 +      - The determination of the Question after weighing the evidence. ("I answer that..."​)
 +      - The replies to each objection
 +The state or the society are not indestructible objects, the institutions require intentional maintenance if the society is to have health. The standard. Nor by law or social norms can one expect truth or those that have audience to be able to communicate or form truth.
dialectic_vs_debate.txt · Last modified: 2018/04/21 03:31 (external edit)