An Examination of Dialectic
Etymology: Middle English dialetik, from Anglo-French dialetiqe, from Latin dialectica, from Greek
dialektikE, from Old French dialetique, from feminine of dialektikos of conversation, from dialektos.

















The art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments.
dialectics (used with a sing. verb) A method of argument or exposition that systematically weighs
contradictory facts or ideas with a view to the resolution of their real or apparent contradictions.
The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their continuing
interaction.
The method of refutation by examining logical consequences.
Contradiction of ideas that serves as the determining factor in their interaction.
Exposing contradictions in logic.
Logical reasoning or debate.
Understanding general, abstract ideas through investigation of particular cases or hypothesis.
a : discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the
Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b : the Platonic investigation of the
eternal ideas.
usually plural but singular or plural in construction a : any systematic reasoning, exposition, or
argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b : an
intellectual exchange of ideas.
The dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements.
The logic of fallacy.
The general definition for dialectic is as follows: "a method of reasoning that compares and contrasts
opposing points of view in order to find a new point of view that will incorporate whatever is true in the
originals."
a. The process especially associated with Hegel of arriving at the truth by stating a thesis, developing a
contradictory antithesis, and combining and resolving them into a coherent synthesis the investigation of
this process; b. Hegel's critical method for the investigation of this process.;c. the Hegelian process of
change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite;
also : the critical investigation of this process.
a. The Marxian process of change through the conflict of opposing forces, whereby a given
contradiction is characterized by a primary and a secondary aspect, the secondary succumbing to the
primary, which is then transformed into an aspect of a new contradiction. Often used in the plural with a
singular or plural verb. b. The Marxian critique of this process.
dialectic (dīəlĕk'tĭk) [Gr.,= art of conversation], in philosophy, term originally applied to the method of
philosophizing by means of question and answer employed by certain ancient philosophers, notably
Socrates. For Plato the term came to apply more strictly to logical method and meant the reduction of
what is multiple in our experience of phenomena to the unity of systematically organized concepts or
ideas. Immanuel Kant gave the name “Transcendental Dialectic” (the title of one section of his Critique
of Pure Reason) to his endeavor to expose the illusion of judgments that attempt to transcend the limits
of experience. G. W. F. Hegel applied the term dialectic to the logical method of his philosophy, which
proceeds from thesis through antithesis to synthesis. Hegel's method was appropriated by Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels in their philosophy of dialectical materialism.
In classical philosophy, dialectic (Greek: διαλεκτική) is an exchange of propositions (theses) and
counter-propositions (antitheses) resulting in a synthesis of the opposing assertions, or at least a
qualitative transformation in the direction of the dialogue. It is one of the three original liberal arts or
trivium (the other members are rhetoric and grammar) in Western culture. In ancient and medieval times,
both rhetoric and dialectic were understood to aim at being persuasive (through dialogue). The aim of
1
the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement
through rational discussion. One way — 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. Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some presupposition of the
contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis."The history of the term dialectic
would by itself constitute a considerable history of philosophy" (Barbara Cassin, ed., Vocabulaire
européen des philosophies [Paris: Le Robert & Seuil, 2004], p. 306, trans. M.K. Jensen). Briefly, the
term "dialectic" owes much of its prestige to its role in the philosophy of Socrates and Plato, where it
figures as the logical method of philosophy in the Socratic dialectical method of cross-examination. The
term was given new life by Hegel, whose dialectically dynamic model of nature and of history made it,
as it were, a fundamental aspect of the nature of reality (instead of regarding the contradictions into
which dialectics leads as a sign of the sterility of the dialectical method, as Kant tended to do in his
Critique of Pure Reason). In the mid-nineteenth century, the concept of "dialectic" was appropriated by
Marx (see, for example, Das Kapital, published in 1867) and Engels and retooled in a non-idealist
manner, becoming a crucial notion in their philosophy of dialectical materialism. Thus this concept
came, for a time, to play a prominent role on the world stage and in world history. Today, "dialectics"
can also refer to an understanding of how we can or should perceive the world (epistemology), an
assertion of the interconnected, contradictory, and dynamic nature of the world outside our perception of
it (ontology), or a method of presentation of ideas or conclusions. Also you could look at these sides as
Apollonian and Dionysian.
Presocratic Dialectic
Heraclitus lived in the then flourishing Ionian Greek city of Ephesus, located on the western coast of presentday Turkey. The era during which he lived has been called the Shower of Stars by Will Durant and the center
of the Axial Age by Karl Jaspers. Heraclitus flourished around 500 B.C., when the Buddha, Lao Tzu, Confucius,
and Zarathustra were also alive and teaching in the East. The complete text of Heraclitus' book has been lost;
however, since he was frequently quoted by other ancient philosophers, there are about 130 fragments of
writing attributed to him. Unfortunately, more than one-half of these fragments have been challenged as to their
authenticity by various scholars at various times.
1. The Theory of Flux:
Fragment DK22b12 (K&R 214): New and different waters flow around those who step into the same
river. The river disperses and comes together … flows in and out … towards us and away.
Fragment DK22b91: You cannot step twice into the same stream; for fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you.
Fragment from Plato’s Cratylus 402a (K&R 215): Socrates: Heraclitus somewhere says that all things are in
process and nothing stays still, and likening existing things to the stream of a river he says that you would not
step twice into the same river.
2. The Theory of Opposites:
Fragment DK22b8: What opposes unites, and the finest attunement stems from things bearing in opposite
directions, and all things come about by strife.
Fragment DK22b10: Graspings: things whole and not whole, what is drawn together and what is drawn asunder,
the harmonious and the discordant. The one is made up of all things, and all things issue from the one.
Fragment DK22b51 (K&R 209): They do not apprehend how being at variance it agrees with itself [literally:
how being brought apart it is brought together with itself]. There is a back-stretched harmony, as in the bow
and the lyre.
Fragment DK22b53 (K&R 212): War is the father of all and king of all; and some he shows as gods, others as
men, some he makes slaves, others free.
Fragment DK22b60 (K&R 200): The path up and down is one and the same.
Fragment DK22b80 (K&R 211): It is necessary to know that war is common and right is strife and that all
things happen by strife and necessity.
2
I think that one of the most important things to note about Heraclitus' Theory of Opposites is that it is a major
influence in the development of the Hegelian Dialectic. Hegel, in one of his lectures (first given at Jena in 1805)
on the History of Philosophy, tells us that:
... Heraclitus at least understands the absolute as just this process of the dialectic. The dialectic is thus threefold:
(a) The external dialectic, a reasoning which goes over and over again without ever reaching the soul of the
thing;
(b) Immanent dialectic of the object, but falling within the contemplation of the subject;
(c) The objectivity of Heraclitus which takes the dialectic itself as principle.
The advance requisite and made by Heraclitus is the progression from Being as the first immediate thought, to
the category of Becoming as the second. This is the first concrete, the Absolute, as in it the unity of opposites.
Thus with Heraclitus the philosophic Idea is to be met with in its speculative form; the reasoning of Parmenides
and Zeno is abstract understanding. Heraclitus was thus universally esteemed a deep philosopher and even was
decried as such. Here we see land; there is no proposition of Heraclitus which I have not adopted in my Logic.
Zeno of Elea wrote his famous paradoxes in the fifth century BCE. He was recognized later by Aristotle for
using dialectic reasoning in his arguments. Specifically, his paradox involving Achilles and the tortoise
demonstrates a law of formal logic known as modus tollens . However, Zeno only set the stage for later
philosophers, primarily Aristotle, and did not define or set new laws in argumentation.
Socratic and Platonic Dialectic
Plato was a Greek philosopher and educator (of Aristotle) who was recognized most for the dialogues that he
wrote. His form of dialectic was a process of division where the issue begins as a general one and is divided
until it is less general, meaning that it could not possibly be divided again. To Plato, "dialectic" was a process
applicable to both speech and thought. The term "dialectic" was used by Socrates as "the art of discussion" by
which he searched for truth through questioning and answering. He looked down upon the Sophist's form of
argumentation known as "eristic" and was derived from dialectic. Eristic discussions were an entertaining
interactions in which illogical explanations and misleading statements were told. Although Socrates always
searched for truth, he also worked hard to win the arguments. In Plato's dialogues and other Socratic dialogues,
Socrates attempts to examine first principles or premises by which we all reason and argue with. Socrates
typically argues by cross-examining someone's claims and premises in order to draw out a contradiction or
inconsistency among them. For example, in the Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro to provide a definition of
piety. Euthyphro replies that the pious is that which is loved by the gods. But, Socrates also has Euthyphro
agreeing that the gods are quarrelsome and their quarrels, like human quarrels, concern objects of love or hatred.
Therefore, Socrates reasons, at least one thing exists which certain gods love but other gods hate. Again,
Euthyphro agrees. Socrates concludes that if Euthyphro's definition of piety is acceptable, then there must exist
at least one thing which is both pious and impious (as it is both loved and hated by the gods) — which,
Euthyphro admits, is absurd. Thus, Euthyphro is brought to a realization by this dialectical method that his
definition of piety is not sufficiently elaborate, thus wrong.
Aristotelian Dialectic
Aristotle began his investigations with dialectic while still attending Plato's academy where he studied from 367
BCE through 347. Later he wrote Topics to serve as a handbook for dialectic argumentation. Aristotle used
many forms of formal logic, and even calculus to further his points. Although this might not originally be
considered dialectic, he claimed that it was stating that his logic developed as a result of reflecting on Plato's
method of division. According to Aristotle, there were numerous benefits to the use of dialectic including: the
intellectual training, its use for discussions with others based on their own premises, and for examining
unprovable principles in science.
3
Stoical and Medieval Dialectic
The Stoic's definition of dialectic was "formal logic". The term "dialectic" was used because the philosopher of
the time period were interested in Zeno's Paradoxes and related reasoning. They believed that the dialectic
process happened in two different ways: meanings and words (things said and expressions used). Throughout
the Middle Ages the term "dialectic" continued to mean "logic", but a variety of other meanings surfaced as
scholars studied Aristotle and Plato.
Hindu Dialectic
In Hinduism, certain dialectical elements can be found in embryo, such as the idea of the three phases of
creation (Brahma), maintenance of order (Vishnu) and destruction or disorder (Shiva). Hindu dialectic is
discussed by Hegel, Engels, and Ian Stewart, who has written on Chaos Theory. Stewart points out that the
relationship between the gods Shiva, "the Untamed", and Vishnu is not the antagonism between good and evil,
but that of the real principles of harmony and discord which together underlie the whole of existence.
The very earliest religious writings in ancient India, the Vedas, which date from around 1500 BC (and hence
may be considered as the oldest philosophical literature in the world), in a formal sense, are hymns to the gods,
but as Hegel also points out, Eastern religions are very philosophical in character. The gods have less of a
personal character and are more akin to general concepts and symbols. We find these elements of dialectics in
Hinduism as Engels has explained. The gods and goddesses of the Vedas are not persons but manifestations of
ultimate truth and reality, and these writings contain a wealth of philosophical and religious speculation about
the nature of the universe.
Buddhist Dialectic
Elements of dialectics are found in Buddhism, Engels explains. The Buddhist doctrine was argued in a highly
consistent and logical way in the 2nd century by Nagarjuna, whose rationalism became the basis for the
development of Buddhist logic. The logic of Buddhism was later developed by other notable thinkers such as
Dignaga and Dharmakirti (between 500 and 700). This laid the basis for later idealist schools such as
Madhyamaka, Vijnanavada, and Tantric Buddhism.
The dynamic element in Buddhism, its dialectical side, is shown by its view of reality as something eternally
changing and impermanent. By contrast, for the Vedanta philosophy, only the changeless and eternal is real.
Modern Buddhist thinkers tend to lay more stress on its "rationalistic" and "atheistic" character, which tends to
make it more acceptable to educated Westerners in search of a satisfying alternative to Christianity. The
Essence of Buddhism in its original form possesses a rational core, and most of the elements of dialectics were
present in it, but they were present only in Theravāda buddhism presently practiced in Thailand, Burma and Sri
Lanka, similar to the early Greek philosophies. This represented the first faltering steps of dialectical
philosophy.
Daoist Dialectic
Marx, influenced by Scholastic system-builders, wove the dialectic of Heraclitus into a one-variable theory of
everything which in his view could explain the details, even the minute details, of everything. Daoism makes no
such claims. The Daoist dialectic is a thought-process and method of operation which, Daoists believe, is an
attunement to a natural process in the universe, like the tuning of a radio to a radio-station; this process is
considered a "natural power". One can work against the natural process, but the going will be hard. In the
Marxist view of human society, the process of "contradiction" can actually stop - cease - once a perfect society
has been attained, because then there will be no further antagonism within it: a key point in Marxism is that it is
4
possible to have a perfect human society. Daoism regards such a proposition as foolish, an attempt to have light
without shadow - it accepts the imperfections in this world but tries to live with them; this life has its pains but
also its pleasures. We have seen how the utopias envisaged by Lenin and Mao turned into barbaric bloodbaths.
In the Daoist view, this is because they had a "crash through or crash" approach, they were prepared to push an
extreme position as far as it would go. Daoism shies back from such positive-feedback processes; it prefers
negative-feedback processes. In the governance of human society, it prefers as little as possible - this is called
"the method of non-action". It trusts natural processes, including human nature; in this respect it is similar to the
European philosophy of Anarchism, but Anarchism accepts revolutionary violence while Daoism does not. Nor
is Daoism foolish enough to think that a mass society can operate without some form of government. China has
had a mass society for thousands of years, so the proverbs of the Tao Te Ching are addressed not only to
ordinary men and women, but also to rulers and officials. In large part, it is a philosophy of coping with
powerlessness. One translator (R.L. Wing, The Tao of Power), says that it "explores a remarkable power that is
latent in every individual", a bottom-up power; Machiavelli's is top-down. Confucianism is an authoritarian
philosophy of benevolent rule; the Daoist philosophy has co-existed with it in what might be called "the
Confucian Culture Complex". Daoism, though, has generally been the "low road", inconspicuous. In Japan, Zen
is the most obvious form of Daoism. John Craig, analysing the flexibility of Japanese planning and production
systems, sees in it dialectical methods adopted from Zen (Centre for Policy and Development Systems,
Brisbane). A culture is like a bag of lego; Japan's bag contains Daoism, ours does not.
Kantian Dialectic
Two major principles were developed by Kant. The first stated that all dialectic used by the ancients was the
logic of illusion. Kant felt that he used the term when referring to the critique of dialectical illusion. The second
principle he coined was Transcendental dialectic and he used this to expose the illusion of transcendental
judgments. The latter could also read as: judgments that claim to pass beyond the limits of experience. Kant felt
that there could be no proven principles where there is no human experience.
Hegelian Dialectic
Hegel's dialectic, which he usually presented in a threefold manner, was vulgarized by Heinrich Moritz
Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an
antithesis which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a
synthesis. Hegel rarely used these terms himself: this model is not Hegelian but Fichtean.
In the Logic, for instance, Hegel describes a dialectic of existence: first, existence must be posited as pure Being
(Sein); but pure Being, upon examination, is found to be indistinguishable from Nothing (Nicht). When it is
realized that what is coming into being is, at the same time, also returning to nothing (consider life: old
organisms die as new organisms are created or born), both Being and Nothing are united as Becoming.
As in the Socratic dialectic, Hegel claimed to proceed by making implicit contradictions explicit: each stage of
the process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding stage. For Hegel, the whole of
history is one tremendous dialectic, major stages of which chart a progression from self-alienation as slavery to
self-unification and realization as the rational, constitutional state of free and equal citizens. The Hegelian
dialectic cannot be mechanically applied for any chosen thesis. Critics argue that the selection of any antithesis,
other than the logical negation of the thesis, is subjective. Then, if the logical negation is used as the antithesis,
there is no rigorous way to derive a synthesis. In practice, when an antithesis is selected to suit the user's
subjective purpose, the resulting "contradictions" are rhetorical, not logical, and the resulting synthesis not
rigorously defensible against a multitude of other possible syntheses. The problem with the Fichtean "thesis —
antithesis — synthesis" model is that it implies that contradictions or negations come from outside of things.
5
Hegel's point is that they are inherent in and internal to things. This conception of dialectics derives ultimately
from Heraclitus.
Marxist Dialectic
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels believed Hegel was "standing on his head", and endeavoured to put him back
on his feet, ridding Hegel's logic of its orientation towards philosophical idealism, and conceiving what is now
known as materialist or Marxist dialectics. This is what Marx had to say about the difference between Hegel's
dialectics and his own: "My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite.
To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea,'
he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the
external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material
world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.”
Nevertheless Marx "openly avowed [himself] the pupil of that mighty thinker" and even "coquetted with modes
of expression peculiar to him".
Marx wrote: "The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him from being
the first to present its general form of working in a comprehensive and conscious manner. With him it is
standing on its head. It must be turned right side up again, if you would discover the rational kernel within the
mystical shell.”
In the work of Marx and Engels the dialectical approach to the study of history became intertwined with
historical materialism, the school of thought exemplified by the works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. (Marx
himself never referred to "historical materialism.") A dialectical methodology came to be seen as the vital
foundation for any Marxist politics, through the work of Karl Korsch, Georg Lukács and certain members of the
Frankfurt School. Under Stalin, Marxist dialectics developed into what was called "diamat" (short for dialectical
materialism). Some Soviet academics, most notably Evald Ilyenkov, continued with unorthodox philosophical
studies of the Marxist dialectic, as did a number of thinkers in the West. One of the best known North American
dialectical philosophers is Bertell Ollman.
Engels argued that all of nature is dialectical. In Anti-Dühring he contends that negation of negation is "A very
simple process which is taking place everywhere and every day, which any child can understand as soon as it is
stripped of the veil of mystery in which it was enveloped by the old idealist philosophy." In Dialectics of Nature,
Engels states, "Probably the same gentlemen who up to now have decried the transformation of quantity into
quality as mysticism and incomprehensible transcendentalism will now declare that it is indeed something quite
self-evident, trivial, and commonplace, which they have long employed, and so they have been taught nothing
new. But to have formulated for the first time in its universally valid form a general law of development of
nature, society, and thought, will always remain an act of historic importance.”
Marxists view dialectics as a framework for development in which contradiction plays the central role as the
source of development. This is perhaps best exemplified in Marx's Capital, which outlines two of his central
theories: that of the theory of surplus value and the materialist conception of history. In Capital, Marx had the
following to say about his dialectical methodology: "In its rational form it is a scandal and abomination to
bourgeoisdom and its doctrinaire professors, because it includes in its comprehension an affirmative recognition
of the existing state of things, at the same time also, the recognition of the negation of that state, of its inevitable
breaking up; because it regards every historically developed social form as in fluid movement, and therefore
takes into account its transient nature not less than its momentary existence; because it lets nothing impose upon
it, and is in its essence critical and revolutionary.”
6
At the heart of Marxist dialectics is the idea of contradiction, with class struggle playing the central role in
social and political life, although Marx does identify other historically important contradictions, such as those
between mental and manual labor and town and country. Contradiction is the key to all other categories and
principles of dialectical development: development by passage of quantitative change into qualitative ones,
interruption of gradualness, leaps, negation of the initial moment of development and negation of this very
negation, and repetition at a higher level of some of the features and aspects of the original state.
Lenin’s summary of dialectics: 1.The determination of the concept out of itself [the thing itself must be
considered in its relations and in its development]; 2. the contradictory nature of the thing itself (the other of
itself), the contradictory forces and tendencies in each phenomenon; 3. the union of analysis and synthesis.
Such apparently are the elements of dialectics. One could perhaps present these elements in greater detail as
follows: 1) the objectivity of consideration (not examples, not divergencies, but the Thing-in-itself). 2) the entire
totality of the manifold relations of this thing to others. 3) the development of this thing, (phenomenon,
espectively), its own movement, its own life. 4) the internally contradictory tendencies (and sides) in this thing.
5) the thing (phenomenon, etc) as the sum and unity of opposites. 6) the struggle, respectively unfolding, of
these opposites, contradictory strivings, etc. 7) the union of analysis and synthesis - the breakdown of the
separate parts and the totality, the summation of these parts. 8) the relations of each thing (phenomenon, etc.)
are not only manifold, but general, universal. Each thing (phenomenon, etc.) is connected with every other.
9) not only the unity of opposites, but the transitions of every determination, quality, feature, side, property into
every other [into its opposite?]. 10) the endless process of the discovery of new sides, relations, etc. 11) the
endless process of the deepening of man's knowledge of the thing, of phenomena, processes, etc., from
ppearance to essence and from less profound to more profound essence. 12) from co-existence to causality and
from one form of connection and reciprocal dependence to another, deeper, more general form. 13) the
repetition at a higher stage of certain features, properties, etc., of the lower and 14) the apparent return to the old
(negation of the negation). 15) the struggle of content with form and conversely. The throwing off of the form,
the transformation of the content. 16) the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa (15 and 16 are
examples of 9) In brief, dialectics can be defined as the doctrine of the unity of opposites. This embodies the
essence of dialectics, but it requires explanations and development.
Critiques of Dialectics
Many philosophers have offered critiques of dialectic, and it can even be said that hostility or receptivity to
dialectics is one of the things that divides twentieth-century Anglo-American philosophy from the so-called
"continental" tradition, a divide that only a few contemporary philosophers (among them, G.H. von Wright,
Paul Ricoeur, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Richard Rorty) have ventured to bridge.
One philosopher who has attacked the notion of dialectic again and again is Karl Popper. In 1937 he wrote and
delivered a paper entitled "What Is Dialectic?" in which he attacked the dialectical method for its willingness
"to put up with contradictions" (Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge [New York:
Basic Books, 1962], p. . 316). Popper concluded the essay with these words: "The whole development of
dialectic should be a warning against the dangers inherent in philosophical system-building. It should remind us
that philosophy should not be made a basis for any sort of scientific system and that philosophers should be
much more modest in their claims. One task which they can fulfill quite usefully is the study of the critical
methods of science" (Ibid., p. 335)
In chapter 12 of volume 2 of The Open Society and Its Enemies (1944; 5th rev. ed., 1966) Popper unleashed a
famous attack on Hegelian dialectics, in which he held Hegel's thought (unjustly, in the view of some
philosophers, such as Walter Kaufmann[2]) was to some degree responsible for facilitating the rise of fascism in
Europe by encouraging and justifying irrationalism. In section 17 of his 1961 "addenda" to The Open Society,
entitled "Facts, Standards, and Truth: A Further Criticism of Relativism," Popper refused to moderate his
7
criticism of the Hegelian dialectic, arguing that it "played a major role in the downfall of the liberal movement
in Germany, . . . by contributing to historicism and to an identification of might and right, encouraged
totalitarian modes of thought. . . . [and] undermined and eventually lowered the traditional standards of
intellectual responsibility and honesty" (The Open Society and Its Enemies, 5th rev. ed., vol. 2 [Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1966], p. 395) Edward de Bono has made noting the flaws of dialectic a major part
of his work. He acknowledges that it has a valuable place in thinking, but that design is often a necessary tool to
address its shortcomings.
Biological Dialectic
In The Dialectical Biologist (Harvard U.P. 1985 ISBN 0-674-20281-3), Richard Levins and Richard Lewontin
sketch a dialectical approach to biology. They see "dialectics" more as a set of questions to ask about biological
research, a weapon against dogmatism, than as a set of pre-determined answers. They focus on the (dialectical)
relationship between the "whole" (or totality) and the "parts." "Part makes whole, and whole makes part" (p.
272). That is, a biological system of some kind consists of a collection of heterogeneous parts. All of these
contribute to the character of the whole, as in reductionist thinking. On the other hand, the whole has an
existence independent of the parts and feeds back to affect and determine the nature of the parts. This back-andforth (dialectic) of causation implies a dynamic process. For example, Darwinian evolution points to the
competition of a variety of species, each with heterogeneous members, within a given environment. This leads
to changing species and even to new species arising. A dialectical biologist would not reject this picture as
much as look for ways in which the competing creatures lead to changes in the environment, as when the action
of microbes encourages the erosion of rocks. Further, each species is part of the "environment" of all of the
others.
Translations for: Dialectic
Dansk (Danish)
n. - dialektik
adj. - dialektal
Nederlands (Dutch)
dialectiek, dialecticus, dialectisch
Français (French)
n. - dialectique
adj. - dialectique
Deutsch (German)
n. - Dialektik (Wahrheitserforschung, Spitzfindigkeit)
adj. - dialektisch, mundartlich, spitzfindig
Ελληνική (Greek)
n. - (φιλοσ.) διαλεκτική
adj. - (φιλοσ.) διαλεκτικός
Italiano (Italian)
dialettica, dialettico
8
Português (Portuguese)
n. - dialética (f), lógica (f)
adj. - dialético, lógico
Русский (Russian)
диалектика, диалектический
Español (Spanish)
n. - dialéctica, dialéctico, yuxtaposición de ideas encontradas
adj. - dialéctico
Svenska (Swedish)
n. - filos. dialektik
adj. - filos. dialektisk
中文（简体） (Chinese (Simplified))
论理的推论, 辩证法, 辩证的, 方言的, 辩证法的
中文（繁體） (Chinese (Traditional))
n. - 論理的推論, 辯證法
adj. - 辯證的, 方言的, 辯證法的
한국어 (Korean)
n. - 논리학, 변증법
adj. - 방언의, 논리적 증명에 뛰어난
日本語 (Japanese)
n. - 弁証法
‫( ال عرب يه‬Arabic)
(‫ال جدل )اال سم‬, ‫يدلي ) ص فه( ال م نط قي وال جدل ال م ناق شه طري ق عن ال ح قائ ق ام تحان و ك شف ف ن‬
‫( עברית‬Hebrew)
n. - ‫ מציאותם‬,‫ חקירה של ניגודים מטאפיסיים ופתרונותיהם במחשבתם של קאנט והגל‬,‫ דיאלקטיקה‬,‫אמנות חקר האמיתות שבדיעות‬
‫ מחלוקת הגיונית‬,‫ופעולתם של כוחות חברתיים נוגדים‬
adj. - ‫ בקי במחלוקת הגיונית‬,‫של מחלוקת הגיונית‬
9