Philosophy Now Forum

Dialectic is a practice where two or more individuals, or oneself (an inner dialectic), inquire about the nature of reality. It is a practice where, if done with dedication, could bring about a heightened consciousness that could comprehended higher knowledge. It is a mystical practice that utilizes contemplation.

This Dialectic is one originated from Plato and Socrates. Hegel's dialectic is much similar, and is mystical as well. Ideas come into contact with each other, and merge to reach higher truths.

Sounds fun and informative. I am keen to partake if you are.

What is your idea of the nature of reality?

ken wrote:Sounds fun and informative. I am keen to partake if you are.

What is your idea of the nature of reality?

Reality is infinite, in its scope and how we experience it. We can experience reality through our senses, but also our higher faculties. It's the higher faculties where we can experience the higher worlds, and know it's infinite nature.

Hi Guys. I’m just down the metaphysical street from you and I see you are stalled. I did not want to intrude on your fun, indeed, since I’m doing Idealism next door I feel ‘baited’ by your topic.

This is a very important topic but it needs an Idealist perspective to get it to make sense. Your ambition to “reach higher truths” and tickle “the higher faculties where we can experience the higher worlds, and know it's infinite nature” is laudable but the task is involved.

“Dialectic” belongs with objectivity and received, so-called logic. It is reasoning in appearances about appearances. Once an absolute definition of logic appears: a definition that squares with its etymology, the received idea of logic can no longer “trade” as logic.

What was logic, is dialectic. Dialectic is an earth-bound, relative idea. All science is dialectic. Science may sound definitive but it is susceptible to argumentation and modification.

Now to the bit you are interested in: dialectical movement. I will be presenting an essay on this subject in about 3 posts wherein I get down to business with the one sequence of dialectical movement that is actually world-historic.

The famous, thesis, antithesis, synthesis sequence embraces relativities and is to be valued for transcending relatives, if you can find it.

Dialectical movement is a major part of teleology / determinism / purposefulness in history. It is the story of the development of a problem until it portends an absolute solution. There is a major complication for persons focused on dialectical movement. The absolute solution does not occur in teleology. Recognition of the absolute Truth of major teleological importance, occurs in ontology; ontological insight recognises the event of importance. Then an Idealist knows what event in history is auspicious and he proceeds to retrospectively work-out how the auspicious event transpired.

Ontology and teleology are dichotomous partners. You may recognise this pairing as “being—time”. In this partnership, ontology does the “heavy-lifting” which amounts to system building.

Ontology is history-dependent – a society must mature till experience suggests a solution that is a departure from convention – but that does not mean historians have the instincts to know a metaphysically seminal moment when it occurs. Idealists have that skill.

Dialectical movement is an insight that transcends history, and it is attendant at the birth of “higher truths”, to use your words, but I emphasis, the crucial insight is ontological.

Do not feel obliged to research ontology. Ontology per se is not very extensive. What there is, is entirely absolute Truths. None of the references you might refer to know anything about absolute Truths. If this subject means anything to you, obtain my metaphysic.
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/648015

Sam I. Elle wrote:

ken wrote:Sounds fun and informative. I am keen to partake if you are.

What is your idea of the nature of reality?

Reality is infinite, in its scope and how we experience it.

In your opening post you say dialectic is a practice where two or more individuals inquire about the nature of reality. But now you are not showing any inquisitive nature at all. You are now proposing you know what reality is. Where is your inquiring?

In the opening post you even propose dialectic, if done with dedication, could bring about a heightened consciousness that could comprehended higher knowledge. I agree totally with this view, and even suggest that this will proven correct if and when individuals are really dedicated to being inquisitive, and really do make true inquiries.

Sam I. Elle wrote:We can experience reality through our senses, but also our higher faculties. It's the higher faculties where we can experience the higher worlds, and know it's infinite nature.

There are other views of reality, which are freely available to the truly inquisitive. When an individual is truly open and thus truly inquisitive that is when the heightened consciousness, which leads to comprehending higher knowledge, comes about.

Well, let's look at some of the ways we see reality. We can see, as what Rod pointed out, that there are various dichotomies in looking at the world: nature and civilization, war and peace, movement and stillness, freedom and restraint.

What I thought about dialectic is that a point of view is proposed and that other people elaborate more on it, either by critiquing it or adding it.

Sam I. Elle wrote:Dialectic is a practice where two or more individuals, or oneself (an inner dialectic), inquire about the nature of reality. It is a practice where, if done with dedication, could bring about a heightened consciousness that could comprehended higher knowledge. It is a mystical practice that utilizes contemplation.

This Dialectic is one originated from Plato and Socrates. Hegel's dialectic is much similar, and is mystical as well. Ideas come into contact with each other, and merge to reach higher truths.

It's not mystical.
Hegel was a fruit cake.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Sam I. Elle wrote:Dialectic is a practice where two or more individuals, or oneself (an inner dialectic), inquire about the nature of reality. It is a practice where, if done with dedication, could bring about a heightened consciousness that could comprehended higher knowledge. It is a mystical practice that utilizes contemplation.

This Dialectic is one originated from Plato and Socrates. Hegel's dialectic is much similar, and is mystical as well. Ideas come into contact with each other, and merge to reach higher truths.

It's not mystical.
Hegel was a fruit cake.

...and you're an internet buffoon.

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Sam I. Elle wrote:Dialectic is a practice where two or more individuals, or oneself (an inner dialectic), inquire about the nature of reality. It is a practice where, if done with dedication, could bring about a heightened consciousness that could comprehended higher knowledge. It is a mystical practice that utilizes contemplation.

This Dialectic is one originated from Plato and Socrates. Hegel's dialectic is much similar, and is mystical as well. Ideas come into contact with each other, and merge to reach higher truths.

It's not mystical.
Hegel was a fruit cake.

...and you're an internet buffoon.

Please show how a dialectic can be mystical - or anything for that matter.
Then you can give us your understanding of Hegel that shows he was not a fruitcake.
Other wise shut the fuck up.

Hobbes’ you ask a good question but we don’t need the swearing. I swear when I need to and you don’t need to. It is totally inappropriate and it will give me pleasure to show you are a clown. I have read your contempt for Hegel elsewhere, so you have a lesson to learn.

Mysticism is relative. A mystic tries to tell us exactly the nature of reality, but does not have logic to do it. Conversely, dialectic, the system of reasoning you think is “straight-up” is always relative, so its interpretation of reality is mystical in the sense related to obscurantism.

The idea behind dialectical movement is that two opposed positions, especially political opinions that are dialectical, will cancel out their relativity once the transcendence [synthesis] position is known. So figuratively, you have two wobbly positions. You brace them together, i.e. you see their synthesis, and thus you gain a firm grasp of reality.

This theory needs an explicit example. Hegel did not have one, but I do, and in awhile I will present it on my thread. So far as I can see and theory would allow, only one sequence in history will illustrate dialectical movement.

Who’s a fruit cake?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dubious wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
It's not mystical.
Hegel was a fruit cake.

...and you're an internet buffoon.

Please show how a dialectic can be mystical - or anything for that matter.
Then you can give us your understanding of Hegel that shows he was not a fruitcake.
Other wise shut the fuck up.

Hegel's dialectic is quite ingenious and there's plenty written on the subject to warrant that conclusion...for those who actually want to read about it. Whether one agrees, disagrees or only half agrees is another subject. Mystical or not remains at best a subjective conclusion.

Trying to inform you of anything which counters your hardwired biases is a insurmountable as trying to convince IC that atheists aren't damned because they refuse to acknowledge Jesus as god or any other god.

Mozart is chintzy; Nietzsche was a windbag; Hegel was a fruitcake; enjoying a drink was one of the few things the Germans got right!

...If they removed half of your brain you'd be twice as intelligent which in your case isn't much of a markup.

Rod wrote:Hobbes’ you ask a good question but we don’t need the swearing. I swear when I need to and you don’t need to. It is totally inappropriate and it will give me pleasure to show you are a clown. I have read your contempt for Hegel elsewhere, so you have a lesson to learn.

Mysticism is relative. A mystic tries to tell us exactly the nature of reality, but does not have logic to do it. Conversely, dialectic, the system of reasoning you think is “straight-up” is always relative, so its interpretation of reality is mystical in the sense related to obscurantism.

The idea behind dialectical movement is that two opposed positions, especially political opinions that are dialectical, will cancel out their relativity once the transcendence [synthesis] position is known. So figuratively, you have two wobbly positions. You brace them together, i.e. you see their synthesis, and thus you gain a firm grasp of reality.

This theory needs an explicit example. Hegel did not have one, but I do, and in awhile I will present it on my thread. So far as I can see and theory would allow, only one sequence in history will illustrate dialectical movement.

Who’s a fruit cake?

Hi rod just wondering which thread you will present your theory on. I am very interested in this. How I see things now, when I look at all opposing positions, is like how you describe here, that is, they each cancel each other's falsehoods out whilst also validating each other's truths, showing, to Me anyway, an indisputable, unambiguous fact.

Hi Ken. I am posting at "Finally, absolute Idealism delivers absolute Truth". I am trying to post every 3 days. Thanks for your interest.

Sam I. Elle wrote:Well, let's look at some of the ways we see reality. We can see, as what Rod pointed out, that there are various dichotomies in looking at the world: nature and civilization, war and peace, movement and stillness, freedom and restraint.

What I thought about dialectic is that a point of view is proposed and that other people elaborate more on it, either by critiquing it or adding it.

Okay sounds fair enough. To add onto your view of 'reality', which is Reality is infinite, in its scope and how we experience it. We can experience reality through our senses, but also our higher faculties. It's the higher faculties where we can experience the higher worlds, and know it's infinite nature. Reality may well be infinite but we do not experience reality through our senses. What human beings experience, through their senses, has already happened. By the time human beings have experienced what is happening, it has already happened. To Me, human beings do not experience reality. They experience what has already happened.

Further to this some people will insist what is happening (at the moment of conception) is reality. But, to Me, what is happening IS what is happening. Reality, on the other hand, IS what is possible and what can come about. For example every year that human beings have existed they will perceive that what is happening around them, at that time, is reality. Yet, to every human being, all of those previous years before their own existence is not reality. For example some people believe that forcing people to live certain ways, like they did in the past, is not reality, or that living when every person believed the earth was flat or that the sun revolved around the earth is not reality. But to them that is exactly what reality IS. Nowadays try telling people that reality is living without your mobile phone or living without the internet, televisions, and the health care services, which are being provided these days. Some people, especially the younger ones, will insist that they can not live without their phones and social media. Yet the peoples of yesteryear could not have even imagined these things, which are the so called "realities" of today. So, reality is infinite and can be experienced through our higher faculties, where we can know reality is infinite. But reality can never be known through our five senses. These senses perceive what is really happening whilst our brain will decipher their truthfulness or not and make a perceived construct of reality. But all the while our higher faculties, which are above the brain's faculties, knows that what has just been sensed has already happened and already past, and that what reality really IS.

The strength of "what is happening NOW" as being reality can be seen in the responses provided by people nowadays when told for example that "We do not need money to live". Most people react from the brain, which can only hold information from one's own past experiences, and actually find this Truth absolutely unbelievable and some even try to ridicule the informer of such Truths. All dialectic and practice of inquiry is lost and forgotten. The only thing that is held onto and maintained is their own beliefs and assumptions of what is true and real, which is stored in the brain's faculties. One's own beliefs of what is happening now becomes reality, to them. That is "their reality", and not reality itself.

To Me, what is really happening IS really happening, but which reality is NOT. For example is the abuse that is done to children by adults is this day and age, and in the past, reality or is that just what really happens and has had happened. To Me, reality IS derived from what we ALL really want. What we ALL really want is to live peacefully in harmony together, which by the way is possible and what can come about. But just like you said "reality is infinite", meaning reality is ultimately a process of achievement. That my friend is what the highest of faculties know about the nature of reality and how the highest of worlds can be achieved and come about. That world is the world in which we all want to live in, which is in a truly peaceful and harmonious world.

That's a well-written post, ken. Speaking about senses, another thing to add is that they can also deceive us a bit. An example would be optical illusions; if we just rely on our five senses, we could get confused trying to make sense of them. Another difficult thing to make sense of is mapping out the larger worlds (by that, as in altered states of consciousness). People can get confused and try to explain the various images or beings that they've seen.

Another example of how reality is infinite is by looking at fractals and cycles. Notice that they repeat an infinite number of times, creating a structure while still retaining free creativity. Without reputation, there would' be structure and there wouldn't be anything infinite.