Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
Introduction
Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, considered dialectic to be the search for the philosophic basis of science. Very often, he used this term as the synonym for logic. In addition, the prominent thinker estimated rhetoric in the context of logic, because logic, as well as rhetoric and dialectic, point out the studying of persuasion methods. The outstanding Aristotle’s works “Poetics” and “Rhetoric” had a great influence on the art of rhetoric and its development. Not only writers and thinkers, but also prominent teachers of rhetoric used some elements from Aristotle’s doctrine. Aristotle considered rhetoric to be the ability to find all possible methods of persuasion to every single object (Garver, 1995). That’s why Aristotle interpreted rhetoric to be the science about means of persuasion.
Main body
Aristotle told that rhetoric could be regarded as the branch of politics, but at the same time, it could be understood like the part of dialectic, because both rhetoric and dialectic try to find proof for persuasion. Aristotle explained the general concept of persuasion with the help of rhetorical syllogism, which consists of probabilistic conclusions. He rose important arguments and concepts in his ethical, logical, and psychological writings.
Hegel had his own conception of dialectic. His aim was to state a philosophical system so that it would combine the thoughts and ideas of Hegel’s predecessors. Moreover, he wanted it to be formed in such a conceptual framework in which both the future and past could be understood from the philosophical point of view. That’s why Hegel perceived that the study of philosophy was reality as a whole. Such reality he regarded as the Absolute or Absolute Spirit. According to Hegel, the Absolute had to be referred to as pure Spirit, Thought, or Mind in the long process of self-development. Traditionally the mensuration of his thought was dissected in the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Though Hegel tried not to use those terms, still they are very important for realizing his notion of dialectic. So the thesis had to be a historical movement or a certain idea with incompleteness within itself. Such incompleteness led to opposition or antithesis, a contradictory movement or idea. Synthesis was the result of the conflict. The synthesis became a newly appeared thesis, which in its turn gave rise to another antithesis, generating a new synthesis. Such dialectical process of historical and intellectual development led to the evolution of ideas. Hegel’s views were based on the idealistic concept of the universal mind, which due to evolution could occupy the highest stage of self-actualization and freedom (Hegel, 1812).
Karl Popper had a similar to Hegel approach to dialectic. According to him, dialectic was a theory that maintained that something – for instance, human thought – developed in a way characterized by the so-called dialectic triads: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (Popper, 2002, p. 421). Usually, dialectic was associated with three laws of dialectic: the law of the interpenetration of opposites (struggle and unity of opposites); the law of the transition of quantity into quality and vice versa; the law of the negation. Popper considered that logic dealt with notions of things prescinded from the real ones themselves. Though dialectic admitted contradictions, for Popper contradictions were logical contradictions. That’s why dialectic is opposed to logic.
Conclusion
In the modern philosophical literature, dialectic is represented as a kind of new logic. A newly appeared term “dialectical logic” is even used to depict that new type of logic (Stavinsky, 2003). Such an approach towards dialectic and logic leads to the confusion of understanding Popper’s treatment of the problem. But a lot of today’s scientists consider that logic, dialectic, and rhetoric belong to different spheres and can’t be accepted as potential replacements for each other.
Works Cited
Haack, S. Philosophy of logics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1978.
Hegel, G. Hegel’s Science of Logic. London: Allen and Unwin, 1812.
Garver, E. Aristotle’s Rhetoric: An Art of Character. The University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Lakoff, G. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987.
Popper, K. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge Classics, 2002.
Stavinsky, I. Philosophical Researchers. Moscow, 2003.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.