And of course, surprise, surprise, surprise, as noted philosopher and TV series Jarhead Gomer Pyle might have stated, there is criticism of the dialectic.
By the way, how DID that 'new world order' work out, bankers and business councils' intentions, expressed wishes and desires notwithstanding?
Not as wished or intended, it would appear.
Lesson? People bloviate. See Trump's wall paid for by Mexico, among many other of Trump's expressed 'desires'. Doesn't mean a thing, without willing partners, political skill, actual leadership.
Or of course, without a 'black swan' event like 9/11.
By the way, how DID that 'new world order' work out, bankers and business councils' intentions, expressed wishes and desires notwithstanding?
Not as wished or intended, it would appear.
Lesson? People bloviate. See Trump's wall paid for by Mexico, among many other of Trump's expressed 'desires'. Doesn't mean a thing, without willing partners, political skill, actual leadership.
Or of course, without a 'black swan' event like 9/11.
Quote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
Criticisms[edit]
Dialectics has become central to "Continental" philosophy, but it plays no part in "Anglo-American" philosophy. In other words, on the continent of Europe, dialectics has entered intellectual culture as what might be called a legitimate part of thought and philosophy, whereas in America and Britain, the dialectic plays no discernible part in the intellectual culture, which instead tends toward positivism.
[citation needed] A prime example of the European tradition is Jean-Paul Sartre's Critique of Dialectical Reason, which is very different from the works of Popper, whose philosophy was for a time highly influential in the UK where he resided (see below). Sartre states:
"Existentialism, like Marxism, addresses itself to experience in order to discover there concrete syntheses.
It can conceive of these syntheses only within a moving, dialectical totalisation, which is nothing else but history or—from the strictly cultural point of view adopted here—'philosophy-becoming-the world'."[72]
Karl Popper has attacked the dialectic repeatedly. 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".[73] 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 that Hegel's thought (unjustly, in the view of some philosophers, such as Walter Kaufmann,[74]) 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 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".[75]
The philosopher of science and physicist Mario Bunge repeatedly criticized Hegelian and Marxian dialectics, calling them "fuzzy and remote from science"[76] and a "disastrous legacy",[77] and he concluded: "The so-called laws of dialectics, such as formulated by Engels (1940, 1954) and Lenin (1947, 1981), are false insofar as they are intelligible."[ 77]
1
