3.1. Defining, Describing, and Distinguishing Different Types of Dialectics


'The dialectic' is like any other concept in philosophy, psychology, science, or any other field of study: it can, and invariably does, mean different things to different people -- philosophers and theorists, students, readers, etc. Usually there is a 'range of similar' meaning(s) among philosophers who have studied basically the same philosophers before them. Call this range of similar meaning the 'social meaning' of the concept. But within this range of social meaning, different philosophers will always have different 'nuances' or 'focuses' of meaning for each of their particular concepts which are aimed to help drive their own particular theory in the particular direction that they want and thus, are driven by the philosopher's own 'narcissistic' wants, motives, needs. This is what I will call the 'narcissistic'(self-based) meaning of the philosopher's concept.

Having made this particular distinction (and most leading edge philosophy is about philosophers making new distinctions that previous philosophers have not thought about), and allowing for the fact that we will spend considerable time delving into the historical, social and philosophical roots of the term 'dialectic, I turn now to a further distinction that has not really been made relative to the dialectic: the difference between a 'narcissistic' dialectic and a 'humanistic-existential' dialectic. The first tends to generally be more detrimental and self-destructive relative to the advancement and evolution of human society (as well as to the specific person and/or persons involved in this type of dialectic), whereas the second type of dialectic seems to generally have more favorable results toward both the social and personal advancement and evolution of the particular people involved.

So we come back to the question, 'What is the dialectic?'; and then what is the difference between a 'narcissistic dialectic' and a 'humanistic-existential dialectic'?

A dialectic, for our purposes here, is any personal and/or social disagreement that involves that involves a 'split of social and/or personal interests'. This we might call a 'dialectical split'. Liberalism vs. Conservatism. Capitalism vs. Socialism. Impulse vs. Restraint. Environment vs. Economics. Right vs. Wrong. Good vs. Bad. Saint vs. Sinner. Narcissism vs. Altruism. Narcissism vs. Humanistic-Existential Values and Ethics. Black vs. White. Men vs. Women. God vs. The Devil. Heaven vs. Hell. East vs. West. North vs. South. Rationalism vs. Empiricism. Idealism vs. Realism. Idealism vs. (Fake) Ideology. (Fake) Ideology vs. (Underlying)Real Narcissistic Motives and Goals. These are all various different types of dialectic possibilities and/or realities.

By 'narcissistic dialectic', we will mean any debate and/or conflict situation whereby there is the desire by one or more persons to 'win an argument' or to 'get their own way', to 'control' or 'overpower' the other person in the conflict, and/or to 'manipulate the other person(s) towards the desired narcissistic outcome'. In the worst case scenarios, a narcissitic dialectic may result in court, crime, violence, and/or outright war. Within the realm of narcissistic dialectics, we can further distinguish between: 'power dialectics', 'manipulative dialectics', 'economic dialectics', and 'violent dialectics' but these we will save for another discussion.

In contrast, a 'humanistic-existential or integrative dialectic' is a dialectic where both parties in the disagreement are aiming towards a 'win-win solution or resolution' to the disagreement. The particular 'process dynamics' in this latter type of dialectic involve such things as: creative imagination, problem-solving skills, conflict-negotiation or mediation skills, a style of negotiation that involves both self-assertiveness and social empathy, compromise, and integration. The idea in this latter case scenario is that it is best for both sides to leave the negotiation table as happy as possible, as opposed to one party 'trampling over top of the other party' using a combination of force, coercion, leverage, manipulation, deceit, etc.

The study of 'dialectics' in general then becomes the study of bot of these types of debate and/or conflict situations -- and the differences between them. It can and will also mean the study of 'opposing polarities' and the attempt to resolve the distance and differences between these opposing polarities, either through a 'righteous either/or solution' (a 'will to power' and/or a 'will to rhetorical supremacy' -- the classic 'Socratean dialectic') or by means of a more 'compromising, integrative solution or resolution' (the classic Hegelian dialectic -- 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', 'synthesis').

Within the framework of Gap-DGB Philosophy, this is what we will mean by the study of 'dialectics' and/or 'multi-dialectics' (the latter meaning more than one type of dialectic going on at the same and/or different times).

dgb, Jan. 30th, 2007, Updated Sept. 16th, 2007.