= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
buybuydandavis comments on "Dialectics"? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (27)
Like many systematizers, he made up a boatload of his own terms by choice. In his case, there were ideological reasons to do so, as from his perspective, the general level of semantic hygiene was so low that you'd be better off starting from scratch.
There are all sorts of claims made by people who use the word. Much of it seems like crap to me.
But I think what I described is the basic Hegelian insight, which is both useful and in line with insights from Korzybski. The concept that seeming contradictions from competing conceptual systems can be resolved by a more comprehensive conceptual system which preserves the truth of both is useful, IMO.
For a change, today I'm focusing on the wheat instead of the chaff.
As far as terms with bad semantic hygiene "dialectics" seems to be a prime example and that might motivate us also to avoid using it.
I think the core idea is quite obvious if one has a good grasp on what a conceptual system happens to be.
The more complicated question would be in what sense the existing systems have truth that could be preserved. I don't think the discourse about dialectics helps to answer that question.
The OP was specifically asking about "dialectics" and Sciabarra's use of it.
Also, it's a fundamental concept in Hegelianism and it's offshoots, so you shouldn't try to avoid it there either.
But I agree with you in general. I find it a much overused and inconsistently used term, much like irony and paradox, and often used to shovel crap.
Well yeah, but I find that quite a big IF, don't you?
Which would depend on the particulars of the existing systems in question.
He was also asking about why we don't use it on LW and whether maybe we should use it if it's a potent thinking tool.
But if not, I don't think talking about dialectics has any use either. It will just seem like magic.