BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... -spirit/p1
The Book that Broke the World: Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit”

The dialectic of lordship and bondage, most commonly called the master-slave dialectic — Dermot Griffin

I've never read any of Hegel's writings, but somehow I came to associate his name with the notion of a historical (or natural) Dialectic summarized in terms of Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis. I just read the novel by Ken Follett, World Without End, set in late medieval England, when the long-running semi-stable Feudal System of Lords & Serfs was beginning to unravel. The author doesn't analyze the situation philosophically, but describes it in such visceral detail that the reader feels like a first-hand witness to man's inhumanity to man, and especially to women. In light of our modern -- enlightened, but less than perfect -- system, that darker era feels depressing, especially when compressed into a single story-line.

The period Follett describes is in the centuries following the 1215 Magna Carta*1, when the King was forced to define in writing the legal rights of his subject nobles (Barons, Counts, Earls, etc). Those rights were not directly extended to the Serfs, who were bound to Land & Lord. Yet, they continued to incrementally resist & rebel against the Master-Slave relationship. And since the Lords were dependent on those who provided their food & material, they were eventually forced to pass-on some of their own "individual rights" to those under their authority. As Follett's book illustrated, the historical power struggle leading up to more general democratic rights, as defined in the 1787 US Constitution, followed an excruciating (for both those on top & bottom) zig-zag path of ups & downs, back & forth.

Likewise, the "Class Struggle" that Marx summarized as the Logic of Nature, has not yet been fully resolved. Even the US Constitution and most Parliamentary systems, still accept a natural bicameral order of Lords/Senators (the few) and Commons/Congressmen (the many). Marx's ideal of egalitarian communal politics has proven susceptible to the motivating power of abstract money. Hence, the new Feudalism of Capitalism : Billionaire Oligarchs ruling the bare-survival masses.

If the 3-stage Dialectic is truly the logic of Nature, we must assume that the power-pushing-politics will continue to dance to the Cha Cha rhythms of one step forward, one step back, then both step forward together : as rulers & ruled court the favor of each other in coy pursuit & evasion. The question is, can we consider this erratic process as upward progress toward a more harmonious world? Science Fiction presents both Utopian and Dystopian views of the future. But, if current movies are any indication, dystopian & apocalyptic futures seem to be more common in our "enlightened" era. :meh:



*1. Magna Carta :
"the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

Whatever the dialectic is, it is not logic in the modern sense. — Banno

In his 1958 book, Physics & Philosophy, Werner Heisenberg tried to explicate -- for a general audience -- his key concept of "Quantum Uncertainty". So he contrasted the fractional statistical nature of quantum superposition with the integral factual assumptions of Aristotelian Logic. Apparently, he coined the term "Quantum Logic"*1, but today we might substitute the term "Fuzzy Logic"*2. Early quantum physicists were grappling with the ambiguous reality of super-posed particles that are not-yet particular, but holistic, as-if merely waves in a universal fluid medium*3.

Since, in dual-slit experiments, sub-atomic particles acted-as-if continuous & undefined -- until the moment of measurement -- the statistical status of their pre-measurement existence seemed too vague to be real --- for those accustomed to yes/no classical Logic. So, Heisenberg proposed a new way of thinking about statistical "expectations", which he called "Uncertainty" or "Undecided". Hence, describing particles in their statistical-state, he said "one might call it an objective tendency or possibility, a 'potentia'*4 in the sense of Aristotelian philosophy".

In the math of Schrodinger's equation, that not-yet-real state exists as a fraction of the whole system of Potential + Actual physics. Hence, the necessity to include an "imaginary" number*5 in the equation. Like "Zero", we can imagine the concept of a fractional object, but we can't measure it in situ. So, our statistical expectations are based on an internal dialectic of Possible / Actual = Probable or Potential --- a state we can imagine mathematically, but can't measure physically. In the Dialectic, Thesis & Antithesis are fractional (possible) facts (opinions), and only become whole & real upon Synthesis into a complete universal system (truth).

Ironically, Quantum Logic is a Complementary concept, as illustrated in the Yin-Yang symbol. Which may explain why the pioneers of Quantum Physics began to use some of the Holistic language of Eastern philosophies. Which you could call the dialectic logic of post-modern post-classical Quantum Physics. Maybe that East-West Dialectic didn't "break the world", but merely undermined the certainty of Classical worldviews. ☯

*1. Quantum Logic :
"quantum logic" describes uncertainties of the real world (to be more precise, the uncertainty of our best theory of the world), while "fuzzy logic" described the uncertainty of our reasoning. https://scholarworks.utep.edu/cgi/viewc ... cs_techrep

*2. Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued logic in which the truth value of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1 ___Wiki
Note -- those numbers between 1 (something) and 0 (nothing) represent fractions of whole reality : fractional facts.

*3. Space as Aether :
The story of how early relativity experiments proved the aether doesn't exist isn't really true. What they showed was that the aether isn't needed to explain the results. By the 1970s it was demonstrated that if an aether exists it must be completely undetectable by relativity experiments
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankober ... 7781273ed3
Note -- Aether (fluid space) is like Dark Matter (non-physical matter), undetectable or uncertain, but useful as a hypothetical model of cosmic physics.

*4. Potential / Actual :
Aristotle insists later on that while potentia can be characterized by its relation to actus, actus in the sense of an actuality is a undefinable
https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/ac ... tentia.pdf
Note -- Actual is what we call "Real", while Potential is statistically (ideally) Possible, but not physically Real.

*5. Imaginary number :
To understand fractals, you need to understand complex numbers. Complex numbers are a way to put two coordinates (x,y) into one number with two parts. One is a real number, which is any regular number like 3, 8.5, or 12/45. The other is an imaginary number, which is defined as the square root of a negative number,
Note -- Fractals are images illustrating the strange (infinite ; undefined) properties of fragmented (fractional ; incomplete) reality. Maybe the undefined margins of reality are the realm of not-yet-real particles?

THE BLACK AREAS OF A FRACTAL ARE INFINITE, HENCE UNDEFINED
https://i0.wp.com/chalkdustmagazine.com ... C450&ssl=1

↪Gnomon
I didn't notice this until now.
I don't see how it addresses the point of mine that you quote:
Whatever the dialectic is, it is not logic in the modern sense. — Banno
Here is a link to an account of logic: The Open Logic Text complete build (Large file). it's pretty much a summation of the core ideas of Logic as presently understood.
Neither Hegel nor Dialectic are mentioned. — Banno

My post was intended to address your conditional assertion that The Dialectic is not logical*1. Says who? As presently understood, by whom?

Since you didn't define "modern logic", or specify which canon of modern logic you considered authoritative, I felt free to introduce some alternative views, that I consider pertinent to the OP. I quoted two modern (20th & 21st century) definitions of Logic*1 that go beyond the ancient categorical Logic of Aristotle, extending its scope to include Quantum & Information sciences.

The OP may be interpreted to imply that the Linear Logic*2 of Classical science & history was "broken" (or bent) by the antitheticall discovery of Non-linear Logic at the foundations of Physics. So IMHO, a 21st century synthesis of philosophy & science should make allowance for the inherent uncertainties & ambiguities of human understanding, while still pursuing practical & logical conclusions.

The Open Logic Project*3 seems to be mostly linguistic & mathematical, and ignores the practical & historical & evolutionary logic of Hegel and the physical Fuzzy Logic*4 of Quantum science. Which I think are pertinent to the OP topic. So, please pardon me, if I took liberties with your undefined quote. My response may not address your (ambiguous) intended point, so I inserted my own definitions into the gap.

BTW, please don't take my quotes to be arguing in favor of Marxism*5. Politics makes for strange philosophical bedfellows. Yes, I had an ax to grind, but it was philosophical, not political.


*1. "Dialectic, also called dialectics, originally a form of logical argumentation but now a philosophical concept of evolution applied to diverse fields including thought, nature, and history."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/dialectic-logic

*2. "Linear logic is deeply ingrained in the Western mind set. There is one ‘right’ answer, and we need to find it. . . . This might have been true until quantum mechanics introduced an element of normative chaos into the natural sciences. Perhaps Western thinking must now learn to embrace opposed or parallel truths".
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 19093-8_16

*3. Note -- The Open Logic Project does include Many Valued Logic, which is one way to label Quantum Logic. But it misses the historical & scientific implications of those non-linear patterns of causation.

*4. "Dialectical logic is the system of laws of thought, developed within the Hegelian and Marxist traditions, which seeks to supplement or replace the laws of formal logic. The precise nature of the relation between dialectical and formal logic was hotly debated within the Soviet Union and China." ___Wikipedia

*5. "It is the “dialectics,” however, that is commonly found as the universal law in “quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, the law of evolution of living organisms, the law of evolution of societies” and even “in the law of development of thought.” Therefore, it may be regarded as “the logic of nature.” In view of this fact, quantum mechanics, Newtonian mechanics, and indeed every science can be understood only by the logic of dialectics. The confusion brought about on the interpretation of quantum mechanics had its main origin in the fact that physicists did not have the logic of dialectics."
https://www.marxists.org/subject/japan/sakata/ch01.htm

I said Dialectic is not logic. That is quite different. — Banno

I assume that by "logic" you mean a canonical form of reasoning, as defined by your preferred authority. By "logical" I meant merely any formal process of inferring truth from premises. That is "quite different : Authoritarian vs Liberal. I apologize for implying that you dismissed Dialectic as illogical.

Logical : characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning.

I assume that by "logic" you mean a canonical form of reasoning... — Gnomon
No, I mean an explicit form of reasoning. — Banno

I've never read Hegel, and I'm not a disciple of Marx, so I don't care what you think about their philosophy, which is usually characterized as a form Idealism. For the purposes of this thread, my interest is in the Dialectic dynamic as the logical process of competition, for weaning-out the unfit or untrue, which is more like brutal Realism . So, let's get real.

In the vector geometry of Physics, causal energy consists of both force-value and spatial direction. In Philosophical dialog, arguments have both truth-value (force) and ideological direction (e.g Idealism ; Realism ; Marxism). We make our dialectical arguments "explicit" by defining our terms. And if necessary, by numbering our premises & conclusions. And if challenged further, by abstracting the original thesis, the antithetical argument, and the logical conclusion in conventional symbols.

On this layman's forum though, we seldom get that explicit, and the format of argumentation typically strays from any officially-approved structure. However, you can't get much simpler than (a)Thesis > (b) Antithesis > (c) Synthesis, or (a) Premise > (b) Counter-premise > (c) Mutual Agreement. Is that too Ideal for you?

In Evolution, random mutation produces multiple novel combinations that are selected by the the life-or-death-dialog of striving to survive. The physical criteria for bare survival typically mean that the bigger, stronger, or faster get to reproduce. But the philosophical criteria for progress is to be smarter, or in some way more suitable, for whatever niche is available. Homo Sapiens didn't get to its dominant position by imposing its physical advantages, but by using its philosophical prowess.

In Quantum physics, Heisenberg, among others, compared the non-classical philosophical dilemmas & physical paradoxes as the result of a dialectic process of Potential becoming Actual. Of course, any reference to "dialectic" will be popular with Marxists, but I'm talking about physicists. And Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis is not inherently ideological, but essentially mathematical & physical (billiard balls). The concept can be expressed symbolically as an interaction between vectors with direction & value, as illustrated below. Is that explicit enough for you?

PS__I've enjoyed this dialectic dialog, but I don't expect to reach a mutual conclusion. Historically, in a less-than-ideal world, the Synthesis stage of a Dialectic process is usually immediately challenged by a new or mutated Antithesis. Philosophy never ends.

Dialectic :
also known as the dialectical method, is a discourse between two or more people holding different points of view about a subject but wishing to establish the truth through reasoned argumentation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

The Quantum Dialectic :
The thesis will end with a conclusion of the quantum paradox by juxtaposing anti-materialist Martin Heidegger with quantum founder Werner Heisenberg. Our conclusion will be primarily a discussion of how we understand the world, and specifically how our understanding of the world creates potential for truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

Formal Dialectical Approaches :
https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 1-9473-5_6


DIALECTICS OF BILLIARDS
physics_billiards_1.png
Dialectic%2007-14-07.jpg