Skip to main content

Understanding the Dialectic // Jessef Leslie

     In The Republic, Socrates speaks of the type of man that should lead his city. He calls them the dialectic. he not only refers to the term as a person but also as a "journey" (226 Plato). This means that being a dialectic isn't actually being a dialectic, but that the true being of a dialectic is the becoming of a dialectic. The process in which you strive to become a dialectic is the being of the dialectic. Also, when he begins to the define the dialectic he uses present continuous verbs. These verbs make it seem as if the dialectic is always performing these tasks in the moment "So it is when a man enters into dialectic, shunning reliance on sense perceptions and seeking understanding solely by means of rational discourse. He strives to know each thing in its essence and does not desist until he led by pure intelligence to know goodness itself " (226 Plato).

    "Not-knowing is true knowledge. Presuming to know is a disease." (Lao Tzu ,Tao Te Ching, Chapter 71) Before I can continue to define what exactly the dialectic is, I must define what it is not. Lao Tzu was a philosopher and even influenced Confucius as far as stories go. Also, I would like to say that Socrates would agree with this statement. In Socrates' Apology, he openly states that he believes he is the wisest man. This is not only because the oracle of  Delphi told him so, but also because every supposedly wise man he has met believes themselves to be wise. On the other hand, Socrates is aware that he isn't wise and has much more to learn, this is what made him wiser then the other men. Socrates defines that the dialectic must have self-discipline. If he does not, then he becomes the cynical man who sees academics as a sport, or the man who seeks knowledge for the understanding of man-made visible things such as money or lust "Will he not be likely to settle into the life that feeds and flatters his desires... Does this not replicate the experience of those who enter the dialectic but lack the requisite to discipline? ... The chief safeguard is to prevent them from tasting it too young." (Plato 232) " They are like puppies, welcoming all comers to pull and tear at words with them... They rapidly fall victim to distrust of all they formerly believed" (Plato 233).

     So the dialectic isn't the sharp youngster nor the silver tongued business man, but he is "the one who seeks the connection in things". Dialectic is the art of internal dialogue, the way of questioning beliefs and ideas you pick up, then finally evaluating them to find your own. The art of self examination and questioning. Looking within and searching for knowledge to find truth in things, rather than for a gain other than that. Other gains that come will be accepted but are not the goal for the dialectic. The dialectic is constantly searching, but when he stops living the examined life and decides to say.

 I am finally a dialectic.
    He is no longer one.



Commented on Rachael Gregson and Braylan Stringfellow's Posts

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Aristotle Might Not Like Me...Or Jesus//Haylee Lynd

      Aristotle says that the man who does not get angry at the things he should be angry at "is thought unlikely to defend himself; and to endure being insulted and put up with insult to one's friends is slavish" (Aristotle 41). While he states that passivity is preferred to excessive anger, he still gives great criticism to it.  In contrast to Aristotle, the man who Christians believe to be the most just is Jesus who states in Matthew 5:39-40, "...do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well." Essentially, arguing that one is not to respond in anger when insulted or hurt, to not defend one's self. Most individual's are unable to achieve this. Our natural instinct is to defend ourselves, especially in physical cases. However, Christians strive to be like Jesus in this way. I would also argue that it is a very admirable wa...
2 comments
Read more

Oedipus’ Children/Siblings—Lily Caswell

Ok, so Oedipus is a bit of a train wreck to say the least. I love the fact that even after Oedipus found out about his less-than-appealing relationship with his mother, he still tried to look after his children/siblings. After he gouged his eyes out, his children came to him at which point Oedipus talked about how that when they were old enough to marry, no one would want them due to them being products of incest. He said for the people not to condemn them based on what their father had done. Even after he knew what he had done and what his children were, he still wanted the best for them. I commented on Logan’s and Ian’s posts.
3 comments
Read more

Overanalyzing Everyone's Intentions Here-Rachael Gregson

 First off, I'd like to say this is going to be a two part blog post, because a lot of things happened in this reading assignment that demands to be discussed.  As with any war I've realized, it's tricky not to fall into the initial perspective I am given. I began this book skeptical of Hector because I was bias toward the movie Troy, which was told mostly through the eyes of Achilles, but neither were what I was expecting. It's actually funny that they both hold values completely opposite from one another. Hector represented everything related to city-state pride, honor, and humility whereas Achilles was everything wild, reckless, and unpredictable solitary. This isn't to say that Hector is all good and Achilles all bad. Both had instances where I rooted for the other more or less. I just thought it was interesting how their two personalities represented something that basically causes all wars: the clash between civilization and savagery.  Secondly, I'm not de...
2 comments
Read more