Dialectic to begin with a selection

　　Kierkegaard has considered Hegel dialectic to be the logic of "both/and". Against it, he has regarded his own dialectic as the logic of "either/or". We can think "both/and" of Hegel means unification and "either/or" of Kierkegaard means "selection". It seems that Kierkegaard has contraposed "selection" against "unification" of Hegel dialectic. In other words, he has introduced a subjective selection as an individual into dialectic.

　　I think that the subjective selection is necessary in dialectic of recognition also. Probably, it is related with "a possibility of freedom in the region of recognition". (Umemoto Katsumi "Transitional Consciousness" ).

　　Dialectic is unity of opposites in recognitions promoted by a thinking method modeled after dialogue . This is my concept. I can discover a synchronic structure of dialectic in the thinking method modeled after dialogue. In contrast, I can show a diachronic structure of dialectic in a process of unity of opposites. The process consists of three stages to begin with selection as follows:

1) Selection
　　The stage we select two "logical thoughts" which seem to have connection for grasp of an object among logical thoughts.

2) Hybridization　　The stage we crossbreed two distinguishable definitions of "logical thoughts" which are confronting to form two hybrid momenta.

3) Unification　　The stage we unify the two hybrid momenta to form a logical thought corresponding to the object.

　　In short, three stages indicate the process that two logical thoughts are selected, hybridized and unified. Dialectic starts with a selection of two "logical thoughts". This is a characteristic of the complex theory, a new theory of dialectic. When we select two logical thoughts, we will accede to mental attitude of "either/or" of Kierkegaard:

　　Most important thing when we select two logical thoughts is not selection of right thoughts but energy, seriousness, and passion.

Note

This is based on "選択から始まる弁証法"

An image of dialectic

　　Hegel has propounded three philosophers Zeno, Heraclitus, and Plato as the founders of dialectic. Against him, I proposed two philosophers of Plato and Aristotle.

　　Dialectic is directly connected with Panta Rhei,that is, Everything flows, nothing stands still, of Heraclitus today. I want to insist, however, that this is an image in these two centuries at most. I assert that this image should be removed from dialectic.

　　It is the two philosophers of Plato and Aristotle who are walking in the center of the school of Athens drawn by Raphael. Probably, I think their dialogue is an image of general dialectic. The fluidity of dialectic is not flow of the river of Heraclitus but that of the dialogue of Plato and Aristotle.

　　　　　The school of Athens

Notes
1) This is a translation of "弁証法のイメージ".
2) Plato is a symbol of dialogue. In contrast, Aristotle is that of the law of contradiction.
3) In addition, it is a synchronic structure of dialectic that the two philosophers are walking along the corridor side by side when we regard them as two logical thoughts.
　　

The founders of dialectic

　　Hegel has proposed three philosophers of Zeno, Heraclitus, and Plato as the founders of dialectic in Lectures on the history of philosophy.　First, I want to try to evaluate these three philosophers in this paper.　Next, I will set up philosophers whom I consider to be the founders of dialectic.

　　Zeno is dialectic contradiction itself. Hegel considered the movement to be existing contradiction itself by counterattack against the logic of Zeno. Zeno is a starting point of Hegel dialectic. He corresponds to dialectic contradiction.

　　Heraclitus corresponds to negative reason, Plato positive reason. In other words, I think that three philosophers whom Hegel put up correspond to internal structure of three aspects of the logical. This is my evaluation.

　　By the way, according to Heo Man-Won(許萬元), Zeno corresponds to inherencism, Heraclitus historicism, and Plato totalism. My evaluation derives from his philosophy.

　　In dialectic of Hegel, dialectic of existence and dialectic of recognition coexist. My trial is to distinguish dialectic of recognition from Hegel dialectic and then to reconstitute three aspects of the logical on the basis of the law of contradiction. In other words, my venture is to remove contradiction from the Hegel dialectic and to submit the dialectic which sets dialogue in the kernel.

　　In my opinion, three philosophers of Zeno, Heraclitus, and Plato are not the founders of dialectic. Zeno and Heraclitus leave. It is Aristotle who comes instead. Aristotle is a symbol of the law of contradiction. Plato stays, but he is a symbol of not positive reason but dialogue.

　　These two philosophers are the founders of dialectic. I want to propose two philosophers of Plato and Aristotle against three philosophers of the founders of Hegel dialectic.　Plato is a symbol of dialogue. In contrast, Aristotle is a symbol of the law of contradiction. These two philosophers exist in the rational kernel of Hegel dialectic.

Notes
1) This is a translation of "弁証法の創始者".
2) Dialectic of exsistence is a term of Iwasaki Takeo（岩崎武雄）. It means a way of thinking as follows: Contradictions exist in existence itself, therefore we must abandon the law of contradiction to grasp existence. For example, a movement is caused by the contradiction that a thing is in this place and it is not at the same time, therefore we must throw away the law of contradiction when we think about movements.
3) Heo Man-Won(許萬元) is a scholar who has been trying to discover the rational kernel of Hegel dialectic.
　

〈「論理的なものの三側面」の形成について〉への案内

　「弁証法試論」の補論５として、〈「論理的なものの三側面」の形成について〉をアップしました（2005/05/01）。このブログに公表した同名の論考（2005/03/19）を改訂したものです。読みやすくなっていると思います。

　「論理的なものの三側面」は、ヘーゲルが、スピノザの規定論とカントの二律背反を選択し、混成し、統一することによって、形成した「論理的なもの」であると主張しています。ヘーゲル弁証法の核心を複合論によって把握できたことは、わたしなりに感慨があります。これによって、客観的な意味においてヘーゲル弁証法に複合論を対置する基礎を確立できたのではないかと思うのです。

　補論５は、次のような構成になっています。見ていただきたいと思います。

「論理的なものの三側面」の形成について

　　はじめに
　
　　１　「論理的なものの三側面」の特徴――対立する一項の内在的否定による進展

　　２　「複合論」の概略と特徴――対立する二項の対話による進展
　　　　　　１　自己表出と指示表出
　　　　　　２　「論理的なもの」の複素数モデル
　　　　　　３　弁証法の複素数モデル
　　　　　　４　ヘーゲル弁証法と複合論の対照

　　３　「論理的なものの三側面」の形成――ヘーゲルの発想と複合論
　　　　　　１　選択――カントの二律背反とスピノザの規定論
　　　　　　２　混成(１)――規定的否定
　　　　　　３　混成(２)――二律背反の拡張
　　　　　　４　統一――アンチノミーの真実で積極的意味　
　　　　　　５　ヘーゲル的でない弁証法についての問い