Definition of Dialectic

The pre-Socratic philosopher Zeno of Elea was presumably the first who applied a form of dialectic by developing a series of paradoxes to demonstrate that certain ideas, like motion, change, space and time are impossible.

Socrates used a method known as elenchus (ἔλεγχος), or the Socratic method, which involved asking a series of questions to expose contradictions in the interlocutor's beliefs, leading them to a clearer understanding.

Plato expanded on this, using dialectic as a method of philosophical inquiry to uncover the forms or essential truths. It was no less than the method of scientific investigation itself, which sought definition through the dialectical procedures of collection (εἰς μίαν ἰδέαν συνορῶντα ἄγειν τὰ πολλαχῇ διεσπαρμένα: perceiving and bringing together in one idea the scattered particulars) and division (τὸ κατ’ εἰδη δύνασθαι διατέμνειν: dividing things by/into classes). He called the lovers of these processes of division (διαιρέσις) and bringing together (συναγωγή) dialecticians (διαλεκτικούς) (Phaedrus 266a-b). Especially in his dialogue Parmenides, Plato exhibits the contradictions involved in the notions of One and Many, Being and Becoming and tries to get beyond these opposites.

For Aristotle, dialectic was a method of argument based on probable premises, distinct from the demonstrative reasoning used in scientific inquiry. It was a tool for examining opinions and reaching conclusions through logical discussion.

Kant defined dialectic in his Critique of Pure Reason as the critique of dialectical illusion (Kritik des dialektischen Scheins) (A 62/B 86). It no longer offers rules for executing convincing judgments but teaches how to detect and uncover judgments which bear a semblance of truth but are in fact illusory.

In Hegel, dialectic took on the sophisticated and complex form of the self-movement of thought from an initial concept to its negative, contrary idea and finally to the sublation of both in a new identity or concept.

Kant's Antinomies

Antinomy (from Ancient Greek ἀντί, anti, "against, in opposition to", and νόμος, nomos, "law") is a rhetorical form of presentation cited by the Roman educator and rhetorician Quintilian (35-100 A.C.E.) in his Institutio oratoria:

proximum est de legibus contrariis dicere, quia inter omnes artium scriptores constitit, in antinomia duos esse scripti et voluntatis status; neque immerito;... omnibus autem manifestum est nunquam esse legem legi contrariam iure ipso, quia, si diversum ius esset, alterum altero abrogaretur, sed eas casu collidi et eventu.
(Book 7.7.1-2)

(The next subject which comes up for discussion is that of contrary laws. For all writers of text-books are agreed that in such cases [contradiction between laws] there are two bases involving the letter and the intention of the law respectively... But it is clear to everybody that one law cannot contradict another in principle (since if there were two different principles, one law would cancel the other), and that the laws in question are brought into collision purely by the accidents of chance.)

In philosophy, an antinomy occurs when two properly designed, logical conclusions contradict one another, i.e. the fact that there are two equally legitimate

Kant uses the antinomy in the 'dialectic' of each of the three critiques as a key part of his analysis of 'dialectical assertions'. He claims that human reason makes opposed and yet equally justifiable inferences, which point to an illegitimate use of reason beyond our experience. The objects of traditional metaphysics, that is, the soul, the world and God, rest on such dialectical inferences.

Kant proposes the following antinomies of pure reason for cosmology and its object, the world:

• First or quantitative antinomy is concerned with the limits of the world
• Thesis: the world has a beginning in time and is limited as regards space (CPR A 426/B 454)
• Antithesis: the world has no beginning and no limits in space, it is infinite as regards both time and space (A 427/B 455)
• Second or qualitative antinomy concerns the constitution or quality of the world
• Thesis: nothing anywhere exists save the simple or what is composed of the simple (A 434/B 462)
• Antithesis: there nowhere exists in the world anything simple (A 435/B 463)
• Third or relational antinomy considers the nature of causality in the world
• Thesis: causality is in accordance with both the laws of nature and freedom (A 444/B 472)
• Antithesis: there is no freedom; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance with the laws of nature (A 445/B 473)
• Fourth or modal antinomy
• Thesis: there belongs to the world, either as its part or as its cause, a being that is absolutely necessary (A 452/B 480)
• Antithesis: an absolutely necessary being nowhere exists in the world nor does it exist outside the world as its cause (A 453/B 481)

Both arguments in each antinomy are dialectical. Human reason seeks to understand the ultimate unconditioned ground of objects, for example the first cause of the world, by means of a regressive chain of reasoning, arguing from effect to cause. But this is an illegitimate use of reason beyond the possibility of experience. Because we seek 'absolute completeness' on the basis of our limited experience, reason is lead into the antinomies.

Buddha’s अव्याकृत (avyākṛta)

The unanswered questions (Sanskrit avyākṛta), or indeterminate questions, refer to certain types of metaphysical questions that Buddha refused to answer. A list of typically fourteen unanswered questions is presented in the texts of the Sanskrit tradition. The fourteen questions are grouped into four categories. We are only concerned here with the first two categories which represent the two main cosmological problems:

1. Whether the world is eternal, or not, or both, or neither
2. Whether the world is finite (in space), or infinite, or both or neither

Similar to Kant's antinomies, the set of questions contains a positive thesis which is opposed by a negative counter-thesis or antithesis. In addition, the two basic alternatives are conjunctively affirmed (both) to form the third alternative of the tetralemma and disjunctively denied (neither) to form the fourth.

Reason involves itself in contradictions when it tries to go beyond phenomena to seek their ultimate ground. Buddha's solution to the problem is to recognize all speculations as dogmatism and as unanswerable. He resolves the conflict by rising to a higher standpoint of criticism, similar to Kant's transcendental idealism, which is the standpoint of dialectic in Madhyamika Buddhism. By not answering these questions, the Buddha aimed to:

• prevent attachment to views and concepts, which can hinder spiritual progress
• avoid creating unnecessary intellectual debates and distractions from the practical pursuit of liberation
• emphasize the importance of direct experience and personal understanding over theoretical speculation

The Parable of the Poisoned Arrow is a parable told by Buddha in order to illustrate the futility of speculating on certain metaphysical questions, instead of addressing suffering directly. In the Cūḷamālukya Sutta, one of the Buddha's disciples requests the Buddha to answer ten such questions, and the Buddha declines to answer the disciple's questions. Instead, the Buddha tells a parable of a man who is shot by a poisoned arrow, but before the injured man will allow a doctor to remove the arrow, he insists on knowing the name of the archer, where the archer was from, what was the caste of the archer's family, where the arrow was made, what type of wood was used to form the arrow, etc. Such a man, the Buddha said, would die before learning the answers to his questions. In the same way, the Buddha said, the knowing the answers to certain metaphysical questions will not help one on the spiritual path.
(see see also video Parable of the Poisoned Arrow video)