Hegelian Dialectic for Dummies
AKA The Idiot’s Guide to Hegelian Dialectic AKA Hegelian Dialectic in a Nutshell
Everyone designs who devises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. (From Herbert Simon’s The Sciences of the Artificial (Third Edition, 1996, p.111–167)
During my undergraduate years, I encountered some academic challenges that left their mark on my transcript. My three lowest grades were in Basic Russian II, Hegelian Dialectic — a course centered on Hegel’s monumental work, Phenomenology of Spirit — and a class intriguingly titled The Enjoyment of Music. Reflecting on these experiences, I realize that each low grade had its own unique backstory.
Starting with Basic Russian II, my struggle stemmed largely from a bout of laziness. The first semester was manageable; I discovered that much of Russian vocabulary mirrored Polish, a language I was somewhat familiar with, albeit written in Cyrillic script. This initial success gave me a false sense of security. However, as the second semester rolled around, my lack of effort caught up with me. I recognized that continuing down this path without adequate dedication was futile, so I decided to withdraw from the course sequence. Interestingly enough, I still fulfilled my foreign language requirement by switching to ancient Greek. The script looked similar enough to Russian that it seemed like a natural pivot, at least visually.
My experience in The Enjoyment of Music was equally memorable, but for a different reason — I simply enjoyed music too much. It might sound counterintuitive, but my passion for music led me to prioritize listening and exploring over the coursework itself. I found myself so engrossed in melodies and rhythms that academic obligations took a backseat, resulting in a grade that didn’t reflect my true appreciation for the subject.
However, it was in the Hegelian Dialectic course where I truly tested my intellectual limits. Despite the challenges, I still have my paper on the Phenomenology of Spirit focusing on the Sphere of Life. Perhaps one day I’ll scan it and share it on my blog. If you think that’s a good idea, go ahead and clap 50 times — I promise it’s not badly written. Granted, it was an undergraduate paper for a graduate seminar, so some of the language is understandably a bit simplistic. I was even given the chance to rewrite it, but pride got the better of me, and I decided to keep the original version, accepting the low mark as evidence of my undergrad status in a grad-level class. Ultimately, who really cares about grades? My transcript is a testament to my belief that grades aren’t everything. In high school, my personal motto was, “B grade students learn all of the important stuff. A grade students learn the important stuff plus a lot of bullshit.”
With that background, let’s dive into the main topic of this essay: the Hegelian Dialectic. Despite my rocky academic history, I consider myself well-qualified to break down this complex philosophical concept — which in fact I already have done, given this article’s epigraph.
The Hegelian Dialectic is renowned for its triadic structure: Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis. But what does that really mean? In simple terms, the thesis represents the current state of affairs — a concrete reality or existing condition. The antithesis is the direct opposition to the thesis; it’s abstract, hypothetical, and not grounded in reality. Think of the antithesis as the challenge or contradiction that arises against the established thesis. The synthesis is where things get interesting. It’s the process of reconciling the thesis and antithesis by integrating their truths into a new, more refined state of affairs. This new synthesis then becomes the new thesis, setting the stage for another cycle of dialectical progression.
To put it another way, imagine you have a situation (thesis) that isn’t working out perfectly. An opposing idea or force (antithesis) emerges, highlighting the flaws or limitations of the current situation. The solution (synthesis) blends the best parts of both, creating a new and improved reality. This cycle continues, driving progress and change through continuous refinement and adaptation.
In essence, the Hegelian Dialectic is a framework for understanding how ideas evolve and how conflicts can lead to progress. It emphasizes that through the clash of opposing forces, a higher level of understanding or a better state of affairs can emerge. This process is fundamental not just in philosophy, but also in various fields like politics, history, and even personal growth.
So, despite my less-than-stellar grade in this course that challenged me the most, I’ve come to appreciate the value of these struggles. It provided me with a deeper understanding of complex ideas and reinforced the notion that true learning often comes from overcoming obstacles. After all, in life, it’s not the grades that define us, but how we navigate and grow from our experiences.
Now, I have to point out that Herbert Simon, who started this essay with a suspiciously Hegelian idea, was something of a thief.
John Dewey articulated a concept strikingly similar to Herbert Simon’s definition of design in his influential work, Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, published in 1938 by Henry Holt and Company. Dewey stated, “Every act of inquiry is essentially a design aimed at transforming existing situations into more satisfactory ones.” In this seminal text, Dewey delves into the nature of inquiry and problem-solving, presenting them as deliberate processes of designing solutions to enhance or alter current circumstances.
This perspective not only underscores the intentionality behind inquiry but also frames it as a foundational element in improving societal and individual conditions. Dewey’s insights have profoundly impacted various disciplines, including cognitive psychology, education, and organizational theory, by emphasizing the role of design in shaping preferred outcomes. His work laid the groundwork for later thinkers like Herbert Simon, highlighting the enduring significance of viewing inquiry and design as interconnected processes aimed at creating more desirable situations.
Now I have to point out that John Dewey was something of a thief.
In his early years as a philosopher, John Dewey was profoundly influenced by the thoughts and methodologies of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. This Hegelian imprint is evident in Dewey’s initial forays into philosophy, where he grappled with complex ideas about reality, consciousness, and the progression of human thought. Dewey, known for his pragmatic approach, initially found resonance with Hegel’s emphasis on the dialectical process — the idea that progress arises from the resolution of contradictions through synthesis. This alignment provided Dewey with a robust framework to explore how ideas evolve and how human experiences shape understanding.
Hegel’s concept of the dialectic was particularly significant for Dewey during his formative years. Hegel posited that history and reality unfold through a series of contradictions and their resolutions, leading to the development of higher levels of understanding and freedom. Dewey adopted this dynamic view of knowledge, seeing it as something that grows and adapts through active engagement with problems and conflicts. This perspective influenced Dewey’s approach to education and social reform, where he advocated for experiential learning and democratic participation as means to foster continual growth and improvement within society.
Furthermore, Hegel’s idea of the “Phenomenology of Spirit” left a lasting mark on Dewey’s intellectual journey. In this work, Hegel explores the development of consciousness and self-awareness through various stages, culminating in absolute knowledge. Dewey was inspired by this exploration of how individuals come to understand themselves and their place in the world. He integrated these insights into his own theories, emphasizing the importance of reflective thinking and the continuous interplay between the individual and their environment. Dewey’s focus on the experiential and reflective aspects of learning can be traced back to Hegelian themes of self-development and the evolution of consciousness.
However, while Hegel provided a foundational influence, Dewey did not remain confined to Hegelian philosophy. As he matured as a thinker, Dewey began to diverge from Hegel, steering towards a more pragmatic and empirical approach. He critiqued some of Hegel’s more abstract and idealistic notions, advocating instead for a philosophy grounded in practical consequences and real-world applications. This shift marked Dewey’s transition from Hegelian dialectics to the development of his own pragmatic framework, which emphasizes the importance of experience, experimentation, and the continuous adaptation of ideas based on their effectiveness in addressing human needs.
In summary, Hegel’s philosophical ideas played a crucial role in shaping John Dewey’s early intellectual development. The dialectical method, the emphasis on the progression of consciousness, and the dynamic interplay between ideas and reality provided Dewey with valuable tools to explore and articulate his own theories. Although Dewey eventually moved beyond Hegelian philosophy, the foundational influence of Hegel’s thought remains a significant aspect of Dewey’s philosophical legacy. This early engagement with Hegel allowed Dewey to build a robust and adaptable framework that would later underpin his contributions to education, democracy, and pragmatic philosophy.
See Also:
Marxism & Pragmatism: Russian vs American Versions of Hegelianism
