Talk:Dialectic/Archive 4

The article claims that dialectic is a synthesis or combination of opposing assertions. I believe that this is incorrect. Dialectic is merely dialogue, argument, or conversation. There is no necessity for a synthesis. It is in contrast to rhetoric, which is monologue.Lestrade (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Let's linguistically negate your negations: I believe that this is correct. There is necessity for a synthesis.

Is synthetic a removed extension of organic causality? Does this substantiate dialectical difference through space and time continuum? Is there a difference between weak and strong force, and is this model reproducible and scalable? What is the law of opposites? --Dialectic (talk) 14:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no necessity for a synthesis because dialectic is merely dialogue, argument, conversation, or discussion between two or more people. The conversants do not have to synthesize, unite, or combine their premises together in order to reach a final conclusion or synthesis. A dialectic can exist when it consists of a discussion of various unsynthesized assertions. No final synthesis or combination is necessary. Dialectic = dialogue; rhetoric = monologue. If the opinions of Dialectic and Lestrade conflict, there is no universal law that forces them to combine and result in a compromised settlement or synthesis. The dialectic between their opposite claims may never be resolved.Lestrade (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Dialectic has negated my negation and proved that there is a necessary synthesis in every argument by linguistically asking the following profound, pertinent, relevant, apposite, and deep questions:

(1) Is synthetic a removed extension of organic causality?

(2) Does this substantiate dialectical difference through space and time continuum?

(3) Is there a difference between weak and strong force, and is this model reproducible and scalable?

(4) What is the law of opposites?

Lestrade (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

You've stated and restated that through many of the topics on this talk page. You remain completely mistaken and misinformed. Dialectic has never meant "conversation" for the entirety of the existence of the English language and English Wiki uses ENGLISH COMMON names, not fringe ideas on replacing the meanings of English words with their Attic Greek equivalents. — LlywelynII 00:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I defy anyone to explain what the hell this is supposed to mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decora (talk • contribs) 04:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what it means in hell - I imagine the same as here. An obvious interpretation is that sequences of events repeat themselves in many ways but not in all ways - hence they never return to exactly the same "place" in all dimensions but differ in at least one dimension (respect). --lifeform (talk) 05:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I assume the previous poster refers to the fact that, on top of the claim on being clear, it entails that spirals are three-dimensional, which they are not. The original author must mean either a helix or something more conical (e.g., the general image of a tornado). (March 30, 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hlinz (talk • contribs) 01:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what he was saying at all, but is a good point on its own. — LlywelynII 01:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like the work of User:Dialectic below, but the general idea is that her conception of the Hegelian dialectic moves forward, not backward; upward, not downward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom. — LlywelynII 01:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

on the top of the page it is written: "not to be confused with dielectric." i mean, who would confuse it? it's like confusing banana with panama. or bread with prayed. what do you think? Twipley (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

(Not everyone has perfect spelling and spellcheck doesn't catch that kind of stuff. If some one is looking for a term they heard in a class, 'dialectic', which has a very similar sound to it, may be confused with 'dielectric'.)75.85.231.114 (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC) IABC

I don't see also why this note should appear, they have nothing in common (even if they are spelled similarly, everyone may deduce from the context that these are different). --Meldor (talk) 18:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I do. It's more like confusing 疬 and 疠 for readers who speak English as their second language. The sound is completely identical except for the r which the speakers of syllabary languages like those in East Asia will often drop. — LlywelynII 00:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

From this bit, The term was popularized by Plato's Socratic dialogues but the act itself has been central to European and Indian philosophy since antiquity.

Could we get some references links to indian/asian philosophers from the same or earlier time periods who also used the method? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.29.225 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, as someone who came to the article with a desire to find out what Dialectics actually means (in the context of reading a history of Soviet Russia) I'm certainly confused. From the article, it seems that dialectic could be one (or more) of:

• A form of conversation between two people with opposing views, resulting in the formation of a third view -- the synthesis -- the implication being that the synthesis is likely to be more valid than either original view.
• A form of monologue (internal or otherwise) in which the protagonist "acts out" the roles of the two holders of opposing views described above, as a reasoning device (or persuasive device) to arrive at the synthesis.
• An actual belief that there is a fundamental pattern in nature, that "things" emerge, then later their opposites emerge and finally a third alternative supercedes both
• Something else altogether?

Looking elsewhere on the Web hasn't helped my confusion -- I fully admit I haven't looked at any dead tree sources.

Either the article isn't clear enough, or there is a genuine ambiguity about the whole thing -- in which case the article should state that an ambiguity exists. Ukslim 14:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a very precise summary of this article and of dialectics in all its forms. The article is therefore quite clear, but the subject is not perhaps easily accessible. If you are reading about soviet russia and wish to know the dialectics which Lenin supported (not Stalin), you might go to Andysoh 22:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rosa Lichtenstein wrote: UKSlim I am not surprised you are a little confused -- this whole approach to theory is itself riddled with confusions and logical blunders.

So, your last option is correct, but just add to it: "Not so much ambiguity as wall-to-wall nonsense" Rosa Lichtenstein 04:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thesis: Ambiguity is a problem (Ukslim).

Antithesis: Ambiguity isn't a problem (anonymous, owing to repeated, largely US {but also some British} censorship)...

Synthesis: Ambiguity is a problem in some cases but not others... — LlywelynII 23:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I feel like a data explosion lacking balancing emotional parsimony! --Dialectic (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to boost this. I have visited the dialectics wikipedia page like upwards of 10 times in the last year or so, each time because I want to know what is meant by 'dialectics of technology' or 'dialectics of seeing' or blah blah blah the actual only way that dialectics is used in contemporary theory. Yes, it is important that it WAS a greek method of dialogue (??) but every time that is what I have left the article with and that is completely useless to understanding. I appreciate how difficult this article must be to write and that I'm being ungrateful but please consider this a vote for a reworking of the intro and navigation box because this is currently unintelligible. 2602:30A:C078:B680:F194:FE86:B0C8:5BE0 (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

How about making the following the new introduction? I think it is clearer and far more accurate than what we currently have.

Over the centuries, a diverse group of philosophers has argued that discursive thought and deductive logic are incapable of grasping the dynamic nature of the universe. Consequently, they produce theories of objects that present them in too static of a state, or chop the world up into elements that contradict each other, when in reality they are one, and thereby set up false problems. Therefore, in order to grasp the world as it really is in itself, i.e., in a state of flux, these philosophers produced methods known as dialectics.

Dialectics, then, are methods for grasping the world as it really is, in all its dynamic intensities, but also the theories that ground these methods. A qualifying element of these theories is the idea that change is brought about through struggles between contradictory elements. For example, Marx theorizes that capitalism involves a struggle between two classes, but that this struggle will shift the economy from capitalism to socialism and then communism.

However, dialectics has not always meant what it has been identified as meaning above. In classical philosophy, it meant a form of argumentation similar to the Socratic Method, where an attempt is made to solve a disagreement through rational discussion. Then in the medieval period, dialectic meant logic and was considered part of the three original liberal arts: the trivium of logic, rhetoric and grammar.

--Le vin blanc (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fails several points at WP:LEAD and has too much puffery to pass muster at WP:TONE. — LlywelynII 00:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

still more informative than what's currently there. 2602:30A:C078:B680:F194:FE86:B0C8:5BE0 (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Obviously there are lots of people with lots of opposing viewpoints on this topic (as the concept itself appreciates).

It's probably wrong to say that dialectic is only the movement from thesis to antithesis to synthesis. It's even more wrong to write the intro to the idea as though "dialectic" were synonymous with the Socratic method and focus nearly exclusively on the long off-topic Attic Greek uses of the term. That probably reflects User:Lestrade's numerous misunderstandings above and I've got no interest in an edit war on such any topic that might require me to actually read Hegel's prose again.

Could we agree to

A) use a base definition from some modern and reputable philosophical reference work?

and

B) use the introduction to cover all of the sections of the existing article? There should be particular focus on what the readers are actually trying to understand: some reference they've seen to Hegelian or Marxian dialectics and the T>A>S process.

Any etymological information is completely out of place in the lead and should be dealt with in the Greek area or in a separate #Name section. — LlywelynII 01:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: I agree with Lestrade. As he said,

-- The article makes a major error by beginning with a definition of dialectic as consisting of a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. This triad, borrowed from Kant, was described in the writings of Fichte and has often been mistakenly attributed to Hegel. The ancient Greeks, however, considered dialectic as being merely distinct from rhetoric. Rhetoric, to them, is a monologue or oration in which one person speaks without interruption. Dialectic is a dialogue in which two or more people speak alternately in a logical discussion.

Further, by rhetoric they (Skeptics) understand the science of speaking well on matters set forth by plain narrative, and by dialectic that of correctly discussing subjects by question and answer….|Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers, VII. 42 -- Lestrade 15:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC) --

Dialectic is opposed to rhetoric, as dialog to a treatise, in not only in its method of presentation but also in its purposes. These purposes are quite different for Zeno, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in ancient philosophy. Hegel's dialectic is not as fundamental, and has a narrower, more pragmatic scope. Incidentally, Heraclitus was not a Hegelian either. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 04:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

My understanding (probably flawed) is that Hegelian dialectic arose primarily in response to Kant, and the thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad arises with Hegel (although it's not named by him). This makes the introduction a bit odd.

I write a college paper on Baruch Spinoza and it was he who coined the term you mention; I.e. thesis, antithesis, Synthesis. Hegel took the idea and started with the individual and through the use of the dialectic showed that the state was more important. The dialectic was taken by Engel and Marx to mean a literal clash, i.e. revolution, being called left wing Hegelianism.DennisDA2010 (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Anonymous Commenter:

In describing his table of categories, Kant wrote:

in every class there is the same number of categories, namely three, which again makes us ponder, because generally all division a priori by means of concepts must be a dichotomy. It should be remarked also, that the third category always arises from the combination of the second with the first … It must not be supposed, however, that therefore the third category is only a derivative, and not a primary concept of the pure understanding. For the joining of the first and second concepts, in order to produce the third, requires an independent act of the understanding, which is not identical with the act that produces the first and second concepts…. Critique of Pure Reason, B110

I emboldened the main point. From this Kantian triadic process of conceptual combination, Fichte, and subsequently Hegel, formed their so–called dialectical movement of concepts.Lestrade 19:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

In his book, Kant's Theory of Knowledge, Justus Hartnack commented on the celebrated dialectical method. In a footnote to his Chapter 3, he wrote: "On Kant's observation: 'Further, it may be observed that the third category in each class always arises from the combination of the second category with the first' (B 110), Richard Falckenberg makes the following comment: 'It is this "neat" remark by Kant which occasioned Fichte's Triaden and Hegel's dialectical method (Hilfsbuch zur Geschichte der Philosophie seit Kant, p. 13)." Falckenberg categorically asserted that Kant's combination of categories, which was based on the way that premises combine in a syllogism in order to form a conclusion, occasioned or caused the dialectical method which is such a favorite in the academies and universities. Don't bother looking for Falckenberg's Hilfsbuch (Aid). It does not exist on the Internet in an English translation. Such an important claim cannot even be located today, while so many trashy books are readily available.Lestrade (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

This article seems to me to have huge problems, largely because it isn't careful enough to define what it is about. AFAIK, dialectic is:

1. discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth . That fits our first para well enough.

2. the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process (same ref). This is alluded to, but unclearly, by the Dialectical method has three main forms para.

The Dialectical method has three main forms para appears problematic, because they aren't really "3 main forms" they are different things with, confusingly, the same name; the third is Dialectical materialism. Perhaps https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dialectic is a clearer ref; it manages to distinguish the three things rather more clearly than this article does.

The first, "Naive dialectic", appears to be an invented term - Naive dialecticism refers to something quite different.

In philosophy, dialectic or dialectical method implied a methodology used for examining and cognition of philosophical objects appears dubious to me and is unsourced.

William M. Connolley (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

It purports to be a reflection of the real world created by man.

"Purports" is derogatory, and obviously so. This could be written a thousand other ways to not be an obvious bag of shit about it. 76.69.155.96 (talk) 22:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

"The mystification which dialectic suffers in Hegel's hands, by no means prevents him"
This is the punctuation in the source. May it be corrected?--Adûnâi (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hegelianism mentioned on lead without any introduction to Hegel. IW. (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There have been several former proposals to merge Thesis, antithesis, synthesis to here, including Talk:Dialectic/Archive 3#Merge redundant article, Talk:Thesis, antithesis, synthesis#Redundant Article and Talk:Thesis, antithesis, synthesis#How is this not standard dialectic?. All seem to have failed through inaction rather than disagreement any current objections, as the proposals (dating back to 2006) seem reasonable. Klbrain (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

the trouble is there is so much bollox on the TAS page, as people attempt to make sense of F and H's "thought", which isn't possible as it is incoherent. But, fundamentally, I agree with the idea of merge William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I didn't review the relevant talk page discussions, but if there have been no objections to the idea that Thesis, antithesis, synthesis is "redundant", then why not just redirect the page to Dialectic and remove the circular links from here back to it? To me, saying the page is "redundant" suggests a simple redirect, with no need to merge anything. Biogeographist (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, seems like that's the best course of action. I've set up the redirect. - car chasm (talk) 08:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted (twice: most recently here) what I consider to be overcategorization. If someone wishes to restore the added categories, please give a justification for each added category here on the talk page, to establish consensus. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 17:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I undid your reversion and added justification for why I believe it should be on this page. Duality in categorical logic is widely accepted to be closely related to dialectics. This is a way of interpreting the duality between syntax and semantics in theoretical computer science, for example. I am not claiming, nor are any categorical logicians, that dialectics are merely adjunctions, but rather, that this is the right notion of a dialectic in this formal setting. Unlike the other interpretations of dialectics in more old school logics, that of adjunctions is completely formal and makes quite a lot of sense if you become aquainted with it. This is not really worked out fully on wikipedia, but it is out in the literature. For more references, if you question the rigour or justification of these claims please visit the following two nlab pages which give a nice little summary https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/adjoint+modality https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Aufhebung 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a separate issue. I have no opposition to what you added, which I moved to Dialectic § Formalism, though I wasn't previously familiar with it. The issue here is the long list of categories that another editor added. Those would require further justification. Biogeographist (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Cool! Unrelated, but I noticed you edited Bunge's page, who criticises the notion of dialectic. But his wife is a category theorist, so I wonder how she gets along with Lawvere 192.76.8.78 (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

In Marta's (his wife's) appendix to Mario Bunge's memoir, Between Two Worlds (Springer, 2016), she said that Mario was disappointed for a long time that she went into mathematics instead of philosophy. LOL! Mario's criticism of dialectics is about its inapplicability to natural science of the real world, contra the claims of some Marxists. He appreciated the formal sciences and used some of their tools, but he argued that not everything in them is applicable to the real world. Biogeographist (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

A lot of this article is not NPOV and is awkward to read and pretentious. Different sections claim to have proven each other wrong.

Still true. --Cornellier (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think there should also be a section on Chinese dialectical philosophy, both from classical Chinese philosophy (hundred schools of thought) and also within certain schools of Chinese Buddhism. The dialectical concept of the "unification of opposites" is quite important in virtually every school in Chinese philosophy, and can be symbolised by the Yin-Yang symbol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.250.170 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Western dialectics was the only philosophical attempt to grasp the huge explanatory power of yin yang. Roberto Lopez (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dialogue goes back to logos, and dialectic goes back to lexis, thus it means "through words", whereas dialogue means "through notions". In other words, in a dialogue you exchange different points of view, in order to reconcile the different aspects or relations (in a strict mathematical sense) captured, whereas in a dialectic as described by Plato in detail in "The Sophist" and "The Statesman" you analyze the relations of words to each other, like describing different special cases of a more general notion, like when you say: a "car" is either used for personal transport or for the transport of goods. In the latter case it is called a "truck". In the former case, if it is used to carry people that enter at designiated points, it is called a "bus", otherwise, if it used as a carrier service, it is called it "taxi" and if not... (Yeah, well, this is not entirely correct, but before I come to sedan etc. I just stop here, because you should already understand what we're talking about, and this kind of thing is precisely what Plato does in Sophistes and Politikos.

46.131.28.194 (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I am going to make some edits to shorten the sections on Hegel and Marx, which at present are disproportionately long, the latter of which has also been flagged for over four years as having way too many blockquotes.

I am also inclined to delete the entire Criticism section. Primarily this is because it is devoted mostly to Hegel and Marx, who are not the topic of this article, and who have their own series of articles where such criticisms are discussed. Secondarily it is because Nietzsche, Popper, and Bunge are not scholars of even Hegel or Marx. They are famous for other things entirely, and their views do not help readers understand what dialectic is.

Before removing sourced material, however, I wanted to check in here.

See for reference: WP:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism. I would suggest that anything that cannot be integrated into other sections of the article probably does not belong.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@PatrickJWelsh: Thanks for the notice. I don't care about Nietzsche, but I would oppose the removal of Popper and Bunge, who are well known as critics of dialectic. The essay to which you linked, WP:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism, specifically says that a "Criticism" section "is sometimes used for politics, religion and philosophy topics". Such a section is warranted here for Popper and Bunge. The critics have also been criticized: Popper in, e.g., Nicholas Rescher's book Dialectics: A Classic Approach to Inquiry (2007), and Bunge in Poe Yu-ze Wan's article "Dialectics, complexity, and the systemic approach: toward a critical reconciliation" (2013). You said that "their views do not help readers understand what dialectic is", but that's wrong: their views clarify the limitations of dialectic. (The section may need to be written better to show what those limitations are.) And it's pretty nondialectical to suggest that the only purpose of an article is to define what a subject is, instead of to present contradictory views of the subject! Biogeographist (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Biogeographist, Thanks for your prompt response! I am not at all convinced that Popper or Bunge understand Hegel (certainly) or Marx (probably) well enough to meaningfully contribute to our understanding of the underlying issues. That said, however, you will see that I have condensed the section, and it bothers me less in this form. Unless others speak up to support deletion, I plan to let it be.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! But regarding this: I am not at all convinced that Popper or Bunge understand Hegel (certainly) or Marx (probably) well enough to meaningfully contribute to our understanding of the underlying issues. But the issues are different for philosophers with different purposes. It is an important point that Popper and Bunge were not scholars of Hegel and Marx, and their criticisms are not directed so much at Hegel and Marx themselves as at some of their intellectual legacy and that of Engels and Lenin. Their criticisms are important because they represent an attempt to assess that legacy from the perspective of 20th-century scientific philosophy (scientific realism and critical rationalism, broadly defined). If you're a Hegel scholar then you might not find that attempt to be "meaningful", but it's certainly meaningful from their perspective. Given their purposes, how well they understood Hegel or Marx isn't as relevant as you think it is. Biogeographist (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Biogeographist,

Okay, thanks for adding the additional sources. I no longer wish to remove the section. (In fact, more about Rescher's views would be most welcome.)

Two tangential questions:

First, are you sure about changing so many of the verbs to past tense? I'm not sure of the exact "rule", but I thought that the same basic principle as that of the literary historical present also applied to works of philosophy, i.e., whatever Hegel put in writing is what he "claims", not "claimed". I don't think most readers will even notice, but I'd like to know if I am possibly wrong about this.

Second – and please cheerfully ignore if this is too personal – but how did you come across Mario Bunge? I know him from McGill, but no one to whom I've mentioned him has ever had any idea who he is. I kind of thought that he had been written off as a crank from another era. Or else just lost to history on account of making his philosophical opus, at eight volumes(!), too long for most people to be willing to read. If he's still a recognized authority in some circles, I'd be curious to know.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's a rule about verb tense. I don't like treating real people as literary characters who are speaking to us in the present; if some real person wrote something, I'd say they said it or wrote it, and not that they say or tell us, as if they are disembodied spirits whispering in our ears. (One reason for my dislike of this is that I think that if they had lived long enough, or if they are still alive, they might have changed their mind, so it's unfair to describe their past view as if it were a current view.) On the other hand, I didn't change the phrases "Socrates uses", "Socrates asks", "Socrates reaches", because I'm not sure how to treat Socrates: Did he really say what Plato made him say? I don't know and don't care, so treating him as a literary character is fine with me.

My first memory of Mario Bunge was when I noticed that he was the editor of the Springer book series "Episteme". Within a few years of noticing that, I started reading him. His work does seem to be from another era in some respects, but I don't think most people ignore him because they think he's a crank. Heinz Droste suggested some causes of his lack of fame in: Droste, Heinz W. (2019). "Mario Bunge as a public intellectual". In Matthews, Michael R. (ed.). Mario Bunge: A Centenary Festschrift. Cham: Springer. pp. 63–80. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16673-1_4. ISBN 9783030166724. OCLC 1089222139. One of Droste's main points is that Bunge didn't try to build a school of thought or to attract a following. I also think Bunge's work may not be interesting to specialists because specialists know more than Bunge in their specialty and can see how what he wrote about their specialty is wrong in certain ways: You may think that way about what he wrote about Hegel, for example. On the other hand, if one is not too picky, one can be impressed by Bunge's ability to synthesize a big picture: Herbert Gintis, in his review of Bunge's book on ethics, found Bunge to be ignorant in Gintis's area of behavioral science, but useful on the big picture: "I found Bunge's approach extremely valuable in the abstract, but heavy-handed and outdated in many particulars." Still, it's impressive that Gintis would even give that much approval given how old the book is and how distant ethics is from Bunge's main competencies.

By the way, another critic of dialectic in the same era as Popper was Sidney Hook, in Reason, Social Myths and Democracy (1940). Hook started out as a scholar of Marx, so he knew what he was talking about regarding Marx. Biogeographist (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC) and Biogeographist (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)