Dialectics

Reply to musicpianoaccordion
For beginners, "forty million Frenchmen can't be wrong !?"

For Kant,
Quoting Matt McCormick for IEP

Kant believes that Aristotle’s logic of the syllogism captures the logic employed by reason. The resulting mistakes from the inevitable conflict between sensibility and reason reflect the logic of Aristotle’s syllogism. Corresponding to the three basic kinds of syllogism are three dialectic mistakes or illusions of transcendent knowledge that cannot be real. Kant’s discussion of these three classes of mistakes are contained in the Paralogisms, the Antinomies, and the Ideals of Reason. The Dialectic explains the illusions of reason in these sections.

For Plato,
Quoting Britannica

Plato uses the term dialectic throughout his works to refer to whatever method he happens to be recommending as the vehicle of philosophy.

Quoting musicpianoaccordion

Where can I learn more about the different uses of dialectics and more about non-Kantian dialectics?

I never heard of kantian dialectics. What is that?

Quoting Jackson

I never heard of kantian dialectics. What is that?

"Not a beginner", huh? :rofl:

https://second.wiki/wiki/transzendentale_dialektik

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/#:~:text=Hence%2C%20the%20%E2%80%9Ctranscendental%E2%80%9D%20use,things%20independently%20of%20sensibility%2Fexperience.

Quoting musicpianoaccordion

I would like something for beginners.

I don't think there is such a thing as dialectics for beginners.

Quoting musicpianoaccordion

Where can I learn more about the different uses of dialectics and more about non-Kantian dialectics? I would like something for beginners.
My understanding is that dialectics are part of the trivium (grammar, logic and rethorics).
Dialectics, according to Wikipedia, is a part of logic. What kind of logic?

Why are you interested in dialectic? The point is, why not follow up on where you read about it.

Quoting Jackson

The point is, why not follow up on where you read about it.

And a good point it is.
The word dialectic has taken flight in many contexts each with its own aims and methods both in philosophy and in other fields. Most people imagine dialectic has something to do with dialog and resolving unresolvable differences of views by talking them out.

Reply to Jackson
Because I never found good info for beginners!

Reply to magritte
I say that it is about antithesis, thesis and synthesis.
Like in my other thread. We took reductionism and holism. I took two views: they are two methods in conflict with eachother so they can't be used together (antithesis?) and they are two methods that work very well together (thesis?).
I then came to a synthesis: they can work together in different ways and certain situations need one more than the other.

Where can I learn more about this?

Reply to musicpianoaccordion Dialectics is about dialing tactics. How does one dial? Does one creep up on the dial or boldly go towards it?
Non kantian dialectics involves figuring out how Kant would approach a dial and then not approaching it in that manner.

Reply to Bartricks
What?

Quoting musicpianoaccordion

I then came to a synthesis: they can work together in different ways and certain situations need one more than the other.

I'm the worst person to ask for a comment on this because I believe that what you're proposing is ultimately illogical. Not that people haven't suggested that already, but that the combination of two unlike approaches to make positive progress is haphazard, anything whatsoever other than the original two can follow. In order to make it work, a third method is always required to relate or link the first two, and this third method is entirely creative, subjective, and open ended.

Heraclitus proceeds top down from a dynamic whole to its parts that make the whole possible. This is hypothetical, but it does work empirically after the fact.

Plato's synthesis puts all the pieces of then existent philosophy together like a jigsaw puzzle and then he adds some missing pieces of his own to make them fit.

But to go from the bottom up from parts to whole denies all known logic because beyond the parts anything goes. If I give you a stick and a string what do you have, a buggy whip, a cat toy, a child's bow, and much else.

Reply to musicpianoaccordion My meaning was clear.

Reply to Bartricks
No!!!!

Reply to magritte
How are they two unlikely approaches?