thesis and antithesis conflict theory

Get the Reddit app

The #1 social media platform for MCAT advice. The MCAT (Medical College Admission Test) is offered by the AAMC and is a required exam for admission to medical schools in the USA and Canada. /r/MCAT is a place for MCAT practice, questions, discussion, advice, social networking, news, study tips and more. Check out the sidebar for useful resources & intro guides. Post questions, jokes, memes, and discussions.

Thesis and antithesis of conflict theory?

I keep seeing this pop up in the premed anki set, but to be honest I have no idea what it really means. From my understanding the thesis is the "Status quo" of society? Also what is the antithesis of conflict theory?

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Newest Articles

Exploring the Role of Research Design and Methodology
Writing Essays and Articles on Philosophy
Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism: A Comprehensive Overview
Exploring Idealism: The History and Concepts of a Modern Philosophy
Metaphysics
Theory of Forms
Epistemology
Materialism
Moral relativism
Utilitarianism
Virtue ethics
Normative ethics
Applied ethics
Moral Psychology
Philosophy of art
Philosophy of language
Philosophy of beauty
Nature of Art
Philosophy of Film
Philosophy of Music
Deductive reasoning
Inductive reasoning
Justification
Perception and Knowledge
Beliefs and Truth
Modern philosophy
Romanticism
Analytic philosophy
Enlightenment philosophy
Existentialism
Enlightenment
Ancient philosophy
Classical Greek philosophy
Renaissance philosophy
Medieval philosophy
Pre-Socratic philosophy
Hellenistic philosophy
Presocratic philosophy
Rationalism
Scholasticism
Jewish philosophy
Early Islamic philosophy
Reasoning and Argumentation
Seeking Justice After a Tractor-Trailer Accident: Why You Need an Experienced Lawyer
Critical Thinking
Fallacies and logical errors
Skepticism and doubt
Creative Thinking
Lateral thinking
Thought experiments
Argumentation and Logic
Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
Fallacies and Rebuttals
Inductive Reasoning and Analogy
Reasoning and Problem-Solving
Critical Thinking and Decision Making
Creative Thinking and Problem Solving
Analytical Thinking and Reasoning
Philosophical Writing and Analysis
Argumentative Writing and Analysis
Interpreting Philosophical Texts
Philosophical Research Methods
Qualitative Research Methods in Philosophy
Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
Research Design and Methodology
Ethics and Morality
Aesthetics and Beauty
Metaphysical terms
Ontological argument
Ethical terms
Aesthetic terms
Metaphysical theories
Kant's Categorical Imperative
Aristotle's Four Causes
Plato's Theory of Forms
Hegel's Dialectic
Ethical theories
Aesthetic theories
John Dewey's aesthetic theory
Immanuel Kant's aesthetic theory
Modern philosophical texts
Foucault's The Order of Things
Descartes' Meditations
Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Ancient philosophical texts
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
Plato's Republic
Ancient philosophers
Modern philosophers
Modern philosophical schools
German Idealism
British Empiricism
Ancient philosophical schools
The Skeptic school
The Cynic school
The Stoic school
The Epicurean school
The Socratic school
Philosophy of Language
Semantics and Pragmatics of Language Usage
Analytic-Synthetic Distinction
Meaning of Words and Phrases
Philosophy of Science
Scientific Realism and Rationalism
Induction and the Hypothetico-Deductive Model
Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
Philosophy of Mind
Mind-Body Dualism and Emergentism
Materialism and Physicalism
Identity Theory and Personal Identity
Philosophy of Religion
Religious Pluralism and Exclusivism
The Problem of Evil and Suffering
Religious Experience and Faith
Metaphysical Theories
Idealism and Realism
Determinism, Fatalism, and Libertarianism
Phenomenalism and Nominalism
Epistemological Theories
Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism
Rationalism and Empiricism
Foundationalism and Coherentism
Aesthetic Theories
Formalist Aesthetics, Emotional Aesthetics, Experiential Aesthetics
Relational Aesthetics, Sociological Aesthetics, Historical Aesthetics
Naturalistic Aesthetics, Immanent Aesthetics, Transcendental Aesthetics
Ethical Theories
Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Deontology
Subjectivism, Egoism, Hedonism
Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, Care Ethics
Metaphysical Terms
Cause, Necessity, Possibility, Impossibility
Identity, Persistence, Time, Space
Substance, Attribute, Essence, Accident
Logic and Argumentation Terms
Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction, Induction
Inference, Validity, Soundness, Refutation
Premise, Conclusion, Entailment, Contradiction
Epistemological Terms
Perception and Knowledge Claims
Infallibility, Verifiability, Coherence Theory of Truth
Justification, Beliefs and Truths
Ethical Terms
Modern Texts
A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft
Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
Medieval Texts
The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides
The Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas
The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Averroes
Ancient Texts
The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero
The Republic by Plato
Hegel's Dialectic: A Comprehensive Overview
Philosophical theories

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's dialectic is one of the most influential philosophical theories of the modern era. It has been studied and debated for centuries, and its influence can be seen in many aspects of modern thought. Hegel's dialectic has been used to explain a wide range of topics from politics to art, from science to religion. In this comprehensive overview, we will explore the major tenets of Hegel's dialectic and its implications for our understanding of the world. Hegel's dialectic is based on the premise that all things have an inherent contradiction between their opposites.

It follows that any idea or concept can be understood through a synthesis of the two opposing forces. This synthesis creates a new and higher understanding, which then leads to further progress and development. Hegel's dialectic has been used in many different fields, from philosophy to economics, and it provides an important framework for understanding how our world works. In this article, we will explore the historical origins and development of Hegel's dialectic. We will also examine its application in various fields, from politics to art, from science to religion.

Finally, we will consider the implications of Hegel's dialectic for our understanding of the world today. Hegel's dialectic is a philosophical theory developed by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the early 19th century. It is based on the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis , which are steps in the process of progress. The thesis is an idea or statement that is the starting point of an argument. The antithesis is a statement that contradicts or negates the thesis.

The synthesis is a combination of the two opposing ideas, which produces a new idea or statement. This process can be repeated multiple times, leading to an evolution of ideas. Hegel's dialectic has been used in many fields, such as politics and economics . It has been used to explain how ideas progress through debate and discussion.

In politics, it has been used to explain how different points of view can lead to compromise or resolution. In economics, it has been used to explain how different economic theories can lead to new solutions and strategies. Hegel's dialectic can also be applied to everyday life. For example, it can be used to resolve conflicts between people or groups.

Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis

Thesis and antithesis are two conflicting ideas, while synthesis is the result of their interaction. The dialectic process is a way of understanding how the world works, as it helps to explain the constant flux of ideas and events. It also helps to explain how change and progress are possible. Thesis and antithesis can be thought of as two sides of a coin. One side represents an idea or opinion, while the other side represents its opposite.

When the two sides come together, they create a synthesis that incorporates both sides. This synthesis can then be used to create new ideas or opinions. The dialectic process can be applied in various contexts, such as politics and economics. In politics, it can be used to explain how different factions come together to create policies that are beneficial to all parties. In economics, it can be used to explain how supply and demand interact to create a stable market. Hegel's dialectic can also be used in everyday life.

Applications of Hegel's Dialectic

For example, in the political sphere, it can be used to explore how different ideologies can be reconciled or how compromises can be reached. In economics, Hegel's dialectic has been used to explain the process of economic growth and development. It can be seen as a way of understanding how different economic systems interact with each other and how different economic actors are affected by changes in the marketplace. For example, it can help to explain how different economic policies can lead to different outcomes. Hegel's dialectic has also been applied to other social sciences, such as sociology and anthropology. In particular, it has been used to explore how different social systems interact with each other and how different social groups are affected by changes in their environment.

Using Hegel's Dialectic in Everyday Life

This process can be used to explain how various aspects of life, such as career or relationships, evolve over time. Thesis represents an idea or concept, while antithesis represents the opposite of that idea or concept. Synthesis is the resolution between the two opposing forces. This process is repeated until a conclusion is reached.

For example, in a career conflict between two people, one might present an idea while the other presents the opposite idea. Through discussion and negotiation, the two parties can come to a synthesis that meets both their needs. Hegel's dialectic can also be used to resolve conflicts between groups of people. It involves each party presenting their ideas and opinions, then engaging in dialogue to reach a compromise or agreement.

This process can be applied to any area of life, from politics and economics to relationships and personal growth. It helps to create understanding and respect between different perspectives, allowing everyone to come together in a meaningful way. By understanding and applying Hegel's dialectic in everyday life, we can better navigate our relationships and interactions with others. Through dialogue, negotiation, and compromise we can work towards resolutions that benefit all parties involved.

In economics, it has been used to explain how market forces interact with each other and how different economic theories can be used to explain the same phenomenon. The dialectic has also been used in other fields such as philosophy, science, and psychology. In philosophy, it has been used to explain the relationship between theory and practice and how theories evolve over time. In science, it has been used to explain the relationship between empirical evidence and logical reasoning.

This theory can be applied to any area of life, from career to relationships. The core of Hegel's dialectic involves the concept of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, which is a way of understanding how ideas evolve over time. In this way, the dialectic helps to identify contradictions in a situation and find a resolution through synthesis. In terms of its application to everyday life, the dialectic can be used to find common ground between two opposing sides. For example, if two people are in disagreement, the dialectic can help them identify the underlying issues and then work to resolve them.

Additionally, it can help individuals and groups identify areas where they have common interests, which can lead to more productive conversations and outcomes. The dialectic is also useful in understanding how different perspectives can lead to different solutions. By recognizing different points of view, individuals and groups can gain insight into why certain solutions may not work for everyone involved. This can help to create a more productive environment for collaboration. Finally, the dialectic can be used as a tool for self-reflection. By understanding how different ideas evolve over time and how different perspectives interact, individuals can gain insight into their own views and values.

For example, it can be used to explain the development of a new policy proposal or a new form of government. In economics, Hegel's dialectic can be used to explain the dynamics of supply and demand, or the emergence of a new economic system. In addition, Hegel's dialectic has been applied in other areas, such as education and religion. In education, this theory can be used to explain the process of learning and understanding new concepts. In religion, it can be used to explain the evolution of religious beliefs and practices over time.

This is followed by a synthesis of the two, which creates a new, higher form of understanding. This new understanding then forms the basis for further analysis, which can lead to further synthesis and resolution. Hegel's dialectic can be applied to any area of life, such as career or relationships. For example, if two people have different approaches to a problem, they can use the dialectic to work together to find a solution that works for both of them.

This could involve identifying their respective points of view and then looking for common ground where they can agree. As the synthesis forms, it can provide a basis for further discussion, which may eventually lead to a resolution. The same process can be used to resolve conflicts between groups, such as political parties or countries. By recognizing each side's point of view and then looking for common ground, it is possible to find ways to bridge the divide between them.

This can help create an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect, which can lead to constructive dialogue and positive outcomes. Hegel's dialectic is a valuable tool for helping people and groups come to agreement and harmony despite their differences. By recognizing both sides' points of view and then looking for common ground, it is possible to create a synthesis that can provide a basis for further discussion and resolution. Hegel's dialectic is a powerful philosophical tool that helps to explain how ideas evolve over time. Through the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, it provides a framework for understanding how opposing forces interact and ultimately create new ideas and solutions.

This theory has been applied to many areas, such as politics and economics, and can be used in everyday life. The article has provided a comprehensive overview of Hegel's dialectic and its various applications.

Exploring the Rationalism of Renaissance Philosophy

Exploring Theology: A Comprehensive Overview

Understanding Fallacies and Rebuttals

Exploring the Concept of Beauty
Exploring Inference: A Philosophical Thinking Primer
Exploring Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
Understanding Utilitarianism
Exploring Religious Pluralism and Exclusivism
Exploring Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
Exploring Moral Psychology: A Closer Look
The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero: A Comprehensive Overview
Exploring Pre-Socratic Philosophy: An Overview
Understanding Fallacies and Logical Errors
Exploring Virtue: A Philosophical and Ethical Perspective
Deontology: An Introduction to an Ethical Theory
Substance, Attribute, Essence, and Accident: A Philosophical and Metaphysical Overview
Perception and Knowledge: An Overview
Justification: A Comprehensive Overview
Classical Greek Philosophy: A Comprehensive Overview
Exploring Virtue Ethics: The Philosophical Theory
Medieval Philosophy: An Overview
Exploring Noumenon: A Philosophical and Metaphysical Overview
A Comprehensive Overview of Presocratic Philosophy
The Problem of Evil and Suffering: A Philosophical Exploration
Epistemology: Understanding the Nature of Knowledge
An Overview of Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra
Exploring the Concept of Idealism
Understanding Deontology: Ethics and Principles
Exploring Identity, Persistence, Time, and Space
Exploring the Skeptic School of Ancient Philosophy
Exploring Aristotle's Four Causes
The Cynic School: An In-depth Look
Exploring Infallibility, Verifiability, and the Coherence Theory of Truth
Exploring Egoism: What It Is and What It Means
Understanding the Meaning of Words and Phrases
Exploring the Socratic School: An Overview
Explore The Epicurean School of Ancient Philosophy
Exploring Jewish Philosophy
Philosophy of Music: Exploring the Aesthetics of Sound
Understanding Utilitarianism: An Overview
Comparing Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction and Induction

Exploring Ontology: A Comprehensive Overview

Exploring the Life and Work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Exploring Deductive Reasoning

New Articles

Exploring Ontology: A Comprehensive Overview

Which cookies do you want to accept?

Scholarly Community Encyclopedia
Log in/Sign up

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1	handwiki		--	1044	2022-10-31 01:38:44

Video Upload Options

MDPI and ACS Style
Chicago Style

In philosophy, the triad of thesis, antithesis, synthesis (German: These, Antithese, Synthese; originally: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis) is a progression of three ideas or propositions. The first idea, the thesis, is a formal statement illustrating a point; it is followed by the second idea, the antithesis, that contradicts or negates the first; and lastly, the third idea, the synthesis, resolves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis. It is often used to explain the dialectical method of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, but Hegel never used the terms himself; instead his triad was concrete, abstract, absolute. The thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad actually originated with Johann Fichte.

1. History of the Idea

Thomas McFarland (2002), in his Prolegomena to Coleridge's Opus Maximum , [ 1 ] identifies Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781) as the genesis of the thesis/antithesis dyad. Kant concretises his ideas into:

Thesis: "The world has a beginning in time, and is limited with regard to space."
Antithesis: "The world has no beginning and no limits in space, but is infinite, in respect to both time and space."

Inasmuch as conjectures like these can be said to be resolvable, Fichte's Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre ( Foundations of the Science of Knowledge , 1794) resolved Kant's dyad by synthesis, posing the question thus: [ 1 ]

No synthesis is possible without a preceding antithesis. As little as antithesis without synthesis, or synthesis without antithesis, is possible; just as little possible are both without thesis.

Fichte employed the triadic idea "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" as a formula for the explanation of change. [ 2 ] Fichte was the first to use the trilogy of words together, [ 3 ] in his Grundriss des Eigentümlichen der Wissenschaftslehre, in Rücksicht auf das theoretische Vermögen (1795, Outline of the Distinctive Character of the Wissenschaftslehre with respect to the Theoretical Faculty ): "Die jetzt aufgezeigte Handlung ist thetisch, antithetisch und synthetisch zugleich." ["The action here described is simultaneously thetic, antithetic, and synthetic." [ 4 ] ]

Still according to McFarland, Schelling then, in his Vom Ich als Prinzip der Philosophie (1795), arranged the terms schematically in pyramidal form.

According to Walter Kaufmann (1966), although the triad is often thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic, the assumption is erroneous: [ 5 ]

Whoever looks for the stereotype of the allegedly Hegelian dialectic in Hegel's Phenomenology will not find it. What one does find on looking at the table of contents is a very decided preference for triadic arrangements. ... But these many triads are not presented or deduced by Hegel as so many theses, antitheses, and syntheses. It is not by means of any dialectic of that sort that his thought moves up the ladder to absolute knowledge.

Gustav E. Mueller (1958) concurs that Hegel was not a proponent of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and clarifies what the concept of dialectic might have meant in Hegel's thought. [ 6 ]

"Dialectic" does not for Hegel mean "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." Dialectic means that any "ism" – which has a polar opposite, or is a special viewpoint leaving "the rest" to itself – must be criticized by the logic of philosophical thought, whose problem is reality as such, the "World-itself".

According to Mueller, the attribution of this tripartite dialectic to Hegel is the result of "inept reading" and simplistic translations which do not take into account the genesis of Hegel's terms:

Hegel's greatness is as indisputable as his obscurity. The matter is due to his peculiar terminology and style; they are undoubtedly involved and complicated, and seem excessively abstract. These linguistic troubles, in turn, have given rise to legends which are like perverse and magic spectacles – once you wear them, the text simply vanishes. Theodor Haering's monumental and standard work has for the first time cleared up the linguistic problem. By carefully analyzing every sentence from his early writings, which were published only in this century, he has shown how Hegel's terminology evolved – though it was complete when he began to publish. Hegel's contemporaries were immediately baffled, because what was clear to him was not clear to his readers, who were not initiated into the genesis of his terms. An example of how a legend can grow on inept reading is this: Translate "Begriff" by "concept," "Vernunft" by "reason" and "Wissenschaft" by "science" – and they are all good dictionary translations – and you have transformed the great critic of rationalism and irrationalism into a ridiculous champion of an absurd pan-logistic rationalism and scientism. The most vexing and devastating Hegel legend is that everything is thought in "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." [ 7 ]

Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) adopted and extended the triad, especially in Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy (1847). Here, in Chapter 2, Marx is obsessed by the word "thesis"; [ 8 ] it forms an important part of the basis for the Marxist theory of history. [ 9 ]

2. Writing Pedagogy

In modern times, the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis has been implemented across the world as a strategy for organizing expositional writing. For example, this technique is taught as a basic organizing principle in French schools: [ 10 ]

The French learn to value and practice eloquence from a young age. Almost from day one, students are taught to produce plans for their compositions, and are graded on them. The structures change with fashions. Youngsters were once taught to express a progression of ideas. Now they follow a dialectic model of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. If you listen carefully to the French arguing about any topic they all follow this model closely: they present an idea, explain possible objections to it, and then sum up their conclusions. ... This analytical mode of reasoning is integrated into the entire school corpus.

Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis has also been used as a basic scheme to organize writing in the English language. For example, the website WikiPreMed.com advocates the use of this scheme in writing timed essays for the MCAT standardized test: [ 11 ]

For the purposes of writing MCAT essays, the dialectic describes the progression of ideas in a critical thought process that is the force driving your argument. A good dialectical progression propels your arguments in a way that is satisfying to the reader. The thesis is an intellectual proposition. The antithesis is a critical perspective on the thesis. The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Opus Maximum. Princeton University Press, 2002, p. 89.
Harry Ritter, Dictionary of Concepts in History. Greenwood Publishing Group (1986), p.114
Williams, Robert R. (1992). Recognition: Fichte and Hegel on the Other. SUNY Press. p. 46, note 37.
Fichte, Johann Gottlieb; Breazeale, Daniel (1993). Fichte: Early Philosophical Writings. Cornell University Press. p. 249.
Walter Kaufmann (1966). "§ 37". Hegel: A Reinterpretation. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-268-01068-3. OCLC 3168016. https://archive.org/details/hegelreinterpret00kauf.
Mueller, Gustav (1958). "The Hegel Legend of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis"". Journal of the History of Ideas 19 (4): 411–414. doi:10.2307/2708045. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F2708045
Mueller 1958, p. 411.
marxists.org: Chapter 2 of "The Poverty of Philosophy", by Karl Marx https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm
Shrimp, Kaleb (2009). "The Validity of Karl Marx's Theory of Historical Materialism". Major Themes in Economics 11 (1): 35–56. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/mtie/vol11/iss1/5/. Retrieved 13 September 2018.
Nadeau, Jean-Benoit; Barlow, Julie (2003). Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong: Why We Love France But Not The French. Sourcebooks, Inc.. p. 62. https://archive.org/details/sixtymillionfren00nade_041.
"The MCAT writing assignment.". Wisebridge Learning Systems, LLC. http://www.wikipremed.com/mcat_essay.php. Retrieved 1 November 2015.

Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Advisory Board

Types of Conflict Theories

Posted by Thomas DeMichele on July 25, 2017 in Reference

Referral Code discounts at howtoreferral.com.

Understanding Class Conflict, Race Conflict, Gender Conflict, and Other Conflict Theories

We explain Marx’s conflict theory and other conflict theories to show how tension between social, political, material, and other forces manifest.

In other words, we describe how the tension between a thesis (a concept) and an antithesis (its contradiction) in the “social sphere” (in social systems like political and economic systems) creates a synthesis (a third result) via conflict. I.e. we describe the dialectic as applied to metaphysical and physical systems , including the socioeconomic system (like Marx did).

First a metaphor, in music , if I play a B note and a D note on a piano in unison, my ear will want to resolve the chord into another note such as a C note (more specifically we could say a G chord resolves to a C chord, but the metaphor is more important here than the minutia of music theory).

The tension created by playing the B and D, naturally calls for a resolution to a C. This metaphor works for conflict theory.

Both harmony and tension result in synthesis. Tension demands it due to the nature of contradiction (often swinging like a pendulum swinging wildly), harmony sits in the pocket naturally (steadily oscillating like a fairly well balanced scale).

This page is about conflict, tension, and release. It is about cooperation and competition, understood in the broadest sense, spoken about under the name “conflict”… as that relates to different conflict theories from the social sciences.

There is a thesis (an idea) and an antithesis (the opposite of the idea), and the tension between the idea and its contradiction demands a synthesis over time.

I posit a proposition, like “justice is the will of the stronger,” you skeptically question the proposition saying “can justice be the will of the weaker in some cases?” The argument resolves into the next proposition due to the tension. With this, an argument unfolds and we move toward “knowing.”

This is the dialectic, the Socratic method, Hegel’s theory, Marx’s conflict theory, and consequently the basis for all conflict theories.

So then, from here we can apply this concept to any subject and, given its fundamental nature, it will often work to explain what is happening. This is especially true in the “social sphere” (in terms of social systems like economics, politics, race relations, gender equality, etc).

Labor and capital conflict, socialism arises and a revolution ensues. The next age is ushered in. This is the basis for Marx’s theory of “historic materialism” (the materials or “factors of production” of one era of history, in the case of capitalism “labor and capital,” create tension as capital is funneled away from labor and into the hands of fewer-and-fewer capitalists, which results in a workers’ revolution, which resolves into the next “ naturally occurring ” cycle of history).

The liberal and conservative conflict, the synthesis of western liberal republican democracy arises after the revolution. The next age is ushered in.

The female and male conflict, the synthesis is a struggle that leads to women’s rights and women’s suffrage.

The identity of the African American is simultaneously both inside and outside of the dominant white society, and he thus lives with a feeling of “twoness.” By trying to cultivate and preserve a racial identity, he comes into conflict when trying to fit into white society. The result, a revolution and synthesis. [1]

The two parts conflict, and tension is resolved, then a third identity is created.

Good and evil conflict, and from the ashes comes only one victor.

Take 2 H and put it in a [absurdly tiny] box with just the right forces, and you’ll get H20 (err, sort of).

And so it goes for everything, it is chemistry, it is economy, it is politics, it is history.

Credit Marx if you want, but if you look closely you should be crediting Hegel… and to credit Hegel then you must trace then line back to Plato’s dialectic and being, non-being, and change.

And, why stop there? Blame nature herself for being rooted in a dualistic system of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (of “mass-energy in motion” in spacetime in electromagnetic relation).

Shoot the socialist messenger, or heed his words. Either way, those who did heed his words came up with a number of compelling theories which we will now define in proper below:

Marx’s Class Conflict Theory : Marx, drawing from Hegel’s idea of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis and his study of the history of revolution and economy came up with a theory that changed the world. The idea can be denoted as a dialectical materialist account of history (a theory that says that in any era of history classes are based on roles filled based on the factors of production, like labor and materials, and this creates classes that come into conflict, results in a revolution of some sort, and the ushers in the next material age). In other words, Marxism says that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, inevitably produces its own gravediggers (the internal tensions, based on the factors of production, that lead to its own destruction, as capital oppresses labor). Marx’s class conflict theory is at the heart of Marxism, and because it is rooted in timeless truths, found its way to the heart of other conflict theories too.

“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.” — Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels The Communist Manifesto

W. E. B. Du Bois and Race Conflict Theory ( Double Consciousness ) : W. E. B. Du Bois (an African American Marxist) puts an interesting twist on Marx’s conflict theory in his “Strivings of the Negro People” 1897. The idea, as noted above, is that the conflict is internal. An African American is both black and living in white America. This tension constantly eats at the “souls of black folk.” This conflict demands resolution. [2]

“It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one’s soul by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro; two souls, two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.” — Du Bois The Souls of Black Folk

NOTE : Further we could see the physical struggle of African Americans as a type of class conflict theory based on race (where “labor” and capital take on some wicked meanings by the way). So the important thing to note here is that Du Bois introduces the idea of “internal conflict” (or reintroduces, it is a common theme of history stretching back to Plato’s Chariot metaphor for example).

NOTE : The theme of twoness, human duality (internal and external), and general cognitive dissonance is a major theme of this page. From the triune brain, to the tripartite soul, to the ID, Ego, and Superego, there are many ways to describe these two-or-more conflicting aspects of the human condition which manifests within us and between us in social relations. The exact experience will shift be we talking about workers, race, gender, or general inner psychology, but the gist is the same in all cases.

Gender Conflict Theory : Putting Du Bois and Marx together, we get feminist conflict theory. The tension between men and women in patriarchal society creates conflict. In the west this conflict resulted in women’s rights, in other countries, not so much. Still, the tension can’t be oppressed any more than then capital can oppress labor or the African American can repress either aspect of their “twoness.” Conflict demands synthesis, synthesis requires some sort of revolution (internal or external).

TIP : If one things of the race, as human, then the race as a whole has a fundamental twoness of male and female. Is it so surprising fundamental dualities like this then arise as constructs in the social sphere? Being is predicated on the materials of being (our genetic materials), so why wouldn’t that conflict arise in naturally in social systems?

General Conflict Theory : Putting all these together we can see a fundamental thread that is occurring. That is we have very real genetic “twoness” (as beings and as a human race), an embryo isn’t defined until Gonadal steroid hormones develop the sex organs. Androgens and Estrogen, at the mandate of the genes, conflict… and a synthesis occurs. Metaphysically, humans are both good and evil . Both compassionate and selfish . Etc. Not only do the materials of production mandate cycles of history, but the genetic materials of life itself demands cycles. What is conflict theory if not Darwinian . To our core, sentient beings are the product of conflict. From our quanta , to our genes, we are bounded systems in conflict, resolving tension. Thus this metaphor works for the dialectic, for race, for gender, for classism, for economy, for politics, etc. These all arises from the same materials, so why be surprised when they all follow the same general pattern?

Virtue Conflict Theory : Here we would be noting the idea that we are all subject to good and evil, to vice and virtue. We have conflicting desires, and as we grow the tension results in change. What mix comes in a persons 12th year, 16th year, 27th year, 40th year, etc? I’m not sure, the question is very metaphysical. I would posit that we can see people change based on their actions and experience and we know neuroplasticity is correct (that our brains change every day). So, we are (metaphorically speaking) the driven of the chariot, but whether we turn to the aesthetic or the philosophical search for enlightenment is a choice we all have to make. Why are people changed after a traumatic event? Is that their revolution by which their synthesis occurs? What of the collective conscious and the butterfly effect, do we have social responsibility? See also “ virtue theory .”

Religious Conflict Theory : So, by now you should see the pattern. Any social system, internal or external, gets a conflict theory (internal social system, aka our own psychology; external social system, essentially any subject that gets studied in social science)… and what metaphysical and social widget creates more conflict in ourselves and with others than religion? Of course then, the conflict of religious forces creates its own syntheses, both on the metaphysical (internal and external) and social (internal and external) levels.

Political Conflict Theory : The conflict within us, that of our tastes and passions and opinions, arises as politics (be it local, state, national, or international). Thus, as one might expect given the theme a this point, politics as a social system conflicts in the same way that all the above systems do. Politics is the hashing out of the social, so of course the political relates to all of this. Our natural twoness arises within us, it colors our relations, and it bleeds into our socioeconomic reality. When the male tries to oppress the female, or what have you, the false inequality creates tension. When North or South oppress each other, when party A and B do, or when Nation A and B do, or when international alliance A and B do, the result is the same. See a theory that the left and right are naturally occurring .

ON REPRESSION : Repressing something that shouldn’t be repressed has the same effect as holding back a pendulum with a string. Over time the tension will break the string and the pendulum will swing wildly. When the left or right repress each other, when men and women do, when one culture represses another, or when we repress our own dualistic nature, the repressed part waits in the wings ready to swing wildly when the tension breaks. This being what Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is all about.

ON EQUALITY : On this page I don’t use the term “inequality” much. This might seem odd, how can we talk about the oppression of workers, races, nations, and women without talking about how they are diminished by their opposite force? The answer is that there is no natural inequality here, instead there are two naturally equal bits of a whole, one repressing the other, thereby creating a “false inequality.” This false inequality is uncomfortable and it is this tension that truly demands a revolution (as it demands resolution). To oppress an equal is tyranny, to stop a tyrant requires revolution (so to speak). The balancing of the scales is the natural order of things. Here I’ll point to a revolution that works, the Glorious Revolution of 1689 (also known as the bloodless revolution). In other words, to be very clear, “revolution” is a rather metaphorical term. Revolutions of enlightened beings are best served democratically and rooted in philosophical truths.

The Eternal Solution to Conflict and the Folly of Trying to Avoid Conflict

To end, we should point out a rather odd thing that might not seem obvious when one emotionally thinks about class conflict or internal conflict, that is:

Conflict is the essence of existence in many ways, and it is a necessary aspect of everything from a photon to a good story.

We can’t get rid of conflict; not even a strong man can oppress the natural order of things. Instead we need just systems in which we can practice temperance, moderation, and balance. A mixed-republic with the rule of law is an example of this in the political sphere, a mixed-democracy is an example as well, etc.

Even if a workers revolution didn’t produce a tyrant, a push for only labor and no capital upsets the scales.

When a person shoves their animal nature deep inside and looks only to their human instincts, if they repress the animal and reptile nature, they breed a monster of sorts.

In other words, as much as conflict can be nasty, it is necessary. The key is balance.

If capital oppresses labor, or labor oppresses capital, if good evil or evil good, the result is the same (revolution and then resolution).

The goal then is to avoid the need for revolution by practicing correctness in the first place.

This theme is mused on by (oddly) the Philosophy of One Punch Man as featured on Wisecrack Philosophy.

Bottomline : Happiness is the result of justice; learn more about justice and happiness . An imperfect understanding of these things only leads to unhappiness and injustice. We can’t escape twoness, we need to practice moderation and respect the parts as well as the whole. To the extent that our politics and race relations and gender relations all stem from a natural duality present in the human condition , is to the extent that we have to learn to live with them (we can’t destroy or repress them).

TIP : Just in case you want an answer to conflict that isn’t “violent Jacobin or October revolution” (although let us not forget American revolution and Glorious revolution also fit this bill). The general answer would be republican democracy, AKA the spirit of the mixed-Republic. A good metaphor for this is Plato’s Chariot Metaphor. Plato, in other words, had the answer back in 360 BC (illustrated in the same book that teaches the dialectic and defines the mix-Republic by the way, the Republic ). That is, using human reason to balance our dualistic nature using a mix of forms, and allowing our enlightened reason to reign in our animal nature… lest we go repressing equal opposites unfairly and thus putting tension on the string (which sometimes breaks and becomes an October revolution… which is “not good”).

The Sociology of W. E. B. Du Bois
Double consciousness

Thomas DeMichele is the content creator behind ObamaCareFacts.com, FactMyth.com, CryptocurrencyFacts.com, and other DogMediaSolutions.com and Massive Dog properties. He also contributes to MakerDAO and other cryptocurrency-based projects. Tom's focus in all...

Thomas DeMichele The Author

« a system of categories of being and knowledge, what is a truth-value ».

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information Accept

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.

What is Dialectic Materialism: Basic Methodology of Marx

Karl Marx is one of the most influential thinkers in the history of sociology, and his concept of dialectic materialism is a central aspect of his political and economic philosophy. Dialectical materialism refers to the theory that human history is shaped by the interaction between the material conditions of society and the ideas, values, and beliefs of individuals.

Marx believed that the material conditions of society, including the means of production, the distribution of wealth and resources, and the structure of the economy, are the primary determinants of social and political life. These material conditions are not fixed or eternal, but are constantly in flux, subject to change and development over time.

The material conditions of society, according to Marx, give rise to conflicting social classes, each with its own interests and objectives. The struggle between these classes, in turn, drives the process of historical development and leads to the transformation of social and economic systems. This struggle is the dialectical process, which involves the synthesis of opposing forces and the creation of something new and different.

Marx’s concept of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is a central aspect of his theory of dialectical materialism. This concept refers to a process of change and development in which an existing idea, system, or condition (thesis) is challenged by an opposing force (antithesis) and the two are ultimately synthesized into a new, integrated, and higher-level idea or condition (synthesis).

The concept of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is based on the idea that change and development occur through the resolution of contradictions. The thesis represents the existing state of affairs, while the antithesis represents the opposing forces that challenge it. The synthesis is the result of the resolution of the contradictions between the thesis and antithesis.

For Marx, the material conditions of society, including the means of production, the distribution of wealth and resources, and the structure of the economy, are the primary determinants of social and political life. These material conditions give rise to conflicting social classes, each with its own interests and objectives. The struggle between these classes is the dialectical process, which involves the synthesis of opposing forces and the creation of something new and different.

For example, Marx viewed the capitalist system as the thesis, and the working class as the antithesis. The struggle between the capitalist class and the working class leads to the synthesis of a new and higher-level social and economic system, such as socialism.

Marx argued that the process of historical development is not linear or predictable, but is shaped by the contradictions and conflicts that arise from the contradictions between the material conditions of society and the ideas and values of individuals. He saw history as a process of continuous change and development, driven by the struggle between different classes and the contradictions that arise from the material conditions of society.

Marx also believed that the ideas, values, and beliefs of individuals are shaped by the material conditions of society. He argued that individuals’ consciousness is determined by their social and economic conditions, and that ideas and beliefs are products of material reality, rather than the other way around.

Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism was developed in response to the idealist philosophical traditions of the time, which saw ideas and beliefs as the primary determinants of social and political life. Marx rejected this view and argued that it was the material conditions of society that shaped ideas, rather than the other way around.

Marx’s concept of dialectical materialism was central to his political and economic philosophy. He believed that the exploitation of the working class by the ruling class was the result of the material conditions of capitalism, and that the only way to achieve a fair and just society was to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a socialist society based on collective ownership of the means of production.

Marx’s ideas have had a profound impact on sociology and other social sciences, and his concept of dialectical materialism continues to be a subject of debate and discussion among scholars. Some view his ideas as outdated and irrelevant, while others see them as a powerful tool for understanding the complexities of contemporary society and the challenges facing the world today.

In conclusion, Karl Marx’s concept of dialectical materialism is a central aspect of his political and economic philosophy and continues to be a subject of debate and discussion among scholars. Marx believed that the material conditions of society are the primary determinants of social and political life, and that the struggle between conflicting social classes drives the process of historical development. He saw history as a process of continuous change and development, driven by the contradictions and conflicts that arise from the material conditions of society and the ideas and values of individuals. Despite its controversies, Marx’s concept of dialectical materialism remains an important part of the intellectual heritage of sociology and continues to shape our understanding of the social and political world.

Discourse, power and knowledge – by michel foucault (2022), talcott parsons: the social system, and general action theory (1952), leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Model of Dialectical Learning

Reference work entry
pp 1307–1313
Cite this reference work entry

Jeffrey G. Woods Ph.D. 2

483 Accesses

1 Citations

Cognitive conflict ; Dialectical inquiry ; Knowledge creation ; Synthesis

The Philosophical Foundation of Dialectical Learning

Dialectical inquiry (DI) is an intellectual discourse that originated with the work of nineteenth-century philosopher G.W.F. Hegel ( 2010 ). Hegel contended that a higher level of understanding and insight could be achieved by creating the two most diametrically opposed viewpoints or explanations to a given situation or problem. Two opposing views (a thesis and antithesis) are developed in order to create direct conflict between two parties. Following a structured debate, a new collective view is pursued, forming a synthesis. The differing parties base their positions on identical databases. Points of view are influenced by underlying assumptions, value systems, and cognitive abilities (Boerner et al. 2003 ; Scott 2011 ). The Hegelian dialectic or the Hegelian inquiring system is the foundation of many of our political and legal processes (Van Gigch 1978 )....

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime
Available as PDF
Read on any device
Instant download
Own it forever
Available as EPUB and PDF

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Alajmi B. Intentions to share: investigating information professionals’ knowledge sharing behavior. In Knowledge work. The Knowledge Institute, School of Communication and Information. Rutgers University, New Jersey, 2010.

Google Scholar

Amason AC. Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision-making. Acad Manag J. 1996;39:123–48.

Article Google Scholar

Andrade L, Plowman DA, Duchon D. Getting past conflict resolution: a complexity view of conflict. Management Department Publications, University of Nebraska, 2008, 10, pp 23–38.

Argyris C. On organizational learning. 2nd ed. Malden: Blackwell Publishers; 1999.

Argyris C, Schön DA. Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1978.

Boerner CS, Macher JT, Teece DJ. A review and assessment of organizational learning in economic theories. In: Dierkes M, Antal AB, Child J, editors. Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. Chapter 4.

Bourgeois III LJ. Strategic goals, perceived uncertainty, and economic performance in volatile environments. Acad Manag J. 1985;28:548–73.

Burgelman RA. Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational adaptation: theory and field research. Org Sci. 1991;2:239–62.

Davenport T, Prusak L. Working knowledge: how organizations manage what they know. Boston: Harvard Business School Press; 1998.

David PA, Foray D. Economic fundamentals of the knowledge society. Policy futures in education, 2003, 1: Special Issue: Education and the Knowledge Economy.

Dean JW, Sharfman MP. Does decision process matter? A study of strategic decision-making effectiveness. Acad Manag J. 1996;39:368–96.

Derry SJ. Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educ Psychol. 1996;31:163–74.

Fiol MC, Lyles M. Organizational learning. Acad Manag Rev. 1985;10:803–13.

Grant RM. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strat Manag J. 1996;17:109–22.

Hegel GWF. Science of logic. Reprint Edition, Nov. 2010. London: Routledge. Originally published in 1812.

Mason RO. A dialectical approach to strategic planning. Manag Sci. 1969;15:B403–14.

Mills JH. Organizational learning and the learning organization: a critical review. Acadia University. [On-line]. Available http://group.aomonline.org/cms/Meetings/Seattle/PDF/14352.pdf (2011). Accessed 25 March 2011.

Mitroff II. Talking past one’s colleagues in matters of policy. Strat Manag J. 1982;3:374–5.

Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Org Sci. 1994;5:14–37.

Schmidt WH. Conflict: a powerful process for [good or bad] change. Manag Rev. 1974;63:5.

Scott BB. Organizational learning: a literature review. Discussion paper 2011–02, IRC Research Program, Queen’s University, 2011.

Simon HA. Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Org Sci. 1991;2:125–34.

Slife BD. Educational applications of the dialectic: theory and research. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, 1983.

Tjosvold D, Johnson D, Lerner J. Effects of affirmation and acceptance on incorporation of opposing information in problem-solving. J Soc Psychol. 1981;114:103–10.

Van Gigch JP. Applied general systems theory. 2nd ed. New York: Harper and Row; 1978.

Williams RN. Dialectics and meaning: the effects of opposition in cognition and learning. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Anaheim, 1983.

Woods JG. Using cognitive conflict to promote the use of dialectical learning for strategic decision-makers. Learn Org. 2012;19(2):134–47.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Business, University of Indianapolis, 1400 East Hanna Avenue, Indianapolis, IN, 46227, USA

Dr. Jeffrey G. Woods Ph.D. ( Associate Professor of Economics )

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey G. Woods Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Department of Information Systems & Technology, Management, School of Business, George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Elias G. Carayannis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Woods, J.G. (2013). Model of Dialectical Learning. In: Carayannis, E.G. (eds) Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_493

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3858-8_493

Publisher Name : Springer, New York, NY

Print ISBN : 978-1-4614-3857-1

Online ISBN : 978-1-4614-3858-8

eBook Packages : Business and Economics Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Find a journal
Track your research

Anatomy & Physiology
Astrophysics
Earth Science
Environmental Science
Organic Chemistry
Precalculus
Trigonometry
English Grammar
U.S. History
World History

... and beyond

Socratic Meta
Featured Answers

What are thesis, antithesis, synthesis? In what ways are they related to Marx?

Contradiction

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself. (I am large, I contain multitudes.) —Walt Whitman, “Song of Myself”

Vorrei e non vorrei. —Zerlina, “Là ci darem la mano”, Don Giovanni

This entry outlines the role of the law of non-contradiction (LNC) as the foremost among the first (indemonstrable) principles of Aristotelian philosophy and its heirs, and depicts the relation between LNC and LEM (the law of excluded middle) in establishing the nature of contradictory and contrary opposition. §1 presents the classical treatment of LNC as an axiom in Aristotle's “First Philosophy” and reviews the status of contradictory and contrary opposition as schematized on the Square of Opposition. §2 explores in further detail the possible characterizations of LNC and LEM, including the relevance of future contingent statements in which LEM (but not LNC) is sometimes held to fail. In §3 I briefly discuss the mismatch between the representation of contradictory negation as a propositional operator and its varied realization within natural language. §4 deals with several challenges to LNC within Western philosophy, including the paradoxes, and the relation between systems with truth-value gaps (violating LEM) and those with truth-value gluts (violating LNC). Finally, in §5, the tetralemma of Buddhist logic is discussed within the context of gaps and gluts; it is argued that apparent violations of LNC in this tradition and others can in be attributed to either differing viewpoints of evaluation (as foreseen by Aristotle) or to intervening modal and epistemic operators.

1. LNC as Indemonstrable

2. lem and lnc, 3. contradictory negation in term and propositional logic, 4. gaps and gluts: lnc and its discontents, 5. lnc and the buddhist tetralemma, bibliography, other internet resources, related entries.

The twin foundations of Aristotle's logic are the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also called the law of contradiction) and the law of excluded middle (LEM). In Metaphysics Book Gamma, LNC—“the most certain of all principles”—is defined as follows:

It is impossible that the same thing can at the same time both belong and not belong to the same object and in the same respect, and all other specifications that might be made, let them be added to meet local objections (1005b19-23).

For Aristotle, the status of LNC as a first, indemonstrable principle is obvious. Those who stubbornly demand a proof of LNC simply “lack education”: since “a demonstration of everything is impossible”, resulting in infinite regress, at least some principles must be taken as primitive axiomata rather than derived from other propositions—and what principle more merits this status than LNC? (1006a6-12). In first philosophy, as in mathematics, an axiom is both indemonstrable and indispensable; without LNC, “a is F ” and “a is not F ” are indistinguishable and no argumentation is possible. While Sophists and “even many physicists” may claim that it is possible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect, such a position self-destructs “if only our opponent says something”, since as soon as he opens his mouth to make an assertion, any assertion, he must accept LNC. But what if he does not open his mouth? Against such an individual “it is ridiculous to seek an argument” for he is no more than a vegetable (1006a1-15).

The role of LNC as the basic, indemonstrable “first principle” is affirmed by Leibniz, for whom LNC is taken as interdefinable with another of Aristotle's axiomata, the Law of Identity: “Nothing should be taken as first principles but experiences and the axiom of identity or (what is the same thing) contradiction, which is primitive, since otherwise there would be no difference between truth and falsehood, and all investigation would cease at once, if to say yes or no were a matter of indifference” (Leibniz 1696/Langley 1916: 13-14). For Leibniz, everybody—even “barbarians”—must tacitly assume LNC as part of innate knowledge implicitly called upon at every moment, thus demonstrating the insufficiency of Locke's empiricism (ibid., 77). [ 1 ]

In accounting for the incompatibility of truth and falsity, LNC lies at the heart of the theory of opposition, governing both contradictories and contraries. (See traditional square of opposition .) Contradictory opposites (“She is sitting”/“She is not sitting”) are mutually exhaustive as well as mutually inconsistent; one member of the pair must be true and the other false. As it was put by the medievals, contradictory opposites divide the true and the false between them; for Aristotle, this is the primary form of opposition. [ 2 ] Contrary opposites (“He is happy”/“He is sad”) are mutually inconsistent but not necessarily exhaustive; they may be simultaneously false, though not simultaneously true. LNC applies to both forms of opposition in that neither contradictories nor contraries may belong to the same object at the same time and in the same respect ( Metaphysics 1011b17-19). What distinguishes the two forms of opposition is a second indemonstrable principle, the law of excluded middle (LEM): “Of any one subject, one thing must be either asserted or denied” ( Metaphysics 1011b24). Both laws pertain to contradictories, as in a paired affirmation (“ S is P ”) and denial (“ S isn't P ”): the negation is true whenever the affirmation is false, and the affirmation is true when the negation is false. Thus, a corresponding affirmation and negation cannot both be true , by LNC, but neither can they both be false , by LEM. But while LNC applies both to contradictory and contrary oppositions, LEM holds only for contradictories: “Nothing can exist between two contradictories, but something may exist between contraries” ( Metaphysics 1055b2): a dog cannot be both black and white, but it may be neither.

As Aristotle explains in the Categories, the opposition between contradictories— “statements opposed to each other as affirmation and negation”—is defined in two ways. First, unlike contrariety, contradiction is restricted to statements or propositions; terms are never related as contradictories. Second, “in this case, and in this case only, it is necessary for the one to be true and the other false” (13b2-3).

Opposition between terms cannot be contradictory in nature, both because only statements (subject-predicate combinations) can be true or false ( Categories 13b3-12) and because any two terms may simultaneously fail to apply to a given subject. [ 3 ] But two statements may be members of either a contradictory or a contrary opposition. Such statements may be simultaneously false, although (as with contradictories) they may not be simultaneously true. The most striking aspect of the exposition for a modern reader lies in Aristotle's selection of illustrative material. Rather than choosing an uncontroversial example involving mediate contraries, those allowing an unexcluded middle (e.g. “This dog is white”/“This dog is black”; “Socrates is good”/“Socrates is bad”), Aristotle offers a pair of sentences containing immediate contraries, “Socrates is sick”/“Socrates is well”. These propositions may both be false, even though every person is either ill or well: “For if Socrates exists, one will be true and the other false, but if he does not exist, both will be false; for neither ‘Socrates is sick’ nor ‘Socrates is well’ will be true, if Socrates does not exist at all” (13b17-19). But given a corresponding affirmation and negation, one will always be true and the other false; the negation “Socrates is not sick” is true whether the philosopher is healthy or non-existent: “for if he does not exist, ‘he is sick’ is false but ‘he is not sick’ true” (13b26-35).

Members of a canonical pair of contradictories are formally identical except for the negative particle:

An affirmation is a statement affirming something of something, a negation is a statement denying something of something…It is clear that for every affirmation there is an opposite negation, and for every negation there is an opposite affirmation…Let us call an affirmation and a negation which are opposite a contradiction ( De Interpretatione 17a25-35).

But this criterion, satisfied simply enough in the case of singular expressions, must be recast in the case of quantified expressions, both those which “signify universally” (“every man”, “no man”) and those which do not (“some man”, “not every man”).

For such cases, Aristotle shifts from a formal to a semantically based criterion of opposition (17b16-25). The A / O pair (“Every man is white”, “Not every man is white”) and I / E pair (“Some man is white”, “No man is white”) are contradictories because in any state of affairs one member of each pair must be true and the other false. (See traditional square of opposition .) Similarly, the A / E pair—“Every man is just”, “No man is just”—are contraries, since these cannot be true together. The contradictories of two contraries (“Not every man is just”, “Some man is just”) can be simultaneously true with reference to the same subject; (17b23-25). The last opposition of I and O statements, later to be dubbed subcontraries because they appear below the contraries on the traditional square, is a peculiar opposition indeed; Aristotle elsewhere ( Prior Analytics 63b21-30) sees I and O as “only verbally opposed”, given the mutual consistency of “Some Greeks are bald” and “Some Greeks aren't bald”.

The same relations obtain for modal propositions, those involving binary connectives like “and” and “or”, quantificational adverbs, and a range of other expressions that can be mapped in analogous ways (see Horn 1989). Thus for example we have the following modal square, based on De Interpretatione 21b10ff. and Prior Analytics 32a18-28:

(1) Modal Square

In the twelfth century, Peter of Spain (1972: 7) offers a particularly elegant formulation in his Tractatus ; it will be seen that these apply to the modal propositions in (1) as well as to the quantificational statements in the original square:

Each contradictory is equivalent to the negation of the other.
Each contradictory entails and is entailed by the negation of the other.
Each contrary statement entails the negation of the other but not vice versa. [E.g. “I am happy” unilaterally entails “I am not unhappy”; “It is necessary that Φ” unilaterally entails “It is not impossible that Φ”.]
The law of subcontraries is such that if one is false the other is true but not vice versa.

The law of excluded middle, LEM, is another of Aristotle's first principles, if perhaps not as first a principle as LNC. Just as Heraclitus's anti-LNC position, “that everything is and is not, seems to make everything true”, so too Anaxagoras's anti-LEM stance, “that an intermediate exists between two contradictories, makes everything false” ( Metaphysics 1012a25-29). Of any two contradictories, LEM requires that one must be true and the other false ( De Interpretatione 18a31)—or does it? In a passage that has launched a thousand treatises, Aristotle ( De Interpretatione , Chapter 9) addresses the difficulties posed by apparently contradictory contingent statements about future events, e.g. (2a,b).

(2a) There will be a sea-battle tomorrow. (2b) There will not be a sea-battle tomorrow.

Clearly, (2a) and (2b) cannot both be true; LNC applies to future contingents as straightforwardly as to any other pair of contradictories. But what of LEM? Here is where the difficulties begin, culminating in the passage with which Aristotle concludes and (apparently) summarizes his account:

It is necessary for there to be or not to be a sea-battle tomorrow; but it not necessary for a sea-battle to take place tomorrow, nor for one not to take place—though it is necessary for one to take place or not to take place. So, since statements are true according to how the actual things are, it is clear that wherever these are such as to allow of contraries as chance has it, the same necessarily holds for the contradictories also. This happens with things that are not always so or are not always not so. With these it is necessary for one or the other of the contradictories to be true or false—not, however, this one or that one, but as chance has it; or for one to be true rather than the other, yet not already true or false. Clearly, then it is not necessary that of every affirmation and opposite negation one should be true and the other false. For what holds for things that are does not hold for things that are not but may possibly be or not be; with these it is as we have said ( De Interpretatione 19a30-b4).

Unfortunately, given the systematic ambiguity and textual variations in the Greek text, the difficulty of telling when Aristotle is speaking with his own voice or characterizing an opponent's argument, and the lack of formal devices for the essential scopal distinctions at issue, it has never been clear exactly just what has been said here and in the chapter more generally. Some, including Boethius and Lukasiewicz, have seen in this text an argument for rejecting LEM for future contingent statements, which are therefore to be assigned a non-classical value (e.g. “Indeterminate”) or no truth-value at all. [ 4 ] Their reasoning is based in part on the premise that the alternative position seems to require the acceptance of determinism. Others, however, read Aristotle as rejecting not simple bivalence for future contingents but rather determinacy itself. This interpretive tradition, endorsed by al-Fârâbi, Saint Thomas, and Ockham, is crystallized in this passage from Abelard's Dialectica (210-22) cited by Kneale and Kneale (1962: 214):

No proposition de contingenti futuro can be determinately true or determinately false…, but this is not to say that no such proposition can be true or false. On the contrary, any such proposition is true if the outcome is to be true as it states, even though this is unknown to us.

Even if we accept the view that Aristotle is uncomfortable with assigning truth (or falsity) to (2a) and (2b), their disjunction in (3a) is clearly seen as true, and indeed as necessarily true. But the modal operator must be taken to apply to the disjunction as a whole as in (3b) and not to each disjunct as in (3c).

(3a) Either there will be or there will not be a sea-battle tomorrow. (3b) □ (Φ ∨ ¬Φ) (3c) □ Φ ∨ □ ¬Φ

For Aristotle, LNC is understood not as the principle of propositional logic that no statement can be true simultaneously with its negation, but as a prima facie rejection of the possibility that any predicate F could both hold and not hold of a given subject (at the same time, and in the same respect). A full rendering of the version of LNC appearing at Metaphysics 1006b33-34—“It is not possible to truly say at the same time of a thing that it is a man and that it is not a man”—would require a representation involving operators for modality and truth and allowing quantification over times. [ 5 ] In the same way, LEM is not actually the principle that every statement is either true or has a true negation, but the law that for any predicate F and any entity x , x either is F or isn't F .

But these conceptualizations of LNC and LEM must be generalized, since the principle that it is impossible for a to be F and not to be F will not apply to statements of arbitrary complexity. We can translate the Aristotelian language, with some loss of faithfulness, into the standard modern versions in (4a,b) respectively, ignoring the understood modal and temporal modifications:

(4a) LNC: ¬(Φ & ¬Φ) (4b) LEM: Φ ∨ ¬Φ

Taking LNC and LEM together, we obtain the result that exactly one proposition of the pair {Φ, ¬Φ} is true and exactly one is false, where ¬ represents contradictory negation.

Alternatively, the laws can be recast semantically as in (5), again setting aside the usual qualifications:

(5a) LNC: No proposition may be simultaneously true and false. (5b) LEM: Every proposition must be either true or false.

Not every natural language negation is a contradictory operator, or even a logical operator. A statement may be rejected as false, as unwarranted, or as inappropriate—misleading, badly pronounced, wrongly focused, likely to induce unwanted implicatures or presuppositions, overly or insufficiently formal. Only in the first of these cases, as a toggle between truth and falsity, is it clear that contradictory negation is involved (Horn 1989, Smiley 1993). But is every contradictory negation sentential?

Within propositional logic, contradictory negation is a self-annihilating operator: ¬(¬Φ) is equivalent to Φ. This is explicitly recognized in the proto-Fregean Stoic logic of Alexander of Aphrodisias: “‘Not: not: it is day’ differs from ‘it is day’ only in manner of speech” (Mates 1953: 126). The Stoics' apophatikon directly prefigures the iterating and self-cancelling propositional negation of Frege and Russell. As Frege puts it (1919: 130), “Wrapping up a thought in double negation does not alter its truth value.” The corresponding linguistic principle is expressed in the grammarians' bromide, “Duplex negatio affirmat.”

Not all systems of propositional logic accept a biconditional law of double negation (LDN), ¬(¬Φ) ≡ Φ. In particular, LDN, along with LEM, is not valid for the Intuitionists, who reject ¬(¬Φ) → Φ while accepting its converse, Φ → ¬(¬Φ). But the very possibility of applying negation to a negated statement presupposes the analysis of contradictory negation as an iterative operator (one capable of applying to its own output), or as a function whose domain is identical to its range. Within the categorical term-based logic of Aristotle and his Peripatetic successors, every statement—whether singular or general—is of subject-predicate form. Contradictory negation is not a one-place operator taking propositions into propositions, but rather a mode of predication , a way of combining subjects with predicates: a given predicate can be either affirmed or denied of a given subject. Unlike the apophatikon or propositional negation connective introduced by the Stoics and formalized in Fregean and Russellian logic, Aristotelian predicate denial, while toggling truth and falsity and yielding the semantics of contradictory opposition, does not apply to its own output and hence does not syntactically iterate. In this respect, predicate denial both anticipates the form of negation in Montague Grammar and provides a more plausible representation of contradictory negation in natural language, whether Ancient Greek or English, where reflexes of the iterating one-place connective of the Stoics and Fregeans (“Not: not: the sun is shining”) are hard to find outside of artificial constructs like the “it is not the case” construction (Horn 1989, §7.2). In a given natural language, contradictory negation may be expressed as a particle associated with a copula or a verb, as an inflected auxiliary verb, as a verb of negation, or as a negative suffix or prefix.

In addition, there is a widespread pragmatically motivated tendency for a formal or semantic contradictory negation to be strengthened to a contrary through such processes as litotes (“I don't like prunes” conveying that I dislike prunes) and so-called negative raising (“I don't think that Φ” conveying “I think that ¬Φ”); similarly, the adjective-forming prefixal negation in such words as “unhappy” or “unfair” is understood as a contrary rather than contradictory (not-Adj) of its base. These phenomena have been much discussed by rhetoricians, logicians, and linguists (see Horn 1989: Chap. 5).

In addition to predicate denial, in which a predicate F is denied of a subject a , Aristotelian logic allows for narrow-scope predicate term negation , in which a negative predicate not-F is affirmed of a . The relation of predicate denial and predicate term negation to a simple affirmative proposition can be schematized on a generalized square of opposition ( De Interpretatione 19b19-30, Prior Analytics Chapter 46):

(6) Negation Square

If Socrates doesn't exist, “Socrates is wise” ( A ) and its contrary “Socrates is not-wise” ( E ) are both automatically false (since nothing—positive or negative—can be truly affirmed of a non-existent subject), while their respective contradictories “Socrates is not wise” ( O ) and “Socrates is not not-wise” ( I ) are both true. Similarly, for any object x , either x is red or x is not red—but x may be neither red nor not-red; if, for instance, x is a unicorn or a prime number.

While Russell (1905), without acknowledgment, echoed Aristotle's ambiguist analysis of negation as either contradictory (“external”) or contrary (“internal”), by virtue of the two logical forms assigned to “The king of France is not bald” (see descriptions ), such propositionalized accounts are bought at a cost of naturalness, as singular sentences of subject-predicate grammatical form are assigned the logical form of an existentially quantified conjunction and as names are transmuted into predicates.

In addition to the future contingent statements discussed, vacuous subjects like those in (7a,b) have sometimes been taken to yield a violation of LEM through the emergence of a truth-value gap.

(7a) {The present king of France/King Louis} is bald. (7b) {The present king of France/King Louis} isn't bald.

While Aristotle would see a republican France as rendering (7a) false and (7b) automatically true, Frege (1892) and Strawson (1950) reject the notion that either of these sentences can be used to make a true or false assertion. Instead, both statements presuppose the existence of a referent for the singular term; if the presupposition fails, so does the possibility of classical truth assignment. Note, however, that such analyses present a challenge to LEM only if (7b) is taken as the true contradictory of (7a), an assumption not universally shared. Russell, for example, allows for one reading of (7b) on which it is, like (7a), false in the absence of a referent for the subject term.

In those systems that do embrace truth value gaps (Strawson, arguably Frege) or non-classically-valued systems (Lukasiewicz, Bochvar, Kleene), some sentences or statements are not assigned a (classical) truth value; in Strawson's famous dictum, the question of the truth value of “The king of France is wise”, in a world in which France is a republic, simply fails to arise. The negative form of such vacuous statements, e.g. “The king of France is not wise”, is similarly neither true nor false. This amounts to a rejection of LEM, as noted by Russell 1905. In addition to vacuous singular expressions, gap-based analyses have been proposed for future contingents (following one reading of Aristotle's exposition of the sea-battle; cf. §2 above) and category mistakes (e.g. “The number 7 likes/doesn't like to dance”).

While LNC has traditionally remained more sacrosanct, reflecting its position as the primus inter pares of the indemonstrables, transgressing this final taboo has become increasingly alluring in recent years. The move here involves embracing not gaps but truth value gluts , cases in which a given sentence and its negation are taken to be both true, or alternatively cases in which a sentence may be assigned more than one (classical) truth value, i.e. both True and False. Parsons (1990) observes that the two non-classical theories are provably logically equivalent, as gluts arise within one class of theories precisely where gaps do in the other. Further, dialetheism escapes the charge of incoherence by avoiding the logical armageddon of Ex Contradictione Quodlibet, the inference in (8):

(8) p , ¬ p _____ ∴ q

Far from reduced to the silence of a vegetable, as Aristotle ordained, the proponents of true contradictions, including self-avowed dialetheists like Sylvan (né Routley) and Priest have been eloquent.

Is the status of Aristotle's “first principle” as obvious as he believed? Adherents of the dialetheist view that there are true contradictories (Priest 1987, 1998, 2002; see also dialetheism and paraconsistent logic ) would answer firmly in the negative. [ 6 ] In the Western tradition, the countenancing of true contradictions is typically—although not exclusively—motivated on the basis of such classic logical paradoxes as “This sentence is not true” and its analogues (the Liar, the Barber, Russell's paradox), each of which is true if and only if it is not true. As Smiley (1993: 19) has remarked, “Dialetheism stands to the classical idea of negation like special relativity to Newtonian mechanics: they agree in the familiar areas but diverge at the margins (notably the paradoxes).”

In addition to the Liar, another locus classicus is the problem of omnipotence as crystallized in the Paradox of the Stone. One begins by granting the basic dilemma, as an evident instance of LEM: either God is omnipotent or God is not omnipotent. With omnipotence, He can do anything, and in particular He can create a stone x so heavy that even He cannot lift it. But then there is something He cannot do, viz. (ex hypothesi) lift x . But this is an instance of LNC: God can lift x and God cannot lift x .

This paradox, and the potential challenge it offers to either LNC or the possibility of omnipotence, has been recognized since Aquinas, who opted for retaining the Aristotelian law by understanding omnipotence as the capacity to do only what is not logically impossible. (Others, including Augustine and Maimonides, have noted that in any case God is “unable” to do what is inconsistent with His nature, e.g. commit sin.) For Descartes, on the other hand, an omnipotent God is by definition capable of any task, even those yielding contradictions. Mavrodes (1963), Kenny, and others have sided with Aquinas in taking omnipotence to extend only to those powers it is possible to possess; Frankfurt (1964), on the other hand, essentially adopt the Cartesian line: Yes, of course God can indeed construct a stone that He cannot lift—and what's more, He can lift it! (See also Savage 1967 for a related solution.)

Within Western philosophy, Hegel has often been depicted as a leading LNC-skeptic, but in fact for Hegel an unresolved contradiction is a sign of error. The contradiction between thesis and antithesis results in Aufhebung, the dialectical resolution or superseding of the contradiction between opposites as a higher-level synthesis that eventually generates its own antithesis. Rather than repudiating LNC, Hegel's dialectic rests upon it. In Marxist theory, too, contradictories do not simply cancel out but are dynamically resolved ( aufgehoben ) at a higher level in a way that both preserves and supersedes the contradiction, motivating the historical dialectic. (See Horn 1989: §1.3.2.)

For Freud, there is a realm in which LNC is not so much superseded but dissolved. On the primary, infantile level, reflected in dreams and neuroses, there is no not : “‘No’ seems not to exist as far as dreams are concerned. Anything in a dream can mean its contrary” (Freud 1910: 155). When the analysand insists of a dream character “It's not my mother”, the analyst silently translates, “So it is his mother!”

Given Aristotle's observation that “even some physicists” deny LNC and affirm that is indeed possible for the same thing to be and not to be at the same time and in the same respect, he would not have been surprised to learn that quantum mechanics has made such challenges fashionable again. Thus, we have Schrödinger's celebrated cat, placed (within the context of a thought experiment) inside a sealed box along with radioactive material and a vial of poison gas that will be released if that material decays. Given quantum uncertainty, an atom inhabits both states—decayed and non-decayed—simultaneously, rendering the cat (in the absence of an observer outside the system) both alive and dead. Where speculative consensus breaks down is on whether Schrödinger's paradox arises only when the quantum system is isolated from the environment.

Aristotle himself anticipated many of the challenges that have since been raised against LNC. Thus whether it is the ambivalence of Zerlina's “Vorrei e non vorrei”, Strawson's exchange (1952: 7)

—Were you pleased? —Well, I was and I wasn't.

or the observation of Jainists two millennia ago that “ S is P ” and “ S is not P ” can both be true from different standpoints (Raju 1954: 698-701; Balcerowicz 2003), we have ample opportunity to reflect on the foresight of Aristotle's rider: “ S is P ” and “ S is not P ” cannot both hold in the same sense, at the same time, and in the same respect .

Outside the Western canon, the brunt of the battle over LNC has been largely borne by the Buddhists, particularly in the exposition by Nâgârjuna of the catuskoti or tetralemma (c. 200 A.D.; cf. Bochenski 1961: Part VI, Raju 1954, Garfield 1995, Tillemans 1999, Garfield & Priest 2002), also known as the four-cornered or fourfold negation. Consider the following four possible truth outcomes for any statement and its (apparent) contradictory:

(9) (i) S is P (ii) S is not P (iii) S is both P and not- P (iv) S is neither P nor not- P

For instances of the positive tetralemma, all four statement types can or must be accepted, e.g.:

Everything is real and not real. Both real and not real. Neither real nor not real. That is Lord Buddha's teaching. — Mûla-madhyamaka-kârikâ 18:8, quoted in Garfield (1995: 102)

Such cases arise only when we are beyond the realm to which ordinary logic applies, when “the sphere of thought has ceased.” On the other hand, much more use is made of the negative tetralemma, in which all four of the statements in (9) can or must be rejected. Is this tantamount, as it appears, to the renunciation of LEM and LNC, the countenancing of both gaps and gluts, and thus—in Aristotle's view—the overthrow of all bounds of rational argument?

It should first be noted that the axiomatic status of LNC and LEM is as well-established within the logical traditions of India as it is for the Greeks and their epigones. [ 7 ] And indeed, Garfield (1995) and Tillemans (1999) convincingly refute the claim that Nâgârjuna was an “irrationalist”. [ 8 ] In the first place, if Nâgârjuna simply rejected LNC, there would be no possibility of reductio arguments, which hinge on the establishment of untenable contradictions, yet such arguments are standardly employed in his logic. In fact, he overtly prohibits virodha (contradiction). Crucially, it is only in the realm of the Absolute or Transcendent, where we are contemplating the nature of the ultimate, that contradictions are embraced; in the realm of ordinary reality, LNC operates and classical logic holds. In this sense, the logic of Nâgârjuna and of the Buddhist tradition more generally can be seen not as inconsistent but paraconsistent.

One aspect of the apparent paradox is precisely parallel to that arising with some of the potential counterexamples to the LNC arising in Western thought. In various Buddhist and Jainist systems of thought, the apparent endorsement of Fa & ¬ Fa (or, in propositional terms, Φ & ¬Φ) is upon closer examination qualified in precisely the way foreseen by the codicils in Aristotle's statement of the law: “From a certain viewpoint, Φ (e.g. Nirvana exists); from a certain viewpoint, ¬Φ (e.g. Nirvana does not exist).

To further explore the status of truth-value gluts, in which both classical values are simultaneously assigned to a given proposition (e.g. “ x is real”), let us consider the analogous cases involving gaps. Recall, for example, the case of future contingents as in (2a,b) above: we need not maintain that “Iraq will become a secular democracy” is neither true nor false when uttered today, but only that neither this statement nor its contradictory “Iraq will not become a secular democracy” is assertable today in the absence of foreknowledge. Similarly for past unknowables, such as (to adapt an example from Quine) the proposition that the number of blades of grass on the Old Campus lawn during the 2005 Yale commencement exercises was odd. This is again more plausibly viewed as unassertable than as truth-valueless, even though its truth-value will never be known. To take a third example, we can argue, with Grice (1989: 80ff.), that a negation outside the scope of a conditional is generally intended as a refusal (or hesitation) to assert “if p then q ” rather than as the contradictory negation of a conditional, whose truth value is determined in accord with the standard material equivalence:

(10) ¬( p → q ) ≡ ( p & ¬ q )

Thus, in denying your conditional “If you give her penicillin, she will get better”, I am allowing for the possibility that giving her penicillin might have no effect on her, but I am not predicting that you will administer the penicillin and she will fail to recover. Nor does denying the apothegm (typically though inaccurately attributed to Dostoyevsky or Nietzsche) that if God is dead everything is permitted commit one to the conjoined proposition that God is dead and something is forbidden. As Dummett (1973: 328-30) puts the point, we must distinguish negation outside the scope of a Fregean assertion operator, not (⊢ p ), from the assertion of a negative proposition, ⊢(not p ). The former interpretation “might be taken to be a means of expressing an unwillingness to assert” p , in particular when p is a conditional:

(11) X : If it rains, the match will be canceled. Y : That's not so. ( or, I don't think that's the case.)

Y 's contribution here does not constitute a negation of X 's content; rather, we can paraphrase Y as conveying (11′a) or (11′b):

(11′a) If it rains, the match won't necessarily be canceled. (11′b) It may [ epistemic ] happen that it rains and yet the match is not canceled.

Dummett observes, “We have no negation of the conditional of natural language, that is, no negation of its sense: we have only a form for expressing refusal to assent to its assertion.”

Similarly with disjunction. Consider the exchange in (12) preceding the 2000 election, updated from an example of Grice:

(12) X : Bush or Gore will be elected. Y : That's not so: Bush or Gore or Nader will be elected.

Y 's rejoinder cannot be a contradictory of the content of X 's claim, since the (de jure) election of Bush rendered both X 's and Y 's statements true. Rather, Y objects on the grounds that X is not in an epistemic position to assert the binary disjunction.

Unassertability can be read as the key to the apparent paradox of the catuskoti as well. The venerable text in Majjhima-nikâya 72, relating the teachings of the historical Buddha, offers a precursor for Nâgârjuna's doctrine of the negative tetralemma. Gotama is responding to a monk's question concerning the doctrine of rebirth (quoted in Robinson 1967: 54):

Gotama, where is the monk reborn whose mind is thus freed? Vaccha, it is not true to say that he is reborn. Then, Gotama, he is not reborn. Vaccha, it is not true to say that he is not reborn. Then, Gotama, he is both reborn and not reborn. Vaccha, it is not true to say that he is both reborn and not reborn. Then, Gotama, he is neither reborn nor not reborn. Vaccha, it is not true to say that he is neither reborn nor not reborn.

Note the form of the translation here, or similarly that of the standard rendering of the negative catuskoti that “it profits not” to assert Φ, to assert ¬Φ, to assert both Φ and ¬Φ, or to assert neither Φ nor ¬Φ: the relevant negation can be taken to operate over an implicit modal, in particular an epistemic or assertability operator. If so, neither LEM nor LNC is directly at stake in the tetralemma: you can have your Aristotle and Buddha too.

We tend to recalibrate apparent violations of LNC as conforming to a version of the law that incorporates the Aristotelian qualifications: a sincere defense of “ p and not- p ” plausibly involves a change in the context of evaluation or a shift in viewpoint, or alternatively a suppression of modal or epistemic operators. This practice can be seen as an instance of a general methodological principle associated with Davidson and Quine that has come to be called the principle of charity (or, alternately, the principle of rational accommodation ): when it is unclear how to interpret another's argument, interpret it in a way that makes the most sense. At the same time, this procedure evokes the standard Gricean mode of explanation: granted the operation of the Cooperative Principle and, more broadly, the premise of Rationality, we reinterpret apparent violations of valid principles or maxims so as to conserve the assumption that one's interlocutor is a rational and cooperative agent. As Aristotle would remind us, no principle is more worthy of conservation than the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Aristotle. Categories and De Interpretatione , J. N. Ackrill, ed., Oxford: Clarendon, 1963.
Aristotle. Metaphysics , Hippocrates Apostle, ed., Bloomington: Indiana U. Press, 1966.
Aristotle. Prior and Posterior Analytics , W. D. Ross, ed., Oxford: Clarendon, 1957.
Balcerowicz, Piotr (2003). "Some remarks on the Naya method," in Essays in Jaina Philosophy and Religion. Warsaw Indological Studies , Vol. 2, pp. 37-68.
Barnes, Jonathan (1969). "The law of contradiction," Philosophical Quarterly 19: 302-309.
Bochenski, I. M. (1961). A History of Formal Logic , Ivo Thomas, ed. and trans., Notre Dame: U. of Notre Dame Press.
Dummett, Michael (1973). Frege: philosophy of language , London: Duckworth.
Frankfurt, Harry (1964). "The logic of omnipotence," Philosophical Review 73: 262-63.
Frege, Gottlob (1892). "On sense and reference", in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege , P. Geach and M. Black, eds., Oxford: Blackwell, 1952, pp. 56-78.
Frege, Gottlob (1919). "Negation," in Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege , P. Geach and M. Black, eds., Oxford: Blackwell, 1952, pp. 117-35.
Freud, Sigmund (1910). "The antithetical sense of primal words," in J. Strachey (ed.), The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud , Vol. 11, 155-61. London: Hogarth Press, 1957.
Garfield, Jay (1995). The fundamental wisdom of the middle way: Nâgârjuna's Mûlamadhyamakakârikâ , Translation and commentary by Jay L. Garfield. New York: Oxford University Press.
Garfield, Jay and Graham Priest (2002). "Nâgârjuna and the limits of thought," in Priest (2002), pp. 249-70.
Geach, P. T. (1972). Logic Matters , reprinted Berkeley: U. of California Press, 1980.
Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Horn, Laurence (1989). A Natural History of Negation , Chicago: U. of Chicago Press. Reissue edition, Stanford: CSLI, 2001.
Kneale, William and Martha Kneale (1962). The Development of Logic , Oxford: Clarendon.
Kumârila Bhatta, The Mîmânsâ-sloka-vârtika , R. Talainga, ed., Benares: Freeman & Co., 1899.
Lear, Jonathan (1980). Aristotle and Logical Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press.
Leibniz, Gottfried (1696). New Essays Concerning Human Understanding by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz , A. G. Langley, ed. and trans., 2d ed., Chicago: Open Court, 1916.
Lukasiewicz, Jan ([1910] 1971). "On the principle of contradiction in Aristotle", trans. by V. Wedin, Review of Metaphysics 24: 485-509.
Mates, Benson (1953). Stoic Logic , Berkeley and Los Angeles: U. of California Press.
Mavrodes, George (1963). "Some puzzles concerning omnipotence," Philosophical Review 72: 221-23.
Parsons, Terry (1990). "True Contradictions," Canadian Journal Philosophy 20: 335-53.
Peter of Spain, Tractatus, called afterwards Summulae Logicales , L. M. de Rijk, ed., Assen: van Gorcum, 1972.
Priest, Graham (1987). In Contradiction , Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff.
––– (1998). "To be and not to be—that is the answer. On Aristotle on the law of non-contradiction," Philosophiegeschichte und logische Analyse 1: 91-130.
––– (2002). Beyond the Limits of Thought , Oxford: Oxford U. Press.
Priest, Graham, J. C. Beall, and Bradley Armour-Garb, eds. (2004). The Law of Non-Contradiction: New Philosophical Essays , Oxford: Clarendon.
Raju, P. T. (1954). "The principle of four-cornered negation in Indian philosophy," Review of Metaphysics 7: 694-713.
Robinson, Richard (1967). Early Mâdhyamika in India and China , Madison: U. of Wisconsin Press.
Russell, Bertrand (1905). "On descriptions", Mind 14: 479-93.
Savage, C. Wade (1967). "The paradox of the stone," Philosophical Review 76: 74-79.
Smiley, Timothy (1993). "Can contradictions be true?," Aristotelian Society Supplement Volume 67: 17-33.
Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to Logical Theory , London: Methuen.
Tillemans, Tom (1999). "Is Buddhist Logic non-classical or deviant?," Chapter 9 in Scripture, Logic, Language , Boston: Wisdom Publications.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Aristotle, General Topics: logic | Aristotle, General Topics: metaphysics | dialetheism [dialethism] | Russell's paradox | square of opposition

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to an anonymous reader and to Professor Piotr Balcerowicz for very helpful comments.

What Is Dialectics? What Is The Triad Thesis?

Hegel’s dialectical triad, the synthesis, dialectical materialism and marxism, limitations of dialectics.

Dialectics underscores reality’s dynamic and contradictory nature, as seen in the Hegelian triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Dialectics is a philosophical concept that originates from ancient Greek philosophy and has been developed and refined over centuries by various thinkers. At its core, dialectics is a way of reasoning and understanding the world that emphasizes reality’s dynamic, interconnected, and contradictory nature.

The term ‘dialectics’ comes from the Greek word ‘dialektikḗ,’ which means the art of conversation or discussion. In the classical Greek tradition, dialectics was associated with the Socratic method of questioning and refuting opposing arguments to arrive at a deeper truth.

In modern philosophy, dialectics has taken on a more specific meaning, implying a contradictory process between opposing sides that aims to supersede the logic of reductio ad absurdum .

This means that if the premises of an argument result in a contradiction, the premises are false, rendering one either devoid of premises or devoid of any substantive foundation.

What Are Syllogisms?

Chalk,Drawing,Of,Shopping,Cart,And,Word,Nothingness,On,Black

Why Isn’t Nihilism Perceived Positively?

Orientalism: Definition, History, Explanation, Examples And Criticism

illustration of chemistry, Atomic models, scientific theory of the nature of matter(Nasky)s

How Has The Atomic Model Evolved Over The Years?

Dishonest businessman telling lies(igorstevanovic)s

Münchhausen Trilemma: Is It Possible To Prove Any Truth?

Graphic of a Left-wing and Right-wing Road Signs on Sunset Background - Illustration(Sampien)S

Right Wing Vs. Left Wing: What’s The Difference?

What is an Ethical Dilemma?

What Makes a Hero?

Photosynthesis: The Biochemistry Behind How Plants Make Their Food

What is Calculus in Math? Simple Explanation with Examples

Quantum Physics: Here’s Why Movies Always Get It Wrong

Is Mathematics INVENTED or DISCOVERED?

The Art of Dialectic Reasoning – The Process of Logical Debate and its Benefits

Dialectic reasoning is a method of argument that involves arriving at the truth through the process of logical debate between two opposing viewpoints. It is commonly used in philosophy and can help to clarify complex ideas by examining them from different perspectives.

The goal of dialectic reasoning is to arrive at a synthesis, or a higher truth, that reconciles the contradictions between the opposing viewpoints.

The Origins of Dialectic Reasoning

The word “dialectic” comes from the Greek word διαλεκτικός (diálektikós), which means “of or relating to conversation or discussion.”

Dialectic reasoning was a fundamental part of philosophical discourse in ancient Greece. It was developed by philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, who believed that truth could be arrived at through logical debate and argumentation.

The method involved examining opposing viewpoints and arriving at a synthesis or resolution through a process of critical thinking and reasoning. In this way, dialectic reasoning encouraged the exploration of ideas and the pursuit of knowledge through intellectual exchange, rather than dogmatic acceptance of established beliefs.

In the 19th century, the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel further developed dialectic reasoning into a comprehensive philosophical framework. He saw the method as a way of understanding the historical development of ideas and society, arguing that progress came about through conflicts between opposing forces that ultimately led to a synthesis of new ideas.

Hegelian dialectics had a significant influence on Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who applied it to their analysis of social and political issues. They believed that history was shaped by class struggles, with conflicts between the ruling class and working class driving social change. Using dialectical reasoning, they developed their theory of historical materialism, which posited that economic factors were the primary drivers of historical development.

Marx and Engels popularized dialectic reasoning as a tool for understanding social and political issues in their seminal work “The Communist Manifesto” and other writings. Their ideas have had a profound impact on politics, economics, and social thought throughout the world.

Today, dialectic reasoning continues to be used in various fields, including philosophy, sociology , psychology, and economics.

The Main Stages of Dialectic Reasoning

The main stages of dialectic reasoning, as developed by Hegel and later adapted by Marx and Engels, are commonly referred to as the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

This process is iterative and ongoing, with each synthesis forming the basis for a new thesis that can be further examined through dialectical reasoning. Through this method, dialectic reasoning encourages open-minded exploration of ideas and continual refinement of knowledge through debate and critical analysis.

The First Stage – Thesis

The first stage of dialectic reasoning, known as the thesis, is an essential element in the process of developing new ideas and understanding complex issues. It represents the starting point for discussion and analysis, whether it be a familiar or established belief or a completely new concept.

The thesis serves as a foundation upon which further exploration and examination can take place. It may be based on empirical evidence, personal experience, or existing knowledge within a particular field. The thesis should be well-defined and supported by relevant evidence to provide a solid starting point for debate and analysis.

In some cases, the thesis may represent an established belief that is widely accepted within a particular community or culture. In other cases, it may be a new idea that challenges existing assumptions or paradigms. Regardless of its origin, the thesis provides a framework for critical thinking and analysis that allows for deeper exploration of complex issues.

By presenting a clear and well-supported thesis at the outset of an argument or discussion, individuals can engage in productive dialogue and work towards developing new insights and solutions to complex problems. This initial stage is crucial in ensuring that subsequent stages of dialectical reasoning are built upon a solid foundation of knowledge and understanding.

The Second Stage – Antithesis

The second stage of dialectic reasoning, known as the antithesis, represents a critical step in the process of developing new ideas and understanding complex issues. In this stage, an opposing viewpoint or critique of the original thesis is presented.

The antithesis provides an opportunity for individuals to challenge existing assumptions and consider alternative perspectives. This can take the form of a counter-argument or a different interpretation of available evidence. The goal is to create a sense of tension between opposing viewpoints that can be used to fuel further exploration and analysis.

By presenting an alternative perspective or critique of the original thesis, individuals can engage in productive dialogue that allows for deeper exploration of complex issues. The antithesis should be well-supported by relevant evidence and logical reasoning to ensure that it presents a legitimate challenge to the original thesis.

This stage is crucial in ensuring that multiple perspectives are considered and evaluated before arriving at a final conclusion or synthesis. By engaging with opposing viewpoints, individuals can broaden their understanding of complex issues and develop more nuanced insights into how they might be addressed.

Overall, the antithesis serves as a valuable tool for promoting critical thinking and analysis, encouraging individuals to challenge existing assumptions and explore new ideas in pursuit of deeper knowledge and understanding.

The Third Stage – Synthesis

The third stage of dialectic reasoning, known as the synthesis, represents the culmination of the dialectical process. In this stage, the conflict between the thesis and antithesis is resolved through a process of critical thinking and analysis.

The synthesis represents a higher level of understanding that incorporates elements from both the thesis and antithesis while transcending their limitations. It involves identifying common ground between opposing viewpoints and using this as a basis for developing new insights and solutions to complex problems.

The synthesis requires individuals to engage in creative thinking and problem-solving, drawing upon their knowledge and experience to develop innovative approaches to complex issues. It should be based on a careful evaluation of all available evidence and perspectives, taking into account any potential biases or limitations.

The goal of the synthesis is to arrive at a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues that can serve as a basis for further exploration and analysis. It should be well-supported by relevant evidence and logical reasoning to ensure that it represents a legitimate resolution of the conflict between the thesis and antithesis.

Overall, the synthesis serves as an important tool for promoting critical thinking, creativity, and innovation. By incorporating elements from both opposing viewpoints, individuals can arrive at a more nuanced understanding of complex issues that can inform future decision-making processes.

Conclusion – Dialectic Reasoning is a Powerful Tool

In conclusion, dialectic reasoning is a powerful tool for promoting critical thinking and analysis. By engaging with opposing viewpoints and exploring new perspectives, individuals can develop a more comprehensive understanding of complex issues that can inform future decision-making processes.

The dialectical process involves three stages: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Each stage plays an important role in the development of new ideas and insights. Through careful evaluation of available evidence and logical reasoning, individuals can arrive at a higher level of understanding that transcends the limitations of individual perspectives.

By incorporating dialectic reasoning into our approach to problem-solving, we can promote creativity, innovation, and deeper insight into complex issues that affect us all.

Related Terms

Logic – The study of correct reasoning.

Argument – A claim or set of claims made in support of a position.

Conflict – A disagreement between two or more parties.

Resolution – The process of resolving a conflict.

Theory – A set of related ideas that are used to explain a phenomenon.

Philosophy – The study of the nature of reality, knowledge, and morality.

Disclosure: Please note that some of the links in this post are affiliate links. When you use one of my affiliate links , the company compensates me. At no additional cost to you, I’ll earn a commission, which helps me run this blog and keep my in-depth content free of charge for all my readers.

Login Alert

> Journals
> Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie
> Volume 52 Issue 4
> Hegel’s Undiscovered Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Dialectics....

Article contents

Hegel’s undiscovered thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectics. what only marx and tillich understood leonard f. wheat amherst: prometheus books, 2012; 400 pp. $32.00 (hardback).

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 September 2013

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Access options

1 See especially Chalybaus’ 1848 text Historical Development of Speculative Philosophy from Kant to Hegel .

2 See especially the Introduction of John and Elllis McTaggart’s A Commentary on Hegel’s Logic . Elibron Classics, 2005.

3 Verene, Donald Phillip. Hegel’s Absolute: An Introduction to Reading the Phenomenology of Spirit . Albany: SUNY Press, 2007.

4 Science of Logic .pg 53. A.V. Miller Trans. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International, 1996.

5 This is most clearly expressed on page 224 of Hegel’s Encyclopedia Logic . W. Wallace Trans. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1975.

No CrossRef data available.

View all Google Scholar citations for this article.

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Volume 52, Issue 4
CLAYTON BOHNET (a1)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217313000747

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Reply to: Submit a response

- No HTML tags allowed - Web page URLs will display as text only - Lines and paragraphs break automatically - Attachments, images or tables are not permitted

Your details

Your email address will be used in order to notify you when your comment has been reviewed by the moderator and in case the author(s) of the article or the moderator need to contact you directly.

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests.

Please list any fees and grants from, employment by, consultancy for, shared ownership in or any close relationship with, at any time over the preceding 36 months, any organisation whose interests may be affected by the publication of the response. Please also list any non-financial associations or interests (personal, professional, political, institutional, religious or other) that a reasonable reader would want to know about in relation to the submitted work. This pertains to all the authors of the piece, their spouses or partners.

Show all results for " "

Conflict Theory

More actions.

PDF Questions
Make a copy

Questions and Answers

What is the existing generally accepted state of a society called.

Thesis (correct)

What is the outcome of the struggle between the thesis and antithesis?

A compromise or synthesis is reached (correct)
The thesis is eliminated
The antithesis is eliminated
A new thesis is formed

What is the role of the middle class in the synthesis?

They have more power than the factory owners (correct)
They create a new thesis
They become the new factory owners
They are eliminated

What can be the source of an antithesis?

Any source of unrest or tension Signup and view all the answers

What is a limitation of conflict theory?

It doesn't explain how a society is held together Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary focus of conflict theory in studying society?

The inequalities of different groups in a society Signup and view all the answers

According to Karl Marx, what was the final stage of society that he believed would be achieved through revolution?

Socialism Signup and view all the answers

In a capitalist society, who held the majority of the power?

The bourgeoisie (upper class) Signup and view all the answers

What was the primary way in which the proletariat made a living in a capitalist society?

By selling their labor to the factory owners Signup and view all the answers

What did Marx believe would be the outcome of the economic inequality between the factory owners and the workers?

The workers would unite to create a class consciousness and overthrow the capitalist system Signup and view all the answers

In a capitalist society, what is the primary source of tension that leads to the formation of an antithesis?

The desire of the working class to change the way things are Signup and view all the answers

What is the result of the synthesis of the thesis and antithesis in the context of conflict theory?

A compromise between the two opposing sides, resulting in a new social state Signup and view all the answers

How does conflict theory view the role of the middle class in society?

As a newly empowered group that may become a new thesis Signup and view all the answers

What is a key limitation of conflict theory in understanding society?

It ignores the stability that a society can experience Signup and view all the answers

Modeling the often drastic changes that occur in a society Signup and view all the answers

What is the underlying assumption of Karl Marx's model of societal change?

That the seeds of a society's destruction are contained within its economic structure. Signup and view all the answers

In a capitalist society, what is the primary way in which the bourgeoisie maintain their power?

Through their control of the means of production. Signup and view all the answers

What is the term for the phenomenon where the working class becomes aware of their shared economic interests and unites against the capitalist class?

Class consciousness Signup and view all the answers

What is the role of the proletariat in a capitalist society, according to Marx?

To provide labor in exchange for wages. Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary focus of conflict theory in studying society, as proposed by Marx?

The impact of economic inequality on social relations. Signup and view all the answers

What is the main focus of conflict theory in studying society?

Who held the majority of the power in a capitalist society in 19th century europe.

The bourgeoisie Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary way in which the proletariat made a living in a capitalist society?

By selling their labor Signup and view all the answers

That a society will evolve through stages of feudalism, capitalism, and socialism Signup and view all the answers

What is the primary driver of change in a society according to conflict theory?

The tension between the thesis and antithesis Signup and view all the answers

What is the outcome of the synthesis of the thesis and antithesis?

The creation of a new thesis Signup and view all the answers

What is a key characteristic of the antithesis?

It opposes the existing thesis Signup and view all the answers

What is an example of a historical movement that demonstrates conflict theory?

The Civil Rights Movement Signup and view all the answers

It does not account for the stability of society Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Focuses on the inequalities of different groups in a society
Based on Karl Marx's ideas from the 19th century
Marx believed society evolves through several stages: feudalism, capitalism, and finally socialism

19th Century Europe: Capitalist Society

Rich upper class (bourgeoisie) were a minority of the population
Poor lower class (proletariat) were the majority
Bourgeoisie owned factories, produced goods, and sold to earn a living
Proletariat only had their labor to sell to make a living and were dependent on factory owners

Economic Inequality

Significant economic inequality between factory owners and workers
Marx believed this inequality would fuel a change in society
Workers would unite to create a class consciousness and overthrow the capitalist status quo

Marx's Model

A society where one group exploits another economically contains the seeds of its own destruction
The existing state (thesis) would cause the formation of a reaction (antithesis) that opposes the accepted state
The thesis and antithesis can't exist together peacefully, leading to a compromise or synthesis of the two

Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis

Example: in a capitalist society, the thesis is that the bourgeoisie run factories while the working class provides labor
The antithesis is the desire of the working class to change the way things are
The synthesis is the creation of a new middle class that has more power than the factory owners themselves
The synthesis would eventually become a new thesis and begin the process again

Applications of Conflict Theory

Examples include the struggle for African-American equal rights and the women's suffrage movement
Each conflict between the status quo and its opposition resolves into a new thesis, waiting for the next source of tension

Limitations of Conflict Theory

Doesn't take into account the stability that a society can experience
Doesn't explain how a society is held together
Doesn't like the status quo

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Learn about conflict theory, a sociological approach that examines the inequalities of different groups in a society, based on Karl Marx's ideas of societal evolution through stages of feudalism, capitalism, and socialism.

More Quizzes Like This

Social Imagination and Conflict Theory Quiz

Conflict Theory and Social Structure

Sociology: Conflict Theories

Sociology Theories: Functionalism vs. Conflict Theory

Thesis, Antithesis, and Finally, Synthesis: A New Era of Collective Understanding

Journal Title

Journal issn, volume title, description, collections.

IMAGES

examples of thesis and antithesis
14 Top Conflict Theory Examples (2024)
Thesis, antithesis, synthesis
thesis and antithesis method
examples of thesis and antithesis
Basics of Thesis Antithesis Synthesis

VIDEO

Conflict Theory
Conflict theory
What is Conflict Theory?
Conflict Theory
Understanding Conflict Theory
Antithesis

COMMENTS

Thesis and antithesis of conflict theory? : r/Mcat
Also what is the antithesis of conflict theory? This is an oversimplification, but the thesis is the status quo (like you said), the antithesis is the reaction to the status quo, and the synthesis is the compromise of the two that serves to ameliorate the tension. I keep seeing this pop up in the premed anki set, but to be honest I have no idea ...
Cancel
Conflict theory (video) | Social structures
Hegel's Dialectics
Hegel's Dialectics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Hegel's Dialectic: A Comprehensive Overview
Hegel's dialectic is a philosophical theory developed by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the early 19th century. It is based on the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, which are steps in the process of progress. The thesis is an idea or statement that is the starting point of an argument.
Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis
Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis | Encyclopedia MDPI
Types of Conflict Theories
Understanding Class Conflict, Race Conflict, Gender Conflict, and Other Conflict Theories. We explain Marx's conflict theory and other conflict theories to show how tension between social, political, material, and other forces manifest.. In other words, we describe how the tension between a thesis (a concept) and an antithesis (its contradiction) in the "social sphere" (in social systems ...
What is Dialectic Materialism: Basic Methodology of Marx
Marx's concept of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is a central aspect of his theory of dialectical materialism. This concept refers to a process of change and ...
PDF Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis Structure in Presentations and Papers
Thesis:Antithesis:Synthesis Structure
Contradiction
The contradiction between thesis and antithesis results in the dialectical resolution or superseding of the contradiction between opposites as a higher-level synthesis through the process of Aufhebung (from aufheben, a verb simultaneously interpretable as 'preserve, cancel, lift up'). Rather than repudiating LNC, Hegel's dialectic rests ...
Model of Dialectical Learning
This process continues until the data bank is exhausted…. Hegel's theory leads us to predict that the manager - observer of the conflict - will integrate and form a new and expanded world view (the synthesis). ... The initial position each group takes composes the thesis for one group and the antithesis for the other. Each debate group ...
The Hegel Legend of 'Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis'
The Hegel Legend of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis"
What are thesis, antithesis, synthesis? In what ways are ...
This would be the synthesis. Answer link. They are concepts used by Marx to explain the progression of human society through distinct phases. In general terms a thesis is a starting point, an antithesis is a reaction to it and a synthesis is the outcome. Marx developed the concept of historical materialism whereby the history of man developed ...
Contradiction
The contradiction between thesis and antithesis results in Aufhebung, the dialectical resolution or superseding of the contradiction between opposites as a higher-level synthesis that eventually generates its own antithesis. Rather than repudiating LNC, Hegel's dialectic rests upon it. ... Aristotle and Logical Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge U ...
What Is Dialectics? What Is The Triad Thesis? » ScienceABC
Dialectics underscores reality's dynamic and contradictory nature, as seen in the Hegelian triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Dialectics is a philosophical concept that originates from ancient Greek philosophy and has been developed and refined over centuries by various thinkers. At its core, dialectics is a way of reasoning and ...
The Art of Dialectic Reasoning
In this stage, the conflict between the thesis and antithesis is resolved through a process of critical thinking and analysis. ... Resolution - The process of resolving a conflict. Theory - A set of related ideas that are used to explain a phenomenon. Philosophy - The study of the nature of reality, knowledge, and morality.
PDF Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis
fi. from the less advantaged groups. Reiman argues that a moral version of Marx 's theory of value provides the necessary support missing from Rawls 's difference principle. Marx's labor theory shows that underlying the exchange of commodities in the marketplace is the exchange of labor.
Hegel's Eurocentric Triads of Dialectics and Its Transformation to
conflict solved by reconciling the common truths of thesis and antithesis to form a new thesis, starting the process again) [31]. Note that the antithesis is the direct opposite, the annihilation/negation, or at least the sublation, of the thesis in (1); and the synthesis in (3) is the updated thesis of (1) in a higher, richer, and fuller
Conflict thesis
The conflict thesis is a historiographical approach in the history of science that originated in the 19th century with John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White.It maintains that there is an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science, and that it inevitably leads to hostility. [1] [2] The consensus among historians of science is that the thesis has long been discredited ...
Hegel's Undiscovered Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Dialectics. What Only
Hegel's Undiscovered Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis Dialectics. What Only Marx and Tillich UnderstoodLEONARD F. WHEAT Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2012; 400 pp. $32.00 (hardback) - Volume 52 Issue 4 22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication.
Conflict Theory
Learn about conflict theory, a sociological approach that examines the inequalities of different groups in a society, based on Karl Marx's ideas of societal evolution through stages of feudalism, capitalism, and socialism. ... The thesis and antithesis can't exist together peacefully, leading to a compromise or synthesis of the two; Thesis ...
Dialectic
Dialectic - Wikipedia ... Dialectic
Coercion and Consensus Theories: Some Unresolved Issues
sembles consensus theory in its basic pre-suppositions. At times social theorists have been wont to label the polar theoretical positions re-garding social cohesion "functional" and "conflict" theory, or, in van den Berghe's case, functional and dialectic theory. To propose that functionalism is the antithesis of coercion theory requires an ...
Thesis, Antithesis, and Finally, Synthesis: A New Era of Collective
It will explain how we are now entering the final stage within the Dialectic, as well as the implications this has for the progression of our being, including increasing our access to the collective consciousness, which among other things, aids in our subconscious sensory perception (what others may refer to as "ESP").