For the first time he began to use the term dialectics. Topic questions

Tarot - 12/17/2021

DIALECTICS [Greek διαλεκτική (τέχνη) - the art of conversation or argument], one of the fundamental philosophical concepts, the meaning of which has changed significantly throughout history and at different times meant the art of conducting a conversation or argument, the art of convincing idle talk, a way of searching for truth, a method philosophical knowledge, logical movement of concepts, philosophical doctrine of the unity and inconsistency of being, etc.

Dialectics in antiquity. The founder of dialectics was considered to be Parmenides (“the rock of Parmenides”, Hugh of Saint-Victor), Zeno of Elea (Aristotle), Heraclitus (followers of G. W. F. Hegel). The negative meaning of dialectics as an art of presenting the imaginary as truth with the help of false evidence and sophisms was attributed to the sophists. The first use of the term "dialectic" in oral form is attributed to Socrates, and in written form to Plato.

Socrates' dialectic is aimed at clarifying and defining concepts and is closely related to irony (pretense) and maieutics (the "midwifery art" of thought and truth). The first detailed interpretation of dialectics was given by Plato, for whom dialectics as a “royal art” is the ability to “pose questions and give answers” (Sobr. soch. M., 1990. T. 1. P. 182, 622). Plato contrasted dialectics as a method of conversation or reasoning aimed at finding objective truth, and eristics as a method of argument dealing with subjective rightness. Plato’s dialectics consists of both differentiation and generalization: in distinguishing everything according to gender and in “the natural ability to grasp with one’s gaze the one and the many” (Ibid. M., 1993. Vol. 2. P. 176). The ability for dialectics is closely connected with the knowledge of the authentic and eternally identical in nature of being: bypassing sensations, dialectics, with the help of reason alone, rushes to the essence of any object up to the comprehension of the essence of good - the pinnacle of the intelligible.

The concept of dialectics developed by Aristotle is very ambiguous: dialectics “paves the way to the beginnings of all teachings” (Soch. M., 1978. Vol. 2. P. 351), is “the art of posing leading questions” (Ibid. P. 556), interprets one and many, making one out of many (putting forward premises) and out of one many (raising objections), is opposed to sophistry (imaginary wisdom), eristics, which has the goal of argument for the sake of argument or imaginary victory, philosophy, which studies existence itself as such, and not extraneous properties of a thing. Including the art of testing, dialectics is similar to rhetoric, for both deal with conclusions from contradictory premises and deal with opposites. In the Analytics, dialectics appears as the doctrine of what is plausible or probable. Unlike demonstrative syllogisms, which start from true propositions, dialectical syllogisms start only from plausible premises, based on opinion or what seems to be true. At the same time, Aristotle included not only syllogisms (deduction), but also guidance (induction) as dialectical arguments. In “Topic”, dialectics was understood by Aristotle as a certain original part of logic - a method “with the help of which we will be able to draw conclusions about any alleged problem from the plausible and not fall into contradiction when we ourselves defend some position” (Ibid. P. 349). As a result of this ambiguity in Aristotle's idea of dialectics, disputes arose in medieval scholasticism about the relationship of dialectics to analytics, whether dialectics covers all logic, and how its probability or plausibility should be understood. In all subsequent interpretations of dialectics, Aristotelian or Platonic features are visible in one way or another.

Stoic dialectics is the doctrine of correct debate using question-answer type reasoning, “the science of what is true, what is false, and what is neither one nor the other,” “the science of designations and what is signified” (Diogenes Laertius. On life, teachings and sayings of famous philosophers. M., 1986. P. 266), a virtue necessary for every sage. The fame in the art of dialectics of such Stoics as Chrysippus was such that it seemed to many: “if the gods were engaged in dialectics, they would be engaged in dialectics according to Chrysippus” (Ibid. p. 300). Some Stoics (Marcus Aurelius) identified dialectics with logic, but more often it is still understood as part of it, along with rhetoric and the science of definitions and canons. In this case, dialectics was divided into the area of the signified, including sections on ideas, judgments, reasoning, etc., and the area of sound, including sections on parts of speech, incorrect turns of phrase, sophisms, etc.

Epicurus and his followers rejected dialectic, replacing it with the canon and calling dialecticians “saboteurs.” Cicero argued with them, seeing in dialectics the art of judgment as opposed to topica, or the art of finding.

Dialectics in the Middle Ages. According to Augustine, dialectics “teaches to teach; She teaches us to learn: the mind reveals itself in it and shows what it is, what it wants, what it can do. She knows to know; she alone not only wants, but can also make people know” (Works of Blessed Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. K., 1879. Part 2. P. 210). By distinguishing between rhetoric and dialectic, Augustine argued for the usefulness of dialectic for understanding the Holy Scriptures. It was Augustine that Abelard referred to in his polemic against the so-called anti-dialecticians (Peter Damiani and others), proving the necessity of dialectics for theology, because it ensures the truth of arguments and exposes the falsity of sophistic evidence, thereby allowing one to refute the “attacks of heretics.”

In the Middle Ages, dialectics was firmly part of the seven liberal arts, which were divided into the trivium (grammar, dialectics and rhetoric) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, music, geometry, astronomy). Hugh of Saint-Victor distinguished between dialectics and logic; If grammar is the art of correct speech, and rhetoric is the art of persuasion, then dialectics is the art of argument, separating truth from lies. Ibn Rushd distinguished rhetoric, dialectics and apodeictics, and dialectics was correlated with Aristotelian plausible syllogisms, and apodeictics with demonstrative ones. The opposition to dialectics in scholasticism also existed in a later period. For P. de la Rame and his supporters, dialectics turned out to be just the art of dispute (compare: Butner W. Dialectica Deutsch. Das ist Disputierkunst. Eisleben, 1574).

In the late period of scholasticism, dialectics was mainly used as a synonym for logic. The identification of dialectics and logic persisted until the 18th century.

Dialectics in modern times was subjected to massive criticism in parallel with criticism of traditional formal logic and Aristotelianism. F. Bacon, understanding Aristotelian logic by dialectics as a kind of “athletics,” argued that it “promoted rather the rooting and, as it were, consolidation of errors, than clearing the way for truth” (Soch. M., 1977. Vol. 1. P. 64): its vice consists in neglecting experience and in the fact that it does not lead to the discovery of truth. Bacon pinned his hopes on the development of induction, however, R. Descartes, who remained in the position of deduction, nevertheless continued to criticize the “fetters of dialectics,” since “truth often eludes these bonds, and those who use them themselves find themselves entangled in them” ( Soch. M., 1989. T. 1. P. 110-111). For its conclusions, dialectics needs premises that it itself cannot deliver, so dialectics as school logic must be replaced by a new logic that “teaches the proper management of the mind to acquire knowledge of truths not yet known to us” (Ibid. p. 308 -309).

Gradually, a two-part division of logic emerges into analytics, which has evidential power, and into dialectics, which deals with the probable (Schmidt J. A. Logica positiva sive dialectica et analytica. Jena, 1687; Darjes J. G. Introductio in artem inveniendi seu logicam theoretico-practicam, qua analytica atque dialectica. Jena, 1742). Under the influence of this tradition, a new interpretation of dialectics was given by I. Kant. Kant came up with the idea new science- transcendental logic, which, unlike traditional formal logic, determines the origin, scope and objective significance of non-empirical, or a priori, knowledge. Transcendental logic breaks down into analytics - the “logic of truth” and dialectics - the “logic of appearance” (Critique of Pure Reason. M., 1994, p. 120). At the same time, Kant breaks with the Aristotelian tradition of understanding dialectics as the “doctrine of probability.” Although transcendental dialectics is capable of revealing the appearance of transcendental, that is, judgments that go beyond the boundaries of experience, it is not able to completely eradicate it, because such appearance turns out to be an inevitable and natural illusion for man. The greatest influence on the further development of dialectics was exerted by Kant's doctrine of antinomies, that is, contradictions of the laws of pure reason. Formulating four pairs of contradictory theses and antitheses about the world, Kant proved both the first and the second with equal success. He saw a way out of this situation in the fact that since the world is a transcendental idea, and not a thing in itself, then in the first two antinomic pairs both thesis and antithesis are simultaneously false, while in the last two both thesis and antithesis can to be simultaneously true respectively for things in themselves or for phenomena. Along with the doctrine of antinomies and the idea of transcendental logic, which some interpreters unjustifiably considered a kind of prototype of dialectical logic, Kant’s doctrine of the tripartite nature of each of his four groups (classes) of categories also had great resonance for the further development of dialectics, and “the third category always arises from the combination the second and first categories of the same class” (Ibid. p. 89) with the help of a special act of reason.

Although I. G. Fichte practically did not use the term “dialectics,” calling his method “synthetic,” nevertheless, this method of his scientific teaching, in which the contradiction arising in the fundamental principle is resolved in a new fundamental principle, was later called antithetical dialectics. For Fichte, the antithetical method in compared objects looks for a sign in which they are opposed to each other, and the synthetic device looks for a sign in which they are equal to each other. An example of natural philosophical dialectics was also seen in the teaching of F. W. Schelling on the polarity of nature.

If for Aristotle dialectics acted as a science of thinking, so that the contradictions he spoke about were contradictions of thinking, then F. Schleiermacher and G. W. F. Hegel break with this tradition. Schleiermacher proceeds from the correspondence of being and thinking: the causal connection of external reality corresponds to the logical connection of concepts. In Hegel, who substantiated the coincidence of the structure of thinking with the structure of being, the contradictions of being itself come to the fore in the interpretation of dialectics, and dialectics appears “in general as the principle of all movement, all life and all activity in the sphere of reality” (Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. M., 1975. T. 1. P. 206). Heraclitus from Ephesus, the Neoplatonists, and others began to be considered as predecessors of Hegelian dialectics.

Hegel’s dialectic “constitutes the nature of thinking itself,” a striking example of which is the development of the concept, moving from the first empty and contentless definitions to increasingly more meaningful definitions. At the center of Hegelian dialectics is the triad thesis - antithesis - synthesis, covering three successive moments of the development of the “logically real” - “abstract, or rational,” “dialectical, or negatively rational” (immanent “sublation” of one-sided finite determinations of the mind and their “ transition into its opposite"), and, finally, “speculative, or positively rational,” which in turn removes this opposition and holds both previous moments in their “concrete unity” (Ibid. p. 201). It is Hegel who goes back to the opposition of metaphysics and dialectics as two philosophical methods, of which the first is mechanistic, not taking into account movement and development.

Along with the rejection of Hegelian dialectics, many thinkers (A. Schopenhauer and others) made attempts to transform it. Thus, for L. Feuerbach, dialectics consists of dialogue: “True dialectics is not a monologue of a lonely thinker with himself, it is a dialogue between I and You” (Soch. M., 1995. Vol. 1. P. 144). For S. Kierkegaard, the dialectical transition from one “life stage” to another was carried out not by thinking, as in Hegel, but by will, choice, and leap, so that dialectics takes on an existential character. K. Marx, having set the task of a materialistic transformation of Hegel’s method, spoke of his dialectics as “mighty, eternally active driving force thoughts" (Marx K., Engels F. Soch. 2nd ed. M., 1970. T. 41. P. 222). F. Engels tried to concretize Marx’s ideas about materialist dialectics, understanding dialectics as “the science of the universal laws of development of nature, human society and thinking” (Ibid. M., 1961. T. 20. P. 145). The so-called laws of dialectics, formulated by Engels, going back to Hegel - the unity and struggle of opposites, the transition of quantitative changes into qualitative ones, the negation of negation - became an essential element of dialectical materialism - the official philosophy of the Soviet period. Within the framework of dialectical materialism, unsuccessful (due to the unresolved problem of contradiction) attempts were made to develop a kind of dialectical logic, designed, in contrast to traditional formal logic, to take into account not only the form, but also the content of thinking.

The development of dialectics in Western neo-Marxism is associated primarily with the Frankfurt school. The pathos of T. Adorno’s “negative dialectics” is aimed at exposing the false identity of the universal and the particular: negation, revealing this non-identity, ceases to be a moment of transition to any synthesis. The tradition of S. Kierkegaard was continued in the 20th century in dialectical theology (K. Barth, R. Bultmann, etc.).

Dialectics was criticized by K. Popper for its ambiguity and unjustified claims to a fundamental role in cognition, an alternative to formal logic.

The active use of the concept of dialectics in the Soviet period in almost any context with the aim of justifying certain political decisions led to a certain discrediting of the term itself, which is therefore burdened with negative connotations in modern Russian philosophical language.

Lit.: Heimsoeth N. Transzendentale Dialektik. Ein Kommentar zu Kants Kritik der reinen Vernunft. V., 1966-1971. Bd 1-4; History of ancient dialectics. M., 1972; History of dialectics of the XIV-XVIII centuries. M., 1974; History of dialectics. German classical philosophy. M., 1978; Idealist dialectics in the 20th century. M., 1987; Hegel's philosophy: problems of dialectics. M., 1987; Prantl S. von. Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande. 8. Aufl. Bristol, 2001. Bd 1-4; Losev A. F. Dialectics of myth. M., 2001; Gilson E. Philosophy in the Middle Ages. M., 2004.

Maintaining

Before the actualization of Hegel’s philosophy, dialectics was understood as something that follows from it, although elements of the dialectical development of the world and dialectical knowledge were inherent in different systems of knowledge and teachings.

Before the advent of Hegel’s philosophy, dialectics had a subjective meaning - the path of knowledge, the search for truth by people, and, it is clear that due to different interpretations of its essence and ways of realizing knowledge, dialectics was eclectic and had a relative significance.

The true meaning of dialectics and the demonstration of the superiority of dialectical knowledge over rational scientific knowledge were revealed in the great philosophy of Hegel, which is still not fully understood.

Typically, dialectics refers to the ability to conduct a conversation and achieve truth by revealing contradictions, primarily in the opponent’s arguments. This, it is believed, dialectical way of thinking was applied to the knowledge of natural phenomena, as the results of the development of contradictions in it and the interaction of opposing forces.

In modern versions of dialectics there is practically no understanding of it as a development. The dominant idea is of dialectics as a form of understanding the polarities and opposites that permeate our life, consciousness, and history. Different interpretations of dialectics offer different principles of the relationship between opposites - from their possible harmonious synthesis to tragically irreconcilable, eternal confrontation.

However, almost all models of dialectics contain an intention to combine these opposites or, at least, indicate the need for their unification, which is available to the main actor dialectical collision - man.

Many, due to Plato’s dialogues, attribute dialectics, as the ability to conduct a conversation and find meaning and truth, to Socrates, some to Plato himself.

The origin of dialectics should be associated with Socrates.

The term “dialectics” in the sense of a method of philosophizing, when during a conversation false ideas are found and removed, as a result of which the sought concepts are established conclusively, was first used by Socrates. Dialectics began to be called, in fact, the method that Socrates used to define concepts.

Hegel gave a universal understanding of dialectics, in particular, he clearly defined it as the highest rational movement, which, undoubtedly, can be transformed, for example, in the subjective spirit into true knowledge - into dialectical knowledge, which is clearly proven by the presence of Hegel’s philosophy.

Purpose of the work: based on literary sources, compare

Dialectics according to Socrates and Hegel.

Study the development of dialectics;

Consider the dialectics of ancient Greek philosophy;

Determine the systematization of dialectics;

Founder of dialectics

The first epistemological understanding of dialectics boiled down to Socrates' method of philosophizing, based on revealing contradictions in thinking that lead to false consequences and which, accordingly, must be eliminated in order to avoid false conclusions. For Socrates, the purpose of knowledge was to understand, first of all, the idea of good, which he understood as beauty and truth (beauty, according to Socrates, is good and truth). Socrates brilliantly anticipated the statement about the movement of knowledge, moreover, he determined that the search for truth in the field of philosophical research is associated with moral and aesthetic ideals.

Essentially, Socrates' dialectic (which can also be understood as knowledge, teaching) is designed to divide objects into types and establish its commonality in each type of differentiated objects - to find general definitions (groups) of objects. This is achieved during the conversation by using questions and answers to obtain disagreement (opinions) - contradictions - while clarifying commonalities. It should be noted here that contradiction is the essence of negative dialectics, but drawing up a definition forms the essence of positive dialectics Philosophy / ed. prof. V.N. Lavrinenko - M: Yurist, 2004 - 520 p..

The term “dialectics” means “talking,” “conversing,” “discussing.” Although Greek philosophers put different meanings into the word “dialectics”, or “dialectical art”, nevertheless it was thought of in unity with dialogue and for the most part meant the art of dialogue, the art of argument and argumentation.

Dialectics, in the understanding of Socrates, is a method of studying concepts, a way of establishing precise definitions. The definition of a concept for a philosopher was the disclosure of the content of this concept, the discovery of what is contained in it. To establish precise definitions, Socrates divided concepts into genera and species, while pursuing not only theoretical, but also practical goals. According to Xenophon, Socrates was convinced that a reasonable person, “dividing objects into kinds in theory and practice,” would be able by this method to distinguish good from evil, choose good and be highly moral, happy and capable of dialectics. “And the word “dialectics,” says Socrates in Xenophon, “comes from the fact that people, conferring in meetings, divide objects into categories. Therefore, we must try to prepare for this as best as possible and work diligently on this: in this way people become highly moral...” Asmus V.F. Ancient philosophy- M: graduate School, 2005 - 406 p. .

For Socrates, dialectics, a question-and-answer method of discovering truth, was primarily a method of defining ethical concepts, that is, a method of finding in a given concept general and essential features that express its essence. In Plato’s early (“Socratic”) dialogues there are many examples of Socrates’ dialectic, his attempts to define generally accepted ethical concepts and actions with the help of questions and answers, through “testing” the interlocutor. Here is one such example, dedicated to the definition of the concept of “courage” in Plato’s dialogue “Laches”.

The philosophy of Socrates falls at that stage of development of ancient culture when its center of gravity is transferred from nature to man, that is, philosophical “physics” gives way to philosophical anthropology. This happened during the 5th century BC, during which philosophical thought turned to man, his fate, his purpose and the problem of the relationship between man and society.

Socrates was the exponent of the idea of harmony between the polis and the individual (in this case, the individual is free, but not irresponsible). The main thing is the benefit of the policy. Personality develops freely along with the freedom and prosperity of the polis.

Socrates is the greatest thinker. He devoted his entire life to the search for absolute good, which, in his opinion, together with beauty and truth constitutes good. - The main greatness of Socrates as a philosopher is that for the second time, after Pythagoras, he discovered philosophy.

Heraclitus of Ephesus made a significant contribution to the formation and development of ancient Greek philosophy. The date of life of different philosophers is dated differently. So Taranov P.S. indicates that Heraclitus was born around 535 BC and died around 475 BC, having lived 60 years.

Bogomolov names the date of birth (544, but considers the date of death unknown).

Everyone recognizes that the personality of Heraclitus was very controversial. Coming from a royal family, he ceded the heirship to his brother, and he himself retired to the temple of Artemis of Ephesus, devoting his time to philosophy. At the end of his life, Heraclitus retired to the mountains and lived as a hermit. The main works that have come down to us in fragments, according to some researchers, were called “On Nature” (Bogomolov, Taranov, Asmus), others called it “Muse”. There is a message that it consisted of three parts: in the first part it was about nature itself, in the second - about the state and in the third - about God, there were 130 passages. Analyzing philosophical views Heraclitus, one cannot help but see that, like his predecessors, he, in general, remained in the position of natural philosophy, although some problems, for example, the dialectics of contradiction, development, are analyzed by him at the philosophical level, that is, at the level of concepts and logical conclusions. A prominent researcher of Heraclitus, M. Markovich, recreates the train of thought of the Ephesian: he (Heraclitus) also says that the judgment of the world and everything that is in it is carried out through fire. For all... the coming fire will judge and condemn.

Heraclitus believes that none of the gods and none of the people created the cosmos, but “it has always been, is and will be an eternally living fire.”

So, Heraclitus considered the first principle of all things to be fire - a subtle and mobile light element. Fire was considered by Heraclitus not only as an essence, as a beginning, but also as a real process, as a result of which, thanks to the flaring up or extinction of fire, all things and bodies appear. As Bogomolov notes, “Heraclitus’s origin is living fire, the changes of which are similar to commodity exchange: everything is exchanged for fire and fire for everything, like goods for gold and goods for gold.”

Why did Heraclitus choose fire? According to Rozhansky I.D. this is due to the possible influence of Iranian religious ideas. It is well known that in Zoroastrianism fire was given a special meaning, distinguishing it from other things in the world around us... fire, according to Zoroastrian religious texts, represents a universal divine force spread throughout nature."

Of course, such a concept does not entirely coincide with the role attributed to fire by Heraclitus. And yet she could have influenced Heraclitus’s choice of fire as the world’s fundamental principle. Heraclitus speaks of the kinship of logos and fire as different aspects of the same being. Fire expresses the qualitative and changeable side of the existing - logos - structural, stable. "Fire is an exchange or exchange, logos is the proportion of this exchange."

So, the Heraclitean logos is the rational necessity of existence merged with the very concept of existence - fire. The Logos of Heraclitus has several interpretations: logos - word, story, argument, supreme reason, universal law, etc. In Bogomolov’s opinion, the meaning of logos is closer to the word law as the universal semantic connection of existence. The main position of the philosophy of Heraclitus is conveyed by Plato in the dialogue "Cratylus". Plato reports that according to Heraclitus, “everything moves and nothing is at rest... it is impossible to enter the same river.”

Dialectics according to Heraclitus is, first of all, a change in everything that exists and the unity of unconditional opposites. At the same time, change is considered not as a simple movement, but as a process of formation of the universe, the cosmos. Unlike the Milesian philosophers, Heraclitus spoke quite a lot about knowledge. He distinguished between sensory and rational knowledge. The highest goal of knowledge is the knowledge of the Logos, and thereby the highest unity of the universe and the achievement of the highest wisdom. Above all, he values what sight and hearing teach us. Eyes are more accurate witnesses than ears. “Here, as Smirnov believes, the primacy of objective sensory knowledge is evident.”

His teaching contains both elements of idealism and materialism. It is impossible to speak unequivocally about the principles of knowledge of Heraclitus. (By the way, even during the life of Heraclitus he was called “Dark” for his profundity and mysteriousness of presentation). Although Heraclitus did not have followers, traces of his influence are clearly visible in the poem of Parmenides, Plato's dialogues, and in the works of Aristotle. And without exaggeration, we can say that of all the philosophers of the period of formation of ancient philosophy, Heraclitus most deserves “the title of the founder of objective dialectics as the doctrine of opposites, their struggle, their unity and the world process. This is its enduring significance.”

Democritus and his atomic theory. If numerous legends spoke of Heraclitus as a weeping philosopher, then of Democritus, on the contrary, as a laughing philosopher. According to most philosophers, Democritus was born in 460 BC and died in 360/370 BC. He lived almost 100 years. Originally from Abdera, he came from a noble family and was rich, but he abandoned his wealth and spent his entire life in poverty, indulging exclusively in philosophy. He traveled to Egypt to the priests, to the Chaldeans in Persia, and was in Ethiopia. Wrote 50 (60) treatises. He wrote his works day and night, locking himself away from everyone in one of the crypts outside the city gates. “Big Mirostroy” is considered his best work, for which he received an award of 500 talents. (Is this a lot or a little? Let us remember that all of Socrates’ property was worth 5 talents).”

At first glance, the doctrine of atomism is extremely simple. The beginning of all things is indivisible particles-atoms and emptiness. Nothing arises from a non-existent and is not destroyed into a non-existent, but the emergence of things is a combination of atoms, and destruction is a disintegration into parts, ultimately into atoms. The atomists, subjecting the Eleatic concept of nothingness to a physical interpretation, were the first to teach about emptiness as such. The Eleatics denied the existence of nothingness. “So, being is the antipode of emptiness; they are dualists, since they accepted two principles in the universe: non-existence and being.”

Democritus had connections with modern scientists. The ancients report that Democritus was a student of his predecessor and friend Leucippus. He communicated with Anaxagoras and was familiar with the works of scientists from Eastern countries. Democritus was the first in ancient Greek philosophy to introduce the concept of cause into scientific circulation. He denies chance in the sense of causelessness. In inorganic nature, everything is not done according to goals and in this sense is accidental, but the student can have both goals and means. Thus, Democritus's view of nature is strictly causal, deterministic. He preached a consistent materialistic position in the doctrine of the nature of the soul and knowledge. “The soul, according to Democritus, consists of spherical atoms, that is, it is like fire.”

The atoms of the soul have the ability to sense. Sensory qualities are subjective (taste, color...) from here, he concluded that sensory knowledge(Honey is bitter for a person with jaundice and sweet for a healthy person). But at the same time, he believed that without “dark” knowledge obtained from sensations there could be no knowledge. “Having formulated an important guess about the relationship between the sensory and the rational, Democritus was not yet able to give a description of the mechanism of transition from one to the other. He apparently did not know the logical forms and operations: judgment, concept, inference, generalization, abstraction.”

The loss of the "Canon", his logical work, does not allow us to reveal his role in this. Aristotle will talk about forms of thinking in more detail. Democritus' views on man, society, morality and religion are interesting. He intuitively believed that the first of people led a disordered life. When they learned to make fire, they gradually began to develop various arts. He expressed the version that art originated through imitation (We learned from a spider to weave, from a swallow to build houses, etc.), that laws are created by people. Wrote about bad and good people. “Bad people make oaths to the gods when they find themselves in a hopeless situation. When they get rid of it, they still don’t keep their oaths.”

Democritus rejected divine providence, the afterlife, and posthumous reward for earthly deeds. The ethics of Democritus is permeated with the ideas of humanism. “Democritus’s hedonism is not only about pleasures, since the highest good is a blissful state of mind and the measure is in pleasures.”

His moral aphorisms have come down to us in the form of separate sayings. For example, “he is rich who is poor in desires,” “goodness does not lie in not doing injustice, but in not even wanting it,” etc.

He considered the ideal of government to be a democratic state: when it is prosperous, everyone is prosperous; when it perishes, everyone perishes. Leucippus and Democritus brilliantly laid the foundation for the doctrine of the infinity of worlds. They continued to develop Anaxagoras's guess about the purely physical origin and the purely physical, and not divine, nature of the luminaries and all phenomena observed in the firmament. In general, it should be noted that the philosophy of Democritus is an encyclopedic science based on the atomistic hypothesis.

Plato is an outstanding objective idealist. Plato (427-347 BC) - the founder of objective idealism, student of Cratylus and Socrates. Almost all of the works written in the form of dialogues or dramatic works have reached us: “Apology of Socrates, 23 overheard dialogues, 11 dialogues of varying degrees dubious, 8 works that were not included in the list of Plato’s works even in antiquity, 13 letters, many of which unconditionally authentic and definitions."

Plato early became acquainted with the philosophy of Heraclitus, Parmenides, Zeno, and the Pythagoreans. Plato is the founder of a school called the Academy. In the dialogue, Timaeus was the first to comprehensively discuss the origin of the first principles and the structure of the cosmos. “We need to consider what the very nature of fire, water, air and earth was before the birth of heaven and what their then state was. For until now no one has explained their birth, but we call them and take them as elements as the letters of the Universe.” philosophy ancient Heraclitus Plato

For the first time he raised the question of the essence of things and their essences. He laid the foundation for the doctrine of standard prototypes or paradigms. The existence of an idea is more important than non-existence. The field of Plato's ideas is reminiscent of Parmenides' doctrine of being. Plato's world of sensory things is reminiscent of Heraclitus's doctrine of existence - the flow of eternal formation, birth and death. Plato transferred Heraclitean characterization of being to the world of sensory things. In the dialogue "Timaeus" he reveals cosmogony and cosmology. He considered the demiurge (god) to be the organizer of the cosmos. So, the principles of the cosmos are as follows: “ideas are the prototypes of existence, matter and the demiurge are God who organizes the world according to ideas. There is being (ideas), there is production and there are three births of the world.”

The emergence of the cosmos is described by Plato as follows. From a mixture of ideas and matter, the demiurge creates a world soul and distributes this mixture throughout the entire space, which is intended for visible universe, dividing it into elements - fire, air, water and earth. Rotating the cosmos, he rounded it, giving it the most perfect shape - spheres. The result is the cosmos, like a living being, gifted with intelligence. “So, before us is the structure of the world: the divine mind (demiurge), the world soul and the world body (cosmos).

At the center of the teachings of Plato, like his teacher Socrates, are problems of morality. He considered morality to be a virtue of the soul, the soul truly gives the cause of things, the soul is immortal. In the dialogue "Timaeus" he revealed the picture afterlife and courts. He thought that it was necessary to cleanse the soul from earthly defilement (evil, vices and passions). In the dialogues “Politician”, “State”, “Laws” Plato revealed the doctrine of government. He advocated the complete subordination of the individual to the state; his ideals were the power of an enlightened king. He noted that three main forms of government could exist in the state: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. Each form of state, according to Plato, perishes due to internal contradictions. “Plato characterizes government as a royal art, the main thing for which is the presence of true royal knowledge and the ability to manage people. If rulers have such data, then it will no longer matter whether they rule according to laws or without them, voluntarily or against their will, are poor or rich: taking this into account will never and under no circumstances be correct.”

Plato was the founder of not only ancient but also world idealism. ARISTOTLE - SCIENTIFIC ENCYCLOPEDIST His student Aristotle, the greatest ancient Greek philosopher, became a decisive opponent of Plato. F. Engels called him “the most universal head” among the ancient Greek philosophers, a thinker who explored the most essential forms of dialectical thinking. Aristotle was born in 384 BC. in the city of Stagira, in 367 BC. went to Athens, where he joined the Academy - Plato's school, and spent 20 years there until Plato's death. Later he will criticize platonism. He wrote the words: “Plato is my friend, but the truth is more precious.”

Aristotle later founded his own school in Athens, calling it the Lyceum. He owns 146 works, among them “Organon”, “Metaphysics”, “Physics”, etc. These works can be grouped according to the following criteria:

1. logical works "Organon", Nategory" and others.
2. philosophical works
3. psychology "About the soul"
4. biological works
5. 1st philosophy - metaphysics
6. ethics
7. politics (in 8 books) and economics (in 3 books)
8. rhetoric and poetics.

Thus, Aristotle demonstrated truly encyclopedic knowledge. Aristotle is the recognized founder of logic. True, he did not give science this name. (All S are P, Some S are P, No S is P, Some S are P)

In metaphysics he defines matter. Unlike Socrates and Plato, who did not consider the science of nature to be true wisdom, Aristotle deeply explores nature. Matter turns out to be the first cause of both the emergence and the changeable existence of natural things, “for all nature, one might say, is material.”

It is from the understanding of matter that Aristotle builds the doctrine of the 4 elements (earth, fire, water, air). If in the philosophy of the Pre-Socratics there was no special term to designate matter, then as philosophical category Aristotle was the first to develop this. In the 3rd book "Physics" he spoke about 4 types of movement. In “metaphysics” and “physics” he convincingly convinced of the dominance of form over content. His thoughts on society, ethics and politics are interesting. The goal of human activity for all ancient Greek philosophy is to achieve bliss. Bliss according to Aristotle is unattainable. In Aristotle's Politics, society and the state are not distinguished. Man, in his opinion, is a political animal. He justified slavery because he believed that slavery exists by nature. A slave has no rights. Aristotle summed up the development of philosophical thought from its beginnings in Ancient Greece and before Plato. It was Aristotle who originated the systematization of knowledge based on two principles - subject and target. He divides sciences into 3 large groups: theoretical (1st physics, physics, mathematics), practical (ethics, economics, politics) and creative (poetics, rhetoric, art).

Thus, Aristotle completed the classical philosophy of history.

In the history of philosophy, major thinkers have defined dialectics as:

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 5

✪ What is dialectics?

✪ Dialectics using simple examples

✪ Hegel's dialectics and Marxism ( Full version)

✪ (ÜberMarginal) Dialectics for the little ones

✪ Intelligence interrogation: Mikhail Vasilyevich Popov - introduction to the science of logic

Subtitles

History of the development of the concept

First philosophical teachings originated 2500 years ago in India, China and Ancient Greece. Early philosophical teachings were spontaneously materialistic and naively dialectical in nature. Historically, the first form of dialectics was ancient dialectics. In Eastern wisdom, theoretical thinking has followed the same path: reliance on the pairing of categories of thinking, the search for a common basis in various, to the point of direct opposition, mature concepts and ideas, images and symbols, both in esoteric and well-known philosophical directions and schools. Although for a European their exotic form is not entirely familiar, it is a form of unity and struggle of opposites in the content of the conceivable. It tuned the theoretical thinking of the Egyptians, Arabs, Persians, Indians, Chinese and other Eastern thinkers to the awareness of its universal forms, to their meaningful classification, to the search for a reasonable basis for their mutual determination. And at the center of most of them is the opposition of wise contemplation of the eternal meaning of existence to vain action in the transitory world. The way to achieve such an ability is in the sense-sensory-physical achievement of harmony with oneself and the world by overcoming the opposite moments of experience and action.

Dialectics in antiquity

Philosophers of the early Greek classics they talked about universal and eternal movement, at the same time imagining the cosmos in the form of a completed and beautiful whole, in the form of something eternal and at rest. Heraclitus and other Greek philosophers gave formulas for eternal formation, movement as the unity of opposites. Aristotle considers Zeno of Eleatic to be the inventor of dialectics, who analyzed the contradictions that arise when trying to comprehend the concepts of motion and set. Based on the philosophy of Heraclitus and the Eleatics, a purely negative dialectic subsequently arose among the Sophists, who, in the constant change of contradictory things, as well as concepts, saw the relativity of human knowledge and brought dialectics to extreme skepticism, not excluding morality.

Aristotle himself distinguishes “dialectics” from “analytics” as the science of probable opinions from the science of evidence. Aristotle, in his doctrine of four causes - material, formal, driving and target - argued that all these four causes exist in every thing, completely indistinguishable and identical with the thing itself.

In the dialogue “The Sophist,” Plato expounds the doctrine of the genera of things. Analyzing the relationship of concepts being, movement And peace, Plato speaks of the incompatibility of rest with movement; since both movement and rest exist, it means that being is compatible with both. Thus, there are three kinds: being, rest, movement.

Each of these three genera is other in relation to the other two genera and identical in relation to oneself. In this regard, the question arises about the relationship between births identical And other with the types of rest and motion: do they coincide with each other or differ?

Since both rest and movement, as identical, each participate in itself identical, and at the same time they differ from each other, then neither rest nor movement coincides with identical. Since both rest and movement, as different in relation to other genera, participate to another and at the same time differ from each other, then neither rest nor movement coincides with others. Thus, rest and motion are different from the same and the other.

Because of existing things, one exists in itself, and the other only in relation to something, and at the same time other exists only in relation to something, then other does not match being, which covers both the unconditional (that which exists in itself) and the relative (that which exists in relation to something).

Plato concludes that there are five types of existence that are irreducible to each other - being, rest, movement, identical and other.

Dialectics in traditional Chinese philosophy

In Chinese philosophy, dialectics is traditionally associated with the categories of yin and yang, which go back to ancient ideas about the interaction of passive female power - yin and active male force - yang. From the point of view of Chinese thinkers, these categories reflect the interconnection and mutual transformation of opposite sides of the phenomenon into each other. For example, “Yang” is light, “Yin” is dark; “Yang” turns into “Yin” - the hard softens [ ] ; “Yin” turns into “Yang” - the dark becomes lighter, etc.

Filling the Universe and generating and preserving life, the primary substances, or forces of Yang and Yin, which are discussed in the book “I Ching”, determine the essence of the 5 elements of nature: metal, wood, water, fire, earth; 5 natural states: moisture, wind, heat, dryness, cold; 5 main human functions: facial expressions, speech, vision, hearing, thinking, and 5 basic. affects: care, fear, anger, joy, contemplation.

Dialectics in the Middle Ages

Domination monotheistic religions in the Middle Ages he transferred dialectics to the field of theology; Aristotle and Neoplatonism were used to create scholastically developed doctrines of the personal absolute. Among the Neoplatonists (Plotinus, Proclus), the word “dialectics” denotes the scientific method of analysis and synthesis, which proceeds from the One in order to return to the One. In Nicholas of Cusa, the ideas of dialectics are developed in the doctrine of the identity of knowledge and ignorance, the coincidence of maximum and minimum, eternal motion, the coincidence of opposites, any in any, and so on.

In German classical philosophy

Dialectics in Marxism

The concept of dialectics was used in their works by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who translated it into a materialistic plane. Marx materialistically understands the dialectical development of history, as described by Hegel. From his point of view, all this is a science of history, which he is trying to build according to the scientific method.

Consciousness is understood by Marx as the property of matter to reflect itself, and not as a separate, independent entity. Matter is in constant motion and develops independently. Dialectics acts as a reflection of the laws of development of this matter. Therefore, Marx expressed the difference between his dialectics and Hegel’s in the statement that Hegel’s philosophy is turned upside down. Hegel’s dialectics should be distinguished from its interpretation in the dialectics of Marxism. Marx describes the difference between his dialectic and Hegel's as follows:

My dialectical method is not only fundamentally different from Hegel’s, but is its direct opposite. For Hegel, the process of thinking, which he transforms even under the name of idea into an independent subject, is the demiurge of the real, which is only its external manifestation. For me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing more than the material, transplanted into the human head and transformed in it.

The followers of Marx, mainly Soviet ones, created a special philosophical school - dialectical materialism. The essence of this philosophical approach was that philosophy in the old sense was abolished, giving way to the scientific method. Thus, the task of the Marxist philosopher was the materialist systematization of Hegelian dialectics.

Of all previous philosophy, the doctrine of thinking and its laws—formal logic and dialectics—retains independent significance. Everything else is included in the positive science of nature and history.
Marx K.., Engels F. Soch. T. 20. P. 25.

In dialectical materialism in the 1960-1980s. Some of Hegel's leading ideas were called "principles", others - "laws". This systematization included the following provisions:

In Soviet times, the only acceptable form of dialectics was considered materialistic dialectics, and attempts at its unorthodox development were treated with suspicion [ ] . After the collapse of the USSR, materialist dialectics largely lost its popularity, although a number of authors continue to evaluate it positively. Among the authors who proposed original dialectical concepts were G. S. Batishchev, A. F. Losev, Z. M. Orudzhev, E. V. Ilyenkov, V. A. Vazyulin and others.

Dialectics today

In the 20th century, Nikolai Hartmann studied dialectics both historically (dialectics in antiquity and in German classical philosophy) and theoretically.

Some modern philosophers, such as Lucien Seve and Jean-Marie Brome, again turn to dialectics, considering it exclusively in relation to human action, activity. They deny the dialectic of nature and the existence of scientific laws that exist outside of human action. However, after the Second World War, a number of philosophers (Richard Lewontin, Stephen Gould, Alexander Zinoviev, Patrick Tort) widely used dialectics in their works, considering it as a subject of study. In the 21st century, there are works by Bertell Allman, Pascal Charbonne and Evariste Sánchez-Palencia, which introduce dialectics into science, along with the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels.

Thus, dialectics makes it possible to make intelligible and accessible contradictions in science (antagonistic tendencies), so to speak, unusual and paradoxical situations that occur in observations and scientific experiments.

Strictly speaking, the content of dialectics changes with the progress of science, because, in a sense, this content is science itself, based on the principles of abstractions. Here is a statement of the dialectical principles originally formulated by Engels (1878), as interpreted by J. M. Brom: (Principles of Dialectics, 2003): 1. Movement and change. 2. Interaction (or interdependence) 3. Contradiction as a force of creation 4. The transition from quantity to quality (chains and breaks). 5. Negation of negation: thesis, antithesis and synthesis (the principle of spiral development). Note that Georges Politzer (1936) combines principles 3 and 5. This does not cause inconvenience, since the content of the principles has not yet been determined... Changes in our scientific knowledge lead to a constant revision of the content of these principles.

Materialistic dialectics has found a number of confirmations in biology (Richard Lewontin, Stephen Gould). Living organisms, with their physico-chemically determined development (see Prigogine) and a certain content of information, are subject to endless changes in their metabolism and evolution. In this sense, the concept of the dialectic of nature proposed by Engels can be used.

According to Evariste Sánchez-Palencia, dialectics makes it possible to resolve contradictions in science, unusual and paradoxical, in all types of knowledge, including applied mathematics, but primarily sociology and psychology. In fact, in his opinion, dialectics is not logic with its own exact laws, but a more general framework into which evolutionary phenomena fit.

Criticism and assessment of dialectics

Nikolay Hartman

...there is something dark, unclear, mysterious in dialectics. At all times, those who were strong in it were very few, they were just a few. In ancient times - three or four heads capable of speculation. In modern times, in any case, there are no more - at least those who created something noticeable ... There is definitely something like a dialectical gift that can be developed, but which cannot be taught. It is noteworthy that dialectically gifted heads themselves do not reveal the secret of dialectics. They own and use the method, but they cannot convey how they do it. They probably don't know it themselves. It's like the work of an artist. The creator himself does not know the law by which he creates; but he creates according to it... The genius and the congenial follow this law blindly and unerringly, like lunatics. :652

In area philosophical systems Hegel showed us the instructive phenomenon of high calm. The repeatedly contested dialectic - the internal form of his thinking - comes to us from his creations and captures us with a force that permeates the subject. At the same time, knowledge about its essence has always been and remains limited. He perceived it as the highest mode of “experience,” but these meager indications do not reveal to us the secrets of this experience. We must look for it in his subject studies, that is, in the integrity of his life's work. :636-637

Hartmann believes that the study of a method is, in principle, secondary to the application of this method. First, someone paves the way of knowledge, “giving himself over” to the subject and not necessarily knowing how he does it, and then someone else “puts things in order” on the paved section of the path. :636-637

Karl Popper

Notes

Dialectics / Mikhailov, F. T. // New philosophical encyclopedia: in 4 volumes / prev. scientific-ed. Council V. S. Stepin. - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Mysl, 2010. - 2816 p.

Dialectics - TSB - Yandex.Dictionaries (undefined) . Retrieved April 28, 2013. Archived April 29, 2013.

Dialectics // Modern encyclopedia. (undefined) 2000.

. Retrieved December 19, 2014. Socrates //: [in 30 volumes] / ch. ed.

A. M. Prokhorov Dzhokhadze D.V.

Ancient dialogue and dialectics // Philosophy and society. Socrates //: [in 30 volumes] / ch. ed. 2012. No. 2. P. 23-45.

Philosophy // Great Soviet encyclopedia: [in 30 volumes] / ch. ed. (undefined) . - 3rd ed. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969-1978.

Encyclopedia Archived from the original on May 10, 2013.

Plato . Sophist

Dialectics of Plato // (undefined) Asmus V. F.

Ancient philosophy
Closed educational course for children of the elite: "The true arrangement of the world."
http://noslave.org

Material from Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia

This term has other meanings, see.

In the history of philosophy, the most prominent thinkers defined dialectics as:

History of the development of the concept

The first philosophical teachings arose 2500 years ago in India, China and Ancient Greece. Early philosophical teachings were spontaneously materialistic and naively dialectical in nature. Historically, the first form of dialectics was ancient dialectics. In Eastern wisdom, theoretical thinking has followed the same path: reliance on the pairing of categories of thinking, the search for a common basis in various, to the point of direct opposition, mature concepts and ideas, images and symbols, both in esoteric and well-known philosophical directions and schools. Although for a European their exotic form is not entirely familiar, it is a form of unity and struggle of opposites in the content of the conceivable. It tuned the theoretical thinking of the Egyptians, Arabs, Persians, Indians, Chinese and other Eastern thinkers to the awareness of its universal forms, to their meaningful classification, to the search for a reasonable basis for their mutual determination. And at the center of most of them is the opposition of wise contemplation of the eternal meaning of existence to vain action in the transitory world. The way to achieve such an ability is in the sense-sensory-physical achievement of harmony with oneself and the world by overcoming the opposite moments of experience and action.

Dialectics in antiquity

The philosophers of the early Greek classics spoke of universal and eternal movement, while at the same time imagining the cosmos as a complete and beautiful whole, as something eternal and at rest. Heraclitus and other Greek philosophers gave formulas for eternal formation, movement as the unity of opposites. Aristotle considers Zeno of Elea to be the inventor of dialectics, who analyzed the contradictions that arise when trying to comprehend the concepts of motion and set. Based on the philosophy of Heraclitus and the Eleatics, a purely negative dialectic subsequently arose among the Sophists, who, in the constant change of contradictory things, as well as concepts, saw the relativity of human knowledge and brought dialectics to extreme skepticism, not excluding morality.

Plato concludes that there are five types of existence that are irreducible to each other - being, rest, movement, identical and other.

Dialectics in traditional Chinese philosophy

In Chinese philosophy, dialectics is traditionally associated with the categories of yin and yang, which go back to ancient ideas about the interaction of passive female power - yin and active male force - yang. From the point of view of Chinese thinkers, these categories reflect the interconnection and mutual transformation of opposite sides of the phenomenon into each other. For example, “Yang” is light, “Yin” is dark; “Yang” turns into “Yin” - the hard softens Lua error: callParserFunction: function "#property" was not found. )]][[K:Wikipedia:Articles without sources (country: Lua error: callParserFunction: function "#property" was not found. )]] ; “Yin” turns into “Yang” - the dark becomes lighter, etc.

Dialectics in the Middle Ages

The dominance of monotheistic religions in the Middle Ages brought dialectics into the realm of theology; Aristotle and Neoplatonism were used to create scholastically developed doctrines of the personal absolute. Among the Neoplatonists (Plotinus, Proclus), the word “dialectics” denotes the scientific method of analysis and synthesis, which proceeds from the One in order to return to the One. In Nicholas of Cusa, the ideas of dialectics are developed in the doctrine of the identity of knowledge and ignorance, the coincidence of maximum and minimum, eternal motion, the coincidence of opposites, any in any, and so on.

In German classical philosophy

Dialectics in Marxism

The concept of dialectics was used in their works by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who translated it into a materialist plane. Marx materialistically understands the dialectical development of history, as described by Hegel. From his point of view, all this is a science of history, which he is trying to build according to the scientific method.

My dialectical method is not only fundamentally different from Hegel’s, but is its direct opposite. For Hegel, the process of thinking, which he transforms even under the name of idea into an independent subject, is the demiurge of the real, which is only its external manifestation. For me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing more than the material, transplanted into the human head and transformed in it.

The followers of Marx, mainly Soviet, created a special philosophical school - dialectical materialism. The essence of this philosophical approach was that philosophy in the old sense was abolished, giving way to the scientific method. Thus, the task of the Marxist philosopher was the materialist systematization of Hegelian dialectics.

Of all previous philosophy, the doctrine of thinking and its laws—formal logic and dialectics—retains independent significance. Everything else is included in the positive science of nature and history.
Marx K.., Engels F. Soch. T. 20. P. 25.

In dialectical materialism in the 1960-1980s. Some of Hegel's leading ideas were called "principles", others - "laws". This systematization included the following provisions:

In Soviet times, materialist dialectics was considered the only acceptable form of dialectics, and attempts at its unorthodox development were treated with suspicion [[K:Wikipedia:Articles without sources (country: Lua error: callParserFunction: function "#property" was not found. )]][[K:Wikipedia:Articles without sources (country: Lua error: callParserFunction: function "#property" was not found. )]][[K:Wikipedia:Articles without sources (country: Lua error: callParserFunction: function "#property" was not found. )]] . After the collapse of the USSR, materialist dialectics largely lost its popularity, although a number of authors continue to evaluate it positively. Among the authors who proposed original dialectical concepts were G. S. Batishchev, A. F. Losev, Z. M. Orudzhev, E. V. Ilyenkov, V. A. Vazyulin and others.

Dialectics today

In the 20th century, Nikolai Hartmann studied dialectics both historically (dialectics in antiquity and in German classical philosophy) and theoretically.

Some modern philosophers, such as Lucien Seve and Jean-Marie Brome, again turn to dialectics, considering it exclusively in relation to human action, activity. They deny the dialectic of nature and the existence of scientific laws that exist outside of human action. However, after the Second World War, a number of philosophers (Richard Lewontin, Stephen Gould, Alexander Zinoviev, Patrick Tort) widely use dialectics in their works, considering it as a subject of study. In the 21st century, there are works by Bertell Allman, Pascal Charbonne and Evariste Sánchez-Palencia, which introduce dialectics into science, along with the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels.

Strictly speaking, the content of dialectics changes with the progress of science, because, in a sense, this content is science itself, based on the principles of abstractions. Here is a statement of the dialectical principles originally formulated by Engels (1878), as interpreted by J. M. Brom: (Principles of Dialectics, 2003): 1. Movement and change. 2. Interaction (or interdependence) 3. Contradiction as a force of creation 4. The transition from quantity to quality (chains and breaks). 5. Negation of negation: thesis, antithesis and synthesis (the principle of spiral development). Note that Georges Politzer (1936) combines principles 3 and 5. This does not cause inconvenience, since the content of the principles has not yet been determined... Changes in our scientific knowledge lead to a constant revision of the content of these principles.

Criticism and assessment of dialectics

Nikolay Hartman

...there is something dark, unclear, mysterious in dialectics. At all times, those who were strong in it were very few, they were just a few. In ancient times - three or four heads capable of speculation. In modern times, in any case, there are no more - at least those who created something noticeable ... There is definitely something like a dialectical gift that can be developed, but which cannot be taught. It is noteworthy that dialectically gifted heads themselves do not reveal the secret of dialectics. They own and use the method, but they cannot convey how they do it. They probably don't know this themselves. It's like the work of an artist. The creator himself does not know the law by which he creates; but he creates according to it... The genius and congenial follow this law blindly and unerringly, like lunatics. :652

In the field of philosophical systems, Hegel showed us the instructive phenomenon of high calm. The repeatedly contested dialectic - the internal form of his thinking - comes to us from his creations and captures us with a force that permeates the subject. At the same time, knowledge about its essence has always been and remains limited. He perceived it as the highest mode of “experience,” but these meager indications do not reveal to us the secrets of this experience. We must look for it in his subject studies, that is, in the integrity of his life's work. :636-637

Karl Popper

Write a review about the article "Dialectics"

Notes

/ Mikhailov, F. T. // New philosophical encyclopedia: in 4 volumes / prev. scientific-ed. Council V. S. Stepin. - 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M. : Thought, 2010.
. Retrieved April 28, 2013. .
. Retrieved December 19, 2014.
Socrates // Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [in 30 volumes] / ch. ed. A. M. Prokhorov
Philosophy // Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [in 30 volumes] / ch. ed. A. M. Prokhorov. - 3rd ed. - M. : Soviet Encyclopedia, 1969-1978.
. Retrieved April 30, 2013. .
// Asmus V.F. Sophist
. Retrieved April 30, 2013. .
. Retrieved April 30, 2013.
Dialectics- article from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia.
Gornshtein T. N. Dialectical method/ Chapter Four // Philosophy of Nikolai Hartmann. (Critical analysis of the main problems of ontology). - Leningrad: “Science”, 1969.
Evariste Sanchez-Palencia. Dialectical walk in science. 2012
Culturology. XX century Anthology. - M.: Lawyer, 1995.
Hartman N. The problem of spiritual existence. Research to substantiate the philosophy of history and the sciences of the spirit. Philosophical and historical introduction // Culturology. XX century Anthology. - M.: Lawyer, 1995. - S. 608-648
K. Popper, “What is dialectics?”
“... one should also not think that it is the “struggle” between thesis and antithesis that “creates” the synthesis. What is really happening is a battle of minds, and it is the minds that have to be productive and create new ideas..."
“The only “force” driving dialectical development is, therefore, our determination not to accept the contradictions between thesis and antithesis.”

Literature

Dialectics // Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron: in 86 volumes (82 volumes and 4 additional). - St. Petersburg. , 1890-1907.
Abramov M. A. Dogma and search (one hundred years of discussions about dialectics in English philosophy). - M., 1994. - 210 p.
Adorno T.V. Negative dialectics. Per. with him. - M.: Scientific world, 2003. - 372 p.
Alekseev P. V., Panin A. V. Theory of knowledge and dialectics. - M., 1991. - 383 p.
Bertie E. "Ancient Greek dialectics as an expression of freedom of thought and speech // Historical and Philosophical Yearbook 1990. - M., 1991. - pp. 321-344.
Bogomolov A. S. Dialectical logos. The formation of ancient dialectics. - M., 1982. - 263 p.
Burova I. N. Paradoxes of set theory and dialectics. - M., 1976. - 176 p.
Vazyulin V. A.- M., 1968-2002². - 295 s.
Voinov V.V. Models of dialectics in ancient and eastern philosophy // Problems of philosophy. Vol. 54. Kyiv, 1981.
Demin R.N. Socrates on dialectics and the doctrine of gender division in ancient China // Universe of Platonic thought: Neoplatonism and Christianity. Apology of Socrates. - St. Petersburg, 2001.
Dzhokhadze D. V. Aristotle's dialectics. - M., 1971.
Dzhokhadze D. V., Dzhokhadze N. I. History of dialectics: The Age of Antiquity. - M., 2005. - 326 p.
Dialectics and its critics. - M., 1986.
Dialectical contradiction. - M., 1979. - 343 p.
Dynnik M. A. Dialectics of Heraclitus of Ephesus. - M., 1929.
Zelkina O. S. System-structural analysis of the main categories of dialectics. - Saratov, 1970.
Zinoviev A. A. On the logical nature of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete // Philosophical Encyclopedia. - 1960. - T. 1.
Zinoviev A. A. Ascent from the abstract to the concrete (based on the material of K. Marx’s Capital). - M., 2002. - 312 p. - ISBN 5-201-02089-5.
Ilyenkov E. V.. M.: Politizdat, 1974. - 271 p. - 2nd ed., add. M.: Politizdat, 1984. - 320 p.
History of ancient dialectics. - M., 1972. - 335 p.
/ USSR Academy of Sciences. Institute of Philosophy. - M., 1974. - 356 pp.
The history of Marxist dialectics from the emergence of Marxism to the Leninist stage. - M., 1972.
Kedrov B. M. On the method of presenting dialectics: Three great ideas. - M.: Nauka, 1983. - 478 p.
Criticism of non-Marxist concepts of dialectics of the 20th century. Dialectics and the problem of the irrational / Ed. Yu. N. Davydova. - M., 1988. − 478 p. - ISBN 5-211-00186-9.
Losev A. F. Chaos and structure. M.: Mysl, 1997.
Lukanin R.K. Dialectics of Aristotle’s “Topics” // Philosophical Sciences. - 1971. - No. 6.
Moiseev N. N. Development algorithms. - M.: Nauka, 1987. - P. 17-37, 44.
Narsky I. S. On the question of the relationship between formal logic and dialectics // Bulletin of Moscow University. - 1960. - No. 3.
Omelyanovsky M. E. Dialectics in modern physics. - M.: Nauka, 1973. - 324 p.
Orudzhev Z. M. Dialectics as a system. - M., 1973. - 352 p.
Petrov Yu. A. Logical function of the categories of dialectics. - M., 1972.
Sadovsky G.I. Dialectics of thought. Logic of concepts as a theory of reflection of the essence of development. - Minsk, 1982. - 310 p.
Semashko L. M. Plato’s dialectics and its interpretation by Hegel // Philosophical Sciences. - 1971. - No. 4.
Furman A. Materialistic dialectics. - M., 1969.
Chang Shen. Hegel's dialectics and the Chinese tradition of dialectical thinking. // The fate of Hegelianism: philosophy, religion and politics say goodbye to modernity. - M., 2000. - P.335-347.
Shash S. D. The problem of studying early Greek dialectics / Sat. Philosophical studies. - Minsk, 1970.
Shirokanov D. I. The relationship between the categories of dialectics. - Minsk, 1969.
Claude Bruaire. La Dialectique / "Que sais-je?" - PUF, 1993.
Jean-Marie Brohm. Les principles de la dialectique / Éditions de La Passion. - 2003. - 254 p.
Jean-François Chantaraud. L'état social de la France: Leviers de la cohésion sociale et de la performance durable / Documentation française. - 2013.
Georges Gurvitch. Dialectique et sociologie. - Flammarion, 1962.
Henri Lefebvre. Le Matérialisme dialectique. - PUF, 1939.
René Mouriaux. La dialectique d'Héraclite à Marx. - Syllepse, 2010.
Bertell Ollman. La dialectique mise en œuvre: Le processus d’abstraction dans la méthode de Marx. - Syllepse, 2005.
Lucien Seve. Sciences et dialectiques de la nature. - La Dispute, 1998.
Evariste Sanchez-Palencia. Promenade dialectique dans les sciences. -Ed. Hermann, 2012.
Howard Ll. Williams. Hegel, Heraclitus, and Marx's Dialectic. - Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1989. - 256 p. - ISBN 0-7450-0527-6.

Criticism of dialectics

// Questions of philosophy. - 1995. - No. 1. - P. 118-138.
// Questions of philosophy. - 1995. - No. 1. - P. 139-148.
. (link unavailable since 09-09-2015 (1569 days))
.
Russell B.. (See especially Chapter 10, "Enlightenment and Romanticism.")
.
Jean-Paul Sartre. Critique de la raison dialectique. 1960.
Zhilin V. I. Laws of dialectics: the illusion of truth. - M.: Rusayns, 2016. - 264 p.

View this template

Main sections

View this template

Trivium

Quadrivium

Excerpt characterizing the Dialectician

Very easily, without any special effort, I appeared in the main square of the city.
Everything seemed to be the same as before, but this time, although decorated in the old way, Venice was almost empty. I walked along the lonely canals, unable to believe my eyes!.. It was not too late, and usually at such a time the city was still noisy, like an alarmed beehive, anticipating its favorite holiday. But that evening, beautiful Venice was empty... I couldn’t understand where all the happy faces had gone?.. What happened to my beautiful city in those short few years???
Walking slowly along the deserted embankment, I inhaled such familiar, warm and soft, salty air, unable to hold back the happy and sad tears flowing down my cheeks at the same time... This was my home!.. My truly native and beloved city. Venice has always remained MY city!.. I loved its rich beauty, its high culture... Its bridges and gondolas... And even just its unusualness, making it the only city of its kind ever built on Earth.
The evening was very pleasant and quiet. Gentle waves, quietly whispering something, lazily splashed against the stone portals... And smoothly rocking the elegant gondolas, they ran back into the sea, taking with them the crumbling rose petals, which, floating further, became like scarlet drops of blood, by someone generously splashed across the mirror water.
Suddenly, a very familiar voice pulled me out of my sad-happy dreams:
- It can not be!!! Isidora?! Is it really you?!..
Our good old friend, Francesco Rinaldi, stood looking at me in shock, as if a familiar ghost had suddenly appeared right in front of him... Apparently not daring to believe that it was really me.
- My God, where are you from?! We thought you died a long time ago! How did you manage to escape? Have you really been released?!..
“No, they didn’t let me go, my dear Francesco,” I answered sadly, shaking my head. – And, unfortunately, I did not manage to escape... I just came to say goodbye...
- But how can that be? You're here right? And completely free? Where is my friend?! Where is Girolamo? I haven’t seen him for so long and I missed him so much!..
- Girolamo is no more, dear Francesco... Just as his father is no more...
Was the reason that Francesco was a friend from our happy “past”, or was I just wildly tired of endless loneliness, but, telling him about the horror that the Pope had done to us, I suddenly felt inhumanly pain... And then I finally burst through!.. Tears poured out like a waterfall of bitterness, sweeping away embarrassment and pride, and leaving only the thirst for protection and the pain of loss... Hiding on his warm chest, I sobbed like a lost child looking for friendly support...
– Calm down, my dear friend... Well, what are you talking about! Please calm down...
Francesco stroked my tired head, as my father had done long ago, wanting to calm me down. The pain burned, again mercilessly throwing me into the past, which could not be returned, and which no longer existed, since there were no longer people on Earth who created this wonderful past...
– My home has always been your home, Isidora. You need to hide somewhere! Let's come to us! We'll do everything we can. Please come to us!.. You will be safe with us!
They were wonderful people - his family... And I knew that if only I agreed, they would do everything to shelter me. Even if they themselves are in danger for it. And for a short moment I suddenly wanted to stay so wildly!.. But I knew perfectly well that this would not happen, that I would leave right now... And in order not to give myself vain hopes, I immediately said sadly:
– Anna remained in the clutches of the “holy” Pope... I think you understand what this means. And now I have her alone... Sorry, Francesco.
And remembering something else, she asked:
– Can you tell me, my friend, what is happening in the city? What happened to the holiday? Or has our Venice, like everything else, also become different?..
– The Inquisition, Isidora... Damn it! It's all the Inquisition...
– ?!..
- Yes, dear friend, she even got here... And the worst thing is, many people fell for it. Apparently, the evil and insignificant need the same “evil and insignificant” so that everything that they have hidden for many years will be revealed. The Inquisition has become a terrible instrument of human revenge, envy, lies, greed and malice!.. You can’t even imagine, my friend, how low seemingly the most normal people can fall!.. Brothers slander unwanted brothers... children slander their aged fathers, wanting to get rid of them as quickly as possible... envious neighbors against neighbors... This is terrible! No one is protected today from the coming of the “holy fathers”... It’s so scary, Isidora! You just have to say to someone that he is a heretic, and you will never see that person again. True madness... which reveals the lowest and worst in people... How to live with this, Isidora?
Francesco stood hunched over, as if the heaviest burden was pressing on him like a mountain, not allowing him to straighten up. I knew him for a very long time, and I knew how difficult it was to break this honest, brave man. But life at that time hunched over him, turning him into a confused man who did not understand such human meanness and baseness, into a disappointed, aging Francesco... And now, looking at my good old friend, I realized that I was right in deciding to forget my personal life , giving it for the death of the “holy” monster, who trampled on the lives of other, good and pure people. It was only unspeakably bitter that there were low and vile “people” who rejoiced (!!!) at the arrival of the Inquisition. And the pain of others did not touch their callous hearts, rather, on the contrary - they themselves, without a twinge of conscience, used the clutches of the Inquisition to destroy innocent, good people! How far our Earth was from that have a good day, when a Man will be pure and proud!.. When his heart will not succumb to meanness and evil... When Light, Sincerity and Love will live on Earth. Yes, the North was right - the Earth was still too evil, stupid and imperfect. But I believed with all my soul that someday she would become wise and very kind... only many more years would pass for this. In the meantime, those who loved her had to fight for her. Forgetting yourself, your family... And not sparing your only earthly Life, which is very dear to everyone. Having forgotten myself, I didn’t even notice that Francesco was watching me very carefully, as if he wanted to see if he could persuade me to stay. But the deep sadness in his sad gray eyes told me - he understood... And hugging him tightly for the last time, I began to say goodbye...
“We will always remember you, honey.” And we will always miss you. And Girolamo... And your good father. They were wonderful pure people. And I hope that another life will be safer and kinder for them. Take care of yourself, Isidora... No matter how funny it may sound. Try to get away from him if you can. Together with Anna...
Giving him a final nod, I quickly walked along the embankment so as not to show how painfully this farewell hurt me, and how brutally my wounded soul ached...
Sitting on the parapet, I plunged into sad thoughts... The world around me was completely different - it did not contain that joyful, open happiness that illuminated our entire past life. Didn’t people really understand that they themselves were destroying our wonderful planet with their own hands, filling it with the poison of envy, hatred and anger?.. That by betraying others, they plunged their own into “black” immortal soul, leaving her no way to salvation!.. The Magi were right when they said that the Earth was not ready... But this did not mean that there was no need to fight for it! That it was necessary to just sit with folded hands and wait until she herself someday “grows up”! showing the way, and hoping that for some reason she herself will be lucky enough to survive?!..
Without noticing at all how much time had passed in thought, I was very surprised to see that it was getting dark outside. It was time to return. My long-time dream of seeing Venice and my home didn’t seem so right now... It no longer brought happiness, rather the opposite - seeing my hometown so “different”, I felt in my soul only the bitterness of disappointment, and nothing more. Taking another look at such a familiar and once beloved landscape, I closed my eyes and “left”, knowing full well that I would never see all this again...
Caraffa was sitting by the window in “my” room, completely lost in some of his gloomy thoughts, hearing nothing and not noticing anything around... I so unexpectedly appeared right before his “sacred” gaze that Dad shuddered sharply, but then collected himself and surprisingly calmly asked:
- Well, where were you walking, Madonna?
His voice and gaze expressed a strange indifference, as if Dad no longer cared what I did or where I went. This immediately alerted me. I knew Karaffa quite well (I think no one knew him completely) and such a strange calmness of his, in my opinion, did not bode well.
“I went to Venice, Your Holiness, to say goodbye...” I answered just as calmly.
– And did this give you pleasure?
- No, Your Holiness. She is no longer the same as she was... as I remember.
– You see, Isidora, even cities change in such a short time, not only people... And states, probably, if you look closely. But how can I not change?..
He was in a very strange, unusual mood, so I tried to answer very carefully, so as not to accidentally touch some “prickly” corner and not fall under the threat of his holy wrath, which could destroy even more strong man what I was at that time.
“Didn’t I remember you saying, Holiness, that now you will live a very long time?” Has anything changed since then?.. – I asked quietly.
- Oh, it was just a hope, my dear Isidora!.. A stupid, empty hope that dissipated as easily as smoke...
I patiently waited for him to continue, but Caraffa remained silent, again immersed in some gloomy thoughts.
- Excuse me, Your Holiness, do you know what happened to Anna? Why did she leave the monastery? – almost not hoping for an answer, I still asked.
Caraffa nodded.
- She's coming here.
- But why?!. – my soul froze, feeling bad.
“She’s coming to save you,” Caraffa said calmly.
– ?!!..
“I need her here, Isidora.” But in order for her to be released from Meteora, her desire was needed. So I helped her “decide.”
– Why did you need Anna, Your Holiness?! You wanted her to study there, didn't you? Why then was it necessary to take her to Meteora at all?..
– Life is passing away, Madonna... Nothing stands still. Especially Life... Anna will not help me with what I need so badly... even if she studies there for a hundred years. I need you, Madonna. It is your help... And I know that I won’t be able to persuade you just like that.
Here it comes... The worst thing. I didn’t have enough time to kill Karaffa!.. And next on his terrible “list” was my poor daughter... My brave, sweet Anna... Just for a short moment, our suffering fate was suddenly revealed to me... and it seemed terrible...

After sitting silently for some time in “my” chambers, Caraffa stood up and, just about to leave, said quite calmly:
– I will inform you when your daughter appears here, Madonna. I think it will be very soon. - And bowing secularly, he left.
And I, trying with all my might not to succumb to the surging hopelessness, with a trembling hand, took off my shawl and sank onto the nearest sofa. What was left for me - exhausted and lonely?.. By what miracle could I save my brave girl, who was not afraid of the war with Caraffa?.. What kind of lie did they tell her to force her to leave Meteora and return to this earthly Inferno cursed by God and people? ?..
I couldn’t even think what I had in store for Anna Caraffa... She was his last hope, the last weapon that I knew he would try to use as successfully as possible to force me to surrender. Which meant that Anna would have to suffer severely.
Unable to remain alone with my misfortune any longer, I tried to call my father. He appeared immediately, as if he was just waiting for me to call him.
– Father, I’m so scared!.. He’s taking Anna away! And I don’t know if I can save her... Help me, father! At least give me some advice...
There was nothing in the world that I would not agree to give to Karaffa for Anna. I agreed to everything... except for one thing - to give him immortality. And this, unfortunately, was exactly the only thing that the Holy Pope wanted.
– I’m so afraid for her, father!.. I saw a girl here – she was dying. I helped her leave... Is Anna really going to get a similar test?! Are we really not strong enough to save her?..
“Don’t let fear into your heart, daughter, no matter how much it hurts you.” Don't you remember what Girolamo taught his daughter?.. Fear creates the possibility of bringing into reality what you are afraid of. He opens the doors. Don't let fear weaken you before you even begin to fight, dear. Don't let Karaffa win without even starting to fight back.
- What should I do, father? I didn't find his weakness. I didn’t find what he was afraid of... And I no longer had time. What should I do, tell me?..
I understood that Anna and I short lives were approaching their sad end... But Caraffa still lived, and I still didn’t know where to start to destroy him...
- Go to Meteora, daughter. Only they can help you. Go there, my heart.
My father’s voice sounded very sad, apparently just like me, he did not believe that Meteora would help us.
“But they refused me, father, you know.” They believe too much in their old “truth”, which they once instilled in themselves. They won't help us.
- Listen to me, daughter... Go back there. I know you don't believe... But they are the only ones who can still help you. You have no one else to turn to. Now I have to leave... I'm sorry, dear. But I will return to you very soon. I won't leave you, Isidora.
The father’s essence began to “ripple” and melt as usual, and after a moment completely disappeared. And I, still looking in confusion at where his transparent body had just shone, realized that I didn’t know where to start... Caraffa declared too confidently that Anna would very soon be in his criminal hands, so I had no time to fight there was almost none left.
Getting up and shaking myself from my heavy thoughts, I decided to follow my father’s advice and go to Meteora again. It couldn't have been worse anyway. Therefore, having tuned in to the North, I went...
This time there were no mountains or beautiful flowers... I was greeted only by a spacious, very long stone hall, at the far end of which something incredibly bright and attractive sparkled with green light, like a dazzling emerald star. The air around her shone and pulsated, splashing out long tongues of burning green “flame”, which, flaring up, illuminated the huge hall right up to the ceiling. North stood next to this unprecedented beauty, thinking about something sad.
- Hello, Isidora. “I’m glad you came,” he said affectionately, turning around.
- And hello to you, Sever. “I came for a short time,” I answered, trying my best not to relax and not succumb to Meteora’s charm. - Tell me, Sever, how could you let Anna go from here? You knew what she was doing! How could you let her go?! I hoped Meteora would be her protection, but she betrayed her so easily... Please explain, if you can...
He looked at me with his sad, wise eyes, without saying a word. As if everything had already been said, and nothing could be changed... Then, shaking his head negatively, he said softly:
– Meteora did not betray Anna, Isidora. Anna herself decided to leave. She is no longer a child, she thinks and decides in her own way, and we have no right to keep her here by force. Even if you don’t agree with her decision. She was informed that Caraffa would torture you if she did not agree to return there. That's why Anna decided to leave. Our rules are very strict and unchanging, Isidora. Once we transgress them once, the next time there will be a reason why life here will quickly begin to change. This is unacceptable; we are not free to deviate from our path.
– You know, North, I think THIS is exactly your main mistake... You have blindly locked yourself into your infallible laws, which, if you look closely at them, will turn out to be completely empty and, to some extent, even naive. You are dealing here with amazing people, each of whom is already a wealth in itself. And they, so unusually bright and strong, cannot be tailored to fit one law! They simply will not obey him. You need to be more flexible and understanding, North. Sometimes life becomes too unpredictable, just as circumstances are unpredictable. And you cannot judge equally what is common and what no longer fits into your long-established, outdated “framework.” Do you really believe that your laws are correct? Tell me honestly, North!..
He looked searchingly into my face, becoming more and more confused, as if he couldn’t decide whether to tell me the truth or leave everything as it is, without bothering his wise soul with regrets...
– What our laws are, Isidora, was not created in one day... Centuries passed, and the Magi still paid for their mistakes. Therefore, even if something sometimes seems not quite right to us, we prefer to look at life in its comprehensive picture, without focusing on individual individuals. No matter how much it hurts...
I would give a lot if you would agree to stay with us! One fine day you might change the Earth, Isidora... You have a very rare Gift, and you can truly THINK... But I know that you will not stay. Don't betray yourself. And there's nothing I can do to help you. I know that you will never forgive us while you are alive... Just as Magdalene never forgave us for the death of her beloved husband, Jesus Radomir... But we asked her to return, offering protection to her children, but she never returned to us... We have been living with this burden for many years, Isidora, and believe me - there is no heavier burden in the world! But this is our fate, unfortunately, and it is impossible to change it until the real day of “awakening” comes on Earth... When we no longer need to hide, when the Earth finally becomes truly pure and wise, it becomes brighter. .. Then we will be able to think separately, think about each gifted person, without fear that the Earth will destroy us. Without fear that after us there will be no Faith and Knowledge left, there will be no KNOWING people left...
Sever drooped, as if inside he did not agree with what he himself had just told me... I felt with all my heart, with all my soul, that he believed much more in what I believed so confidently. But I also knew that he would not open up to me without betraying Meteora and his beloved great Teachers. So I decided to leave him alone and not torment him any more...
- Tell me, Sever, what happened to Mary Magdalene? Do her descendants still live somewhere on Earth?
“Of course, Isidora!..” Sever immediately answered, and it seemed to me that he was sincerely pleased by the change of topic...

Wonderful painting by Rubens “The Crucifixion”. Next to the body of Christ (below) are Magdalene and his brother, Radan (in
red), and behind Magdalena is Radomir’s mother, Sage Maria. At the very top is John, and to the right and left of
him - two Knights Templar. The remaining two figures are unknown. Perhaps they were Jews who
lived Radomir's family?..

– After the death of Christ, Magdalene left that cruel, evil land, which took away from her the most dear person in the world. She left, taking with her her baby daughter, who was only four years old at the time. And her eight-year-old son was secretly taken to Spain by the Knights of the Temple so that, no matter what, he would survive and be able to continue the great Family of his father. If you wish, I will tell you the true story of their lives, for what is presented to people today is simply a story for the ignorant and blind...

Magdalena with her children - daughter Radomir with her children - son Svetodar and daughter Vesta
and son. Stained glass from the Church of St. Nazar,
Lemoux, Languedoc, France
(St. Nazare, Lemoux, Langedoc)
On these wonderful stained glass windows Radomir and Magdalena with their children - their son
Svetodar and daughter Vesta. Also, here you can see another very interesting
detail - the clergyman standing next to Radomir is dressed in a Catholic uniform
church, which two thousand years ago in no way could have been
well be it. It appeared among priests only in the 11th-12th centuries. Which, again,
proves the birth of Jesus-Radomir only in the 11th century.

I nodded in agreement to North.
– Please tell me the truth... Tell me about them, Sever...

Radomir, anticipating his ambulance
death, sends a nine-year-old
Svetodar to live in Spain... Chu-
there is deep sadness and general
despair.

His thoughts flew far, far away, plunging into ancient, hidden memories covered with the ashes of centuries. And an amazing story began...
– As I already told you earlier, Isidora, after the death of Jesus and Magdalene, their entire bright and sad life was entwined with shameless lies, transferring this lie also to the descendants of this amazing, courageous family... They were “dressed” with ANOTHER FAITH. Their pure images were surrounded by the lives of ALIEN PEOPLE who had not lived for a long time... WORDS that they NEVER SPEAKED were put into their mouths... They were made RESPONSIBLE FOR CRIMES that ANOTHER FAITH, the most deceitful and criminal that existed, had committed and is committing ever on earth...
* * *
From the author: Many, many years have passed since my meeting with Isidora... And now, remembering and living through the former distant years, I managed to find (while in France) the most interesting materials, largely confirming the veracity of Sever's story about the life of Mary Magdalene and Jesus Radomir, which, I think, will be interesting for everyone reading Isidora’s story, and perhaps even help shed at least some light on the lie “ rulers of the world this." Please read about the materials I found in the “Supplement” after the chapters of Isidora.
* * *
I felt that this whole story was very difficult for the North. Apparently, his broad soul still did not agree to accept such a loss and was still very sick of it. But he honestly continued to talk further, apparently realizing that later, perhaps, I would not be able to ask him anything more.

This stained glass window depicts Magdalene
wife in the form of a Teacher standing over
kings, aristocrats, philosophers
families and scientists...

– Do you remember, Isidora, I told you that Jesus Radomir never had anything to do with the false teaching he is shouting about? Christian church? It was completely opposite to what Jesus himself taught, and then Magdalene. They taught people real KNOWLEDGE, taught them what we taught them here in Meteora...
And Maria knew even more, since she could freely draw her knowledge from the wide expanses of the Cosmos after she left us. They lived closely surrounded by Sorcerers and gifted ones, whom people later renamed as “apostles”... in the notorious “bible” they turned out to be old, distrustful Jews... who, I think, if they could, would truly betray Jesus a thousand times. His “apostles” in reality were the Knights of the Temple, only not built by human hands, but created by the high thought of Radomir himself - the Spiritual Temple of Truth and Knowledge. At first there were only nine of these knights, and they gathered together in order, to the best of their abilities, to protect Radomir and Magdalena in that foreign and dangerous country for them, into which fate had so mercilessly thrown them. And the task of the Knights of the Temple was also to (if something irreparable happened!) preserve the TRUTH, which these two wonderful ones carried with their “souls to the lost” Jews, bright people, who gave their Gift and their pure Lives for peace on their beloved, but still very cruel planet...
– So the “apostles” were also completely different?! What were they like?! Can you tell me about them, North?
I was so interested that for a short moment I even managed to “put to sleep” my torment and fears, I managed to forget the coming pain for a moment!.. I brought down a real barrage of questions on Sever, not even knowing for sure whether there were answers to them. So much I wanted to know the real history of these courageous people, not vulgarized by the lies of five hundred long years!!!
- Oh, they were truly wonderful people - the Knights of the Temple - Isidora!.. Together with Radomir and Magdalena, they created a magnificent backbone of COURAGE, HONOR and FAITH, on which was built the bright TEACHING that our ancestors once left for the salvation of our native Earth. Two of the Knights of the Temple were our students, as well as hereditary warriors from the oldest European aristocratic families. They became our brave and gifted Sorcerers, ready to do anything to save Jesus and Magdalene. Four were descendants of the Rus-Merovingians, who also had a great Gift, like all their distant ancestors - the kings of Thrace... Like Magdalene herself, also born from this extraordinary dynasty, and proudly carried her family Gift. Two were our Magi, who voluntarily left Meteora in order to protect their beloved Disciple, Jesus Radomir, who was going to his own death. They could not betray Radomir in their souls, and even knowing what awaited him, they followed him without regret. Well, the last, ninth of the knights-defenders, about whom no one still knows or writes, was the brother of Christ himself, the son of the White Magus - Radan (Ra - given, given by Ra)... It was he who managed to save his son Radomir after his death. But, unfortunately, while defending him, he died himself...
– Tell me, Sever, doesn’t this have anything in common with the legend of the twins, where it is said that Christ had a twin brother? I read about this in our library and always wanted to know whether it was true, or just another lie of the “holy fathers”?

– No, Isidora, Radan was not Radomir’s twin. This would be an undesirable additional danger to the already quite complex life of Christ and Magdalene. You know, after all, that twins are too closely connected by the thread of their birth, and a danger to the life of one can become a danger to the other? – I nodded. - Therefore, the Magi could not have made such a mistake.
– So, after all, not everyone in Meteora betrayed Jesus?! – I exclaimed joyfully. – Didn’t everyone calmly watch him go to his death?..
- Well, of course not, Isidora!.. We would all leave to protect him. Yes, not everyone managed to step over their Duty... I know that you don’t believe me, but we all loved him very much... and, of course, Magdalene. It’s just that not everyone could forget their responsibilities and give up everything because of one person, no matter how special he was. You give your life to save many, right? So our Magi remained in Meteor to guard the Sacred Knowledge and teach other gifted ones. Such is life, Isidora... And everyone makes it better, to the best of their ability.
- Tell me, Sever, why do you call the Frankish kings Rus? Did these peoples have anything in common? As far as I remember, they were always called Franks?.. And later the beautiful Frankia became France. Is not it?
- No, Isidora. Do you know what the word Franks means? – I shook my head negatively. “Franks” simply means free. And the Merovingians were northern Rus who came to teach the free Franks the art of war, government of the country, politics and science (as they went to all other countries, being born for the teaching and benefit of other living people). And they were called correctly - Meravingli (we-Ra-in-Inglia; we, the children of Ra, bringing Light in our native Primordial England). But, of course, then this word, like many others, was “simplified”... and it began to sound like “Merovingians”. Thus a new “history” was created, which said that the name Merovingians came from the name of the Frankish king - Merovia. Although this name had nothing to do with King Merovius. Moreover, King Merovius was already the thirteenth of the Merovingian kings. And it would be more logical, naturally, to name the entire dynasty after the first of the reigning kings, wouldn’t it?

forma-vl.ru RECOMMENDS

What do Buddhist temples look like?

Buddhism today is one of the most popular religious and philosophical movements in the world. His...

2024-06-20 04:02:45

Sabbath of nuclear scientists. Radiation test. Chabad - ordinary fascism

Mikhail Alekseevich DmitrukLiquidators involuntarily Sabbath of nuclear scientists In 2009 at the International...

2024-06-19 03:51:15

The meaning of dreams according to the Indian dream book

Throughout human history, the Moon has seduced, fascinated and frightened us. Under the Moon we...

2024-06-14 03:49:28

Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris Which Russian saint had the cathedral built in Paris

Paris cathedrals represent some of the most beautiful architectural creations in the city. These...

2024-06-13 03:51:20

How to make a witch's death easier

Hello everyone, my name is Pavel, I am 22 years old. I live in Ukraine in the city of Makeevka (Donetsk...

2024-06-12 03:54:07

For the first time he began to use the term dialectics. Topic questions

Maintaining

Founder of dialectics

Encyclopedic YouTube

Subtitles

History of the development of the concept

Dialectics in antiquity

Dialectics in traditional Chinese philosophy

Dialectics in the Middle Ages

In German classical philosophy

Dialectics in Marxism

Dialectics today

Criticism and assessment of dialectics

Nikolay Hartman

Karl Popper

see also

Notes

History of the development of the concept

Dialectics in antiquity

Dialectics in traditional Chinese philosophy

Dialectics in the Middle Ages

In German classical philosophy

Dialectics in Marxism

Dialectics today

Criticism and assessment of dialectics

Nikolay Hartman

Karl Popper

see also

Write a review about the article "Dialectics"

Notes

Literature

Criticism of dialectics

Excerpt characterizing the Dialectician