Talk:Dialectic

"Philosophy of praxis" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Philosophy of praxis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 4#Remaining redirects created by User:Anti gozo|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 January 4 § Remaining redirects created by User:Anti gozo]] until a consensus is reached. I₂Overcome ^talk 02:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Refiguring etc.

Refigured: This is overly American English. This article describes the Dialectic, which is not only a US subject. ~2026-10804-7 (talk) 07:00, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I am finding it difficult to understand what you mean. Only a very small proportion of the article is about anything American. You say "Refigured", without any context or explanation; the only use of that word in the article is in reference to Hegel, who was German. Can you clarify what you have in mind? JBW (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Class Struggle?

The paragraph in the Marxist section includes the sentence "Nonetheless, Marx and Marxists developed the concept of class struggle to comprehend the dialectical contradictions between mental and manual labor and between town and country." This is not what class struggle is or what it was "developed to comprehend." The last 2 sentences of the paragraph seem like non sequiturs. I think the whole thing should be rewritten, or that sentence nixed and replaced with a proper transition from the first to last sentence. If someone knows what whoever wrote that was trying to say, feel free to correct me, but I think it should be rewritten either way Mitlantecuhtli (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Cut section on Theological dialectics

Below is a section of this article that I cut during my rewrite, entitled "Theological dialectics". Hopefully it can be incorporated in a future revision or split off into its own article.

Neo-orthodoxy, in Europe also known as theology of crisis and dialectical theology, is a theological approach in Protestantism that was developed in the aftermath of the First World War (1914–1918). It is characterized as a reaction against doctrines of nineteenth-century liberal theology and a more positive reevaluation of the teachings of the Reformation, much of which had been in decline (especially in western Europe) since the late eighteenth century. It is primarily associated with two Swiss professors and pastors, Karl Barth (1886–1968) and Emil Brunner (1899–1966), even though Barth himself expressed his unease in the use of the term.

In dialectical theology, the difference and opposition between God and human beings is stressed in such a way that all human attempts at overcoming this opposition through moral, religious or philosophical idealism must be characterized as sin. In the death of Christ humanity is negated and overcome, but this judgment also points forwards to the resurrection in which humanity is reestablished in Christ. For Barth this meant that only through God's "no" to everything human can his "yes" be perceived. Applied to traditional themes of Protestant theology, such as double predestination, this means that election and reprobation cannot be viewed as a quantitative limitation of God's action. Rather it must be seen as its "qualitative definition".

Dialectic prominently figured in Bernard Lonergan's philosophy, in his books Insight and Method in Theology. Michael Shute wrote about Lonergan's use of dialectic in The Origins of Lonergan's Notion of the Dialectic of History. For Lonergan, dialectic is both individual and operative in community. Simply described, it is a dynamic process that results in something new:

For the sake of greater precision, let us say that a dialectic is a concrete unfolding of linked but opposed principles of change. Thus there will be a dialectic if (1) there is an aggregate of events of a determinate character, (2) the events may be traced to either or both of two principles, (3) the principles are opposed yet bound together, and (4) they are modified by the changes that successively result from them.

Dialectic is one of the eight functional specialties Lonergan envisaged for theology to bring this discipline into the modern world. Lonergan believed that the lack of an agreed method among scholars had inhibited substantive agreement from being reached and progress from being made compared to the natural sciences. Karl Rahner, S. J., however, criticized Lonergan's theological method in a short article entitled "Some Critical Thoughts on 'Functional Specialties in Theology'" where he stated: "Lonergan's theological methodology seems to me to be 'so generic that it really fits every science', and hence is not the methodology of theology as such, but only a very general methodology of science."-->

— Goszei (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

References

Applied linguistics section - 14 August revert

It appears that Goszei's revert conflates authorship with the separate questions of relevance, reliability, and due weight. I acknowledge that I authored one of the cited works, but authorship does not itself make the material unsuitable for inclusion. The revert identifies no substantive problem with the scholarship or sourcing beyond WP, removes material citing research published through the University of Oxford, and provides no indication of subject-matter expertise supporting wholesale removal. If the concern is proportionality, substantial condensation rather than complete removal would seem the more appropriate remedy. I welcome input from uninvolved editors on whether a shorter version of the applied linguistics and second-language acquisition section would be appropriate. ~2026-44822-07 (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Goszei's WP:UNDUE rationale and the article's disproportionate reliance on Dafermos (2025)

There appears to be an inconsistency in Goszei's application of WP:UNDUE. Although the article cites numerous sources, Dafermos (2025) clearly dominates the article's sourcing and is cited repeatedly across multiple historical periods and substantive sections. By contrast, the reverted applied linguistics material drew upon a University of Oxford publication containing an extensive bibliography and systematic engagement with the relevant literature. If WP:UNDUE is the concern, it is unclear why a comparatively brief treatment of a contemporary application of dialectic warrants wholesale removal while extensive reliance throughout the article on a single 2025 publication is considered proportionate. I would welcome clarification as to how WP:UNDUE is being applied consistently in these circumstances. TC ICXC (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Buyer Beware - Amateur Dialectic Article

Editors including Goszei and Patrick Welsh appear to have dominated this article with pseudo-editorial controls. The article relies on a few sources, namely Dafermos (2025), and otherwise appears to be a ode to Marxism. To put it mildly, no scholar should take this page seriously. Socratic Alpha (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Real editorial controls, thankfully. Pls read and abide by WP:THESIS and WP:COI in any future contributions. Wikipedia is not a venue for self-promotion. Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Patrick Welsh misconstrues policy. Regarding the thesis cited from the University of Oxford, it exceeds the requirements established by WP:THESIS by a large margin and cites primary sources for Plato, Hegel, et al., and substantially exceeds the scholarship of the Dialectic article on Wikipedia which only relies on a few secondary sources. Additionally, the applied linguistics angle is significantly more academically focused than the Marxist ideology promoted by certain editors which is apparent by the skewed content of "Dialectic" and their own profiles / footprints on Wikipedia which promote Marxism. Wikipedia should be be a place to promote one's personal ideology under the guise of editor discretion. Socratic Alpha (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Too little Plato and Hegel; too much Marx

Adding to the previous comment about this being an amateur article. There is too little foundation in Platonic / Socratic dialogues and way too much Marxism. The article could live without the Chinese yin/yang eastern mysticism as well.

Otherwise, lacks scholarly credibility with heavy citations on a few sources including Dafermos (2025).

Edits by Goszei and Patrick Welsh seem to degrade rather than improve the quality of the article.

Serious scholars leave in the rubbish bin. TC ICXC (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

You seem not to be aware of this, but your use of multiple account here violates yet another WP policy: WP:SOCK. Pick one account and stick with it, or you risk being blocked without even a chance to speak in your defense.

(Also, "serious scholars" don't rely upon WP...)

Cheers, Patrick 🐈‍⬛ (talk) 19:21, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I wouldn't speculate, but if you're looking for cyber analysis deep dive you might be obliged to receive one.

Also, any real scholar doesn't need to defend themselves on Wikipedia, and generally see it as entertainment at best and not a source of reliable information. You seemed to have added to that perception. TC ICXC (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Comment on recent rewrite

@Goszei: I just saw your recent rewrite and haven't had time to read it all yet. (Was the rewrite discussed anywhere before you posted it? Not a problem if not; I'm just curious.) When I skimmed it, this sentence jumped out at me as a bit too editorializing (WP:EDITORIAL or WP:PEACOCK): "While Baruch Spinoza's monistic system offered a profound dialectical insight by 'cutting the Gordian knot' of this dualism, his substance remained a static, eternal unity." This sentence sounds like something that a later dialectically-inclined philosopher with a flowery style might say about Spinoza, but I don't think we should make such a strong judgment without attributing it to a philosopher. I don't recall Spinoza presenting himself as offering profound dialectical insight, so I doubt that it's obvious just from reading Spinoza that this is true. There are two footnotes to that sentence, but it's not clear without consulting the sources if the sentence summarizes an analysis of Spinoza that the authors of those sources happen to share, or if the sentence is a blend of opinions from the two sources (WP:SYNTHESIS?), or if both sources are reporting the opinion of some other third source (e.g., Hegel?). It would be better to explicitly attribute such an assessment of Spinoza in the sentence. Biogeographist (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

That sentence on Spinoza seems to have the tone of a "dialectics enthusiast" of the continental philosophy style, a tone that generally pervades the article. Compared to the previous version of the article, which was a patchwork quilt of different writing styles and views (not altogether for the better), this version was pretty clearly authored by a single such "dialectics enthusiast". The previous diversity of sources has been scrubbed and replaced exclusively with sources by dialectical philosophers. Gone are the sources by classicists, argumentation theorists, critical rationalists, etc., all of whom also had something to say about dialectic(s). The result is an article with a more focused narrative flow than the previous version, but also more of a particular POV, significantly reducing WP:NPOV compared to the previous version, in my view as a non-dialectics enthusiast. Perhaps I can remedy some of this narrowing of POV in future edits. Biogeographist (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I welcome any and all constructive edits, including reintroduction of previous content, balancing with other sources, etc. My rewrite was a WP:BOLD edit, but I feel like it was needed to refound the core of the article on a solid basis.

The previous version's historical account of the dialectic and its key thinkers was lacking and badly needed a narrative structure, which I think is key to helping beginners understand, as with many philosophical topics. The previous article in places was also a WP:COATRACK of critics and novel applications of the dialectic (which are endless, and not all deserving of space in this top-level article). The work of the "classicists, argumentation theorists, critical rationalists" and others can now be reintroduced with care and balance, which was my intention.

I admit that certain sentences in the text, like the one you pointed out (quoted from Ilyenkov) stray into NPOV territory, especially without attribution, and should be reworked or balanced with other views. Please feel free to make any edits you see fit, though I would like to reiterate my caution about coatracking, since this topic seems particularly prone to it. — Goszei (talk) 03:00, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

The paragraph that I altered (and split) in this edit is another example of WP:NPOV deficiency caused by lack of in-text attribution (WP:INTEXT) of points of view. In the previous version of the paragraph, the "dialectical thinking versus metaphysics" distinction was stated as if it were a fact, "fundamentally". But this distinction is a Marxist-Leninist position that at one point in time was codified by Stalin, probably following Engels. There are other views of how dialectical thinking relates to metaphysics that were not mentioned, and that I added. I also removed the sentence from Christopher J. Arthur ("It stands in contrast to linear logic, which is seen as inadequate for understanding systems with complex internal relations") because the cited book section by Arthur is about how to interpret part of Marx's Das Kapital, and it's not clear from the cited book section how much of Arthur's analysis there generalizes to other applications of dialectical thinking. And his term "linear logic", without further explanation, could easily be misleading to a reader who does not read the cited source (as it was to me when I read the sentence without consulting the source), because what Arthur means by "linear logic" is very different from logic as characterized in, e.g., Logic. Biogeographist (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

The first four paragraphs have no sources

Either cite references or delete section: WP plagiarism Socratic Alpha (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section it is common for citations to appear only in the body and not the lead. In any case lack of refs is not equivalent to plagiarism.Dialectric (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

What may be “common” doesn’t apply in this context because the material is technical, historical, dense, and looks like it has been lifted virtually verbatim from other well known texts, but without giving any credit to them. ~2026-45006-72 (talk) 14:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright violations gives you a path if you think there are clear violations, but the lede expansion was by User:Goszei a user with 100k edits; users with this level of experience and a clean block log have a thorough understanding of wikipedia policy and don't copy verbatim.Dialectric (talk) 15:53, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Those 100k edits could be junk. Goszei should publish their actual credentials if they have any; their profile reads like a Marxist manifesto. Socratic Alpha (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright violations. According to the results of https://textguard.ai/plagiarism, 62% of the intro (four paragraphs) identified are flagged as plagiarised. Socratic Alpha (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

One couldn't get away with anywhere close to 100k "junk" edits on Wikipedia without getting blocked. On credentials, see WP:There is no credential policy & WP:Credentials are irrelevant. As the philosopher Barry Allen put it, Wikipedia's "distinctive feature is the nonexpert, nonprofessional, noncertified, nonformal production of knowledge with credible content. Academics like to sneer at those characteristics, even as more and more of us acknowledge Wikipedia, support it, and use it in teaching. And why should we not warm to it? The rules of Wikipedia discourse are modeled after an ideal academy's." I tried https://textguard.ai/plagiarism and it doesn't appear to indicate which sources the text is allegedly plagiarized from, which is problematic, as it could only indicate that the text is "plagiarized" from Wikipedia. Nevertheless, as I said in a different section above, I am concerned that some sentences in the recently rewritten version of this article do closely paraphrase sources without sufficient in-text attribution for points of view (WP:INTEXT). Biogeographist (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

Dialectic in modern argumentation theory

I'm thinking of creating a new subsection 5.3, in section 5: § 20th-century developments and critiques, titled something like "Modern argumentation theory". The current article's narrative gives the mistaken impression that the study of "disputational dialectic" (a term I take from Rescher 2007), which started in ancient Greece, stopped in the Renaissance, and then, after an allegedly non-dialectical early modern period ended by Kant, Hegel ushered in an era of predominantly ontological dialectic (or cognitive and ontological dialectic, also terms from Rescher 2007). A section on disputational dialectic in modern argumentation theory is needed, because that meaning of dialectic did not end at the start of the modern period. This addition, however, will require a specification of the term dialectics in the subsequent section § Contemporary relevance, as it seems to be assumed in that section that dialectics means post-Hegelian (predominantly Marxist) ontological dialectic. That assumption won't make sense after a section on modern argumentation theory is added, as it will be clear that multiple kinds of dialectic are still current, and we need a more specific term than dialectics to refer to the kind of dialectic discussed in the last section. Biogeographist (talk) 12:58, 3 September 2026 (UTC)