Dualisms and Dichotomies: Hegelian Dialectic in Philosophical Writing

Hegelian Dialectic: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

I’ve been accused recently—in a friendly way—of having overly simplistic, black-and-white dualisms and dichotomies in my philosophical writing. The reasons for this quirk of my writing are probably numerous, ranging from my relatively conservative, religious, and moralizing upbringing (albeit with a liberal arts bent) to a natural gift for overstatement and speaking in sweeping, epic terms worthy of a Roman emperor.

But I’ve also come to believe that that there are deeper literary, philosophical, and pedagogical reasons for this dualistic extremity in my writing, having to do with Hegelian dialectic. If you recall, Hegel held that philosophical and political progress occurred by means of dialectic, with the juxtaposition of polar opposites resulting in a “synthesis” that overcomes even the most seemingly intractable philosophical or political dichotomies between what Hegel called a “thesis” and its “antithesis.”

In this age of gray areas, middle grounds, and compromises, people naturally want to jump right ahead to the synthesis with all of its nuances, complexities, and subtleties. Yet, in doing so, it’s easy to forget that a synthesis if only found, at least according to Hegel, in the opposition of extreme positions against which one jointly reacts in search of that very middle ground, or for the sake of a paradigm shift that doesn’t seem possible within the confines of the philosophical or political dualities themselves.

On Hegel’s view then, the polar opposites and extreme positions of thesis and antithesis serve an important pedagogical purpose, even though they should eventually be transcended for the sake of a new synthesis, which itself often becomes the new normal, the basis of a new dichotomy of thesis (the new normal) and antithesis against which one might also rebel.

The Pedagogical Value of Hegelian Dialectic

This says to me that there is pedagogical value in speaking in extremes, with dualisms and dichotomies, or in grandiose terms. Doing so has the effect of holding a mirror up to a reader’s or listener’s own thoughts as a kind of anti-model against which other thinkers can react and rebel intellectually or in their own speaking and writing.

It’s not that an extreme position is necessarily the right one; it usually isn’t. Instead, speaking or writing in extreme terms can be done esoterically and ironically for the purpose of causing others to think for themselves, to find the most plausible antithesis (an opposite position) or synthesis (a middle ground or a paradigm shift) that overcomes the challenges of holding an extreme philosophical position.

Hegelian Dialectic in Contemporary Philosophy of Mind

Hegelian dialectic can be seen in the history of philosophy itself, perhaps most clearly in contemporary philosophy of mind in the dichotomy between Cartesian substance dualism and reductive physicalism (or eliminative materialism).

Neither extreme position seems tenable. Substance dualism doesn’t seem to be able to account for any causal interaction between mind and body (or mind and brain) or why an immaterial mind our soul is linked with a body or brain in the first place. And reductive physicalism and eliminative materialism don’t seem to be able to account for the qualitative difference between the mental and physical realms, for consciousness, subjectivity, qualia (such as the sensation of seeing the color red), or self-awareness.

Philosophers of mind are in search of a synthesis, a middle position, between the polar opposites of Cartesian substance dualism (the thesis) and reductive physicalism and/or eliminative materialism (arguably the philosophical antithesis to Cartesian dualism). In philosophy of mind this new synthesis can take many forms, such as property dualism (as opposed to substance dualism) or emergence theory.

Each of these middle or hybrid positions can be seen not just as reactions against dualism or physicalism but as a synthesis that attempts to take the best aspects of dualism and physicalism, respectively, into account and preserve those aspects in a more coherent and adequate theory of consciousness.

(In contemporary philosophy of mind, the goal is to find a Hegelian “synthesis” of the traditional dichotomy between Cartesian substance dualism—the “thesis”—and reductive physicalism and/or eliminative materialism—its “antithesis”—that takes into account the virtues and overcoming the challenges of each extreme position.)

Hegelian Dialectic in Contemporary American Politics and the Trump Era

This pedagogical effect of dualisms and dichotomies, driving Hegelian dialectic forward, can be seen in contemporary American politics in the polarizing and extreme rhetoric of President Donald Trump. Even though there much to be critical of about President Trump’s harmful, inflammatory, and destructive political rhetoric, such extreme rhetoric may still have value dialectically as a kind of political anti-model, showing people what they don’t want the next President of the United States, and perhaps American political reality in general, to be like.

Please don’t misunderstand me here. I’m not praising or condoning President Trump’s rhetoric or character, not one bit. I do think, however, that Americans will (or could) learn something valuable from having experienced what it’s like to have the bearer of such extreme positions and language as President of the United States. The next President, the next wave of American politicians, and the next generation of American citizens and voters will hopefully go in search either of the antithesis to President Trump (in the form of the opposite political extreme) or of a new synthesis that transcends the political trappings of America’s two dominant political parties, and perhaps of America’s two-party system in general.

The unpleasantness of the Trump presidency may ultimately prove to have been necessary for the United States to transcend the political dichotomies of the latter decades of the 20th century and the first two decades of the 21st century, a case of Hegelian dialectic in action if there ever was one.

(The extreme rhetoric of President Donald Trump, despite its obviously harmful and reprehensible qualities, may still have pedagogical value as the starting point—i.e., “thesis”—of a new Hegelian dialectic in American politics.)

Hegelian Dialectic and Thinking for Yourself

At the risk of being philosophically disingenuous, I sometimes find myself becoming a type of philosophical caricature in my own writing, speaking in extremes for literary and pedagogical purposes while also secretly aware of the power of Hegelian dialectic politically, philosophically, and pedagogically, in perhaps vain hope that my readers will think and write and speak for themselves instead of idly or passively soaking up what I have to say, lest I run the risk of thinking for my readers instead of my readers thinking for themselves.

All of philosophy arguably has this Socratic and Hegelian quality. Like Socrates, I don’t want to be a teacher merely dispensing answers to the masses like some Holy See of philosophical wisdom. I want to drag those masses kicking and screaming out of their own personal and philosophical caves (to borrow a metaphor from Plato’s Republic), to raise their own consciousnesses and cause them to think for themselves, even if that means vehemently disagreeing with every dualistic and dichotomous word I’ve ever written.

A Nietzschean Interpretation

There is a kind of Nietzschean value in speaking and writing in extremes. The masses and the herd may search for their more genteel middle grounds and grey areas, but only an Übermensch has the inner strength to speak like a master of one’s own life and words instead of as a slave to the mediocrity and averageness of others.

So while others may pursue an endless search for synthesis, those with a Nietzschean temperament and view of themselves as masters of their own lives search not for synthesis but for extreme authenticity, artistry, and control of one’s own life, intellectually, emotionally, politically, and otherwise.

Dualisms and dichotomies don’t frighten me as they do for some. They enliven and embolden me. They make me burn with inner fire, and make me aim not for the lowlands (as Nietzsche once put it in his poem “Worldly Wisdom”) but for the greatest heights and even for the stars themselves.

A Philosophical Game of Chess: Opening Moves

The image I chose for this blog post is the opening move of a game of chess, which struck me as an appropriate metaphor for Hegelian dialectic. Even the most complex and subtly strategic chess game begins with a bold and confident step forward out of the safety of your own intellectual line of defense. This is how I think of Hegel’s notions of thesis and antithesis, as opening moves of a chess game whose end result is not yet known.

However subtle the end result of the philosophical and intellectual game might be, with whatever shades of gray one ultimately settles on, someone has to be bold enough to say the first tantalizing and scandalous words to set the dialogue in motion in the first place, lest academic and professional philosophy and even all of contemporary political society stay forever in their comfort zones, going nowhere and doing nothing, out of fear and meekness masquerading as civility and subtlety.

For Further Reading:

• Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

• Phenomenology of Spirit by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel