Suchergebnisse

Why do the attempts we make to explain the world around us fall short? Arguments for or against the existence of God, the question of free will, and even Principia Mathematica are all examples of explanations that look solid from some points of view, but which have serious weaknesses from other perspectives. This book explores the built-in limits of reason itself by pointing out the fact that language can only be used to create incomplete systems. Philosophy, mathematics, and logic supply the groundwork for the introduction of a framing mechanism to help thinkers understand why thinking itself can sometimes fail. Known as the metadialectic, this new frame of reference allows us to evaluate different arguments in terms of their constituent parts. Students from any background interested in improving critical thinking will benefit from this study of the dialectical archetypes--as can the more traditional philosophically minded questioners, those of us who are motivated by a deeper desire to understand the world.

In the modern, extant world of practical history, the dominant "democratic" tradition splits sharply into three, often hostile strands. These strands are liberal democracy, social revolutionary democracy, and participatory democracy. Especially for analytical purposes, it is important to see these strands as distinct sharing only the vaguest general commitment to government by and for broad reaches of the population (thedemos). However, the three strands, for all their differences—and hostilities—should be seen historically as standing in profound and significantdialecticalrelationship with each other. In this light, liberal and social revolutionary democracy are opposites in an antithetical tension that is increasingly extreme. Participatory democracy will then appear as a third term, a still emerging synthetical response arising out of attempts to resolve the tension between the two earlier democratic variants, and clearly showing marks of its inheritance from them.

In an article (title not give) by D. Ruben appearing in Critique (1974, 4), a main conclusion was that Marxism must consider incorporating common-sense elements of the foundationalist view & reconsider the rejection of reality as given. Ruben arrives at his conclusion with the unproven proposition that there is a "world-as-it-is-in-itself," which may be known. But this must be established & discussed in relation to historical materialism. Ruben recommends an empiricist epistemology merely because he favors it, & rejects the dialectical relation between thought & reality. He fails to see that concepts & categories change, & goes on to misinterpret Kant. He sees objective & subjective traditions in opposition because he criticizes dialectics on positivistic grounds & then criticizes empiricism on dialectical grounds. Ruben's pure reflections on reality & thought are one-directional & devoid of movement, & therefore, outside the dialectical tradition of Lenin & others. L. Kamel.

Dialectics deals with opposites and contradictions. Social work literature seldom talks about opposites and contradictions. This article attempts to discuss the relevance and usefulness of dialectics in social work practice, focusing on three areas: the individual/social divide, contradictions in worker-client relationships and social work as a profession.

'Evidence-based policy' and 'evidence-based management' are increasingly popular ways of describing the relationship between research and practice. The majority discussing the evidence-based approach have tended to be in favour: here, 'believers'. Yet this approach has also attracted critics: 'heretics'. Understanding of such a division can be enhanced by dialectics: a process which tries to destabilize, reconcile or transcend apparent opposites. This divide is not simply a consequence of differences relating to epistemology, but also aesthetics: a set of reactions to the world seen as art. So, to analyse this divide requires a correspondingly rich model of dialectic. Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy offers this in its account of Apolline and Dionysian responses to the world. Dialectics supports a move beyond synchronous critique, and allows speculation as to the future development of the evidence-based approach.