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. 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. 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.” 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.īut 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. I’ve been accused recently-in a friendly way-of having overly simplistic, black-and-white dualisms and dichotomies in my philosophical writing. Hegelian Dialectic: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis
0 kommentar(er)
