thesis antithesis synthesis theory

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Hegel’s Dialectics

“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides. In what is perhaps the most classic version of “dialectics”, the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato (see entry on Plato ), for instance, presented his philosophical argument as a back-and-forth dialogue or debate, generally between the character of Socrates, on one side, and some person or group of people to whom Socrates was talking (his interlocutors), on the other. In the course of the dialogues, Socrates’ interlocutors propose definitions of philosophical concepts or express views that Socrates challenges or opposes. The back-and-forth debate between opposing sides produces a kind of linear progression or evolution in philosophical views or positions: as the dialogues go along, Socrates’ interlocutors change or refine their views in response to Socrates’ challenges and come to adopt more sophisticated views. The back-and-forth dialectic between Socrates and his interlocutors thus becomes Plato’s way of arguing against the earlier, less sophisticated views or positions and for the more sophisticated ones later.

“Hegel’s dialectics” refers to the particular dialectical method of argument employed by the 19th Century German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel (see entry on Hegel ), which, like other “dialectical” methods, relies on a contradictory process between opposing sides. Whereas Plato’s “opposing sides” were people (Socrates and his interlocutors), however, what the “opposing sides” are in Hegel’s work depends on the subject matter he discusses. In his work on logic, for instance, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of logical concepts that are opposed to one another. In the Phenomenology of Spirit , which presents Hegel’s epistemology or philosophy of knowledge, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of consciousness and of the object that consciousness is aware of or claims to know. As in Plato’s dialogues, a contradictory process between “opposing sides” in Hegel’s dialectics leads to a linear evolution or development from less sophisticated definitions or views to more sophisticated ones later. The dialectical process thus constitutes Hegel’s method for arguing against the earlier, less sophisticated definitions or views and for the more sophisticated ones later. Hegel regarded this dialectical method or “speculative mode of cognition” (PR §10) as the hallmark of his philosophy and used the same method in the Phenomenology of Spirit [PhG], as well as in all of the mature works he published later—the entire Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences (including, as its first part, the “Lesser Logic” or the Encyclopaedia Logic [EL]), the Science of Logic [SL], and the Philosophy of Right [PR].

Note that, although Hegel acknowledged that his dialectical method was part of a philosophical tradition stretching back to Plato, he criticized Plato’s version of dialectics. He argued that Plato’s dialectics deals only with limited philosophical claims and is unable to get beyond skepticism or nothingness (SL-M 55–6; SL-dG 34–5; PR, Remark to §31). According to the logic of a traditional reductio ad absurdum argument, if the premises of an argument lead to a contradiction, we must conclude that the premises are false—which leaves us with no premises or with nothing. We must then wait around for new premises to spring up arbitrarily from somewhere else, and then see whether those new premises put us back into nothingness or emptiness once again, if they, too, lead to a contradiction. Because Hegel believed that reason necessarily generates contradictions, as we will see, he thought new premises will indeed produce further contradictions. As he puts the argument, then,

the scepticism that ends up with the bare abstraction of nothingness or emptiness cannot get any further from there, but must wait to see whether something new comes along and what it is, in order to throw it too into the same empty abyss. (PhG-M §79)

Hegel argues that, because Plato’s dialectics cannot get beyond arbitrariness and skepticism, it generates only approximate truths, and falls short of being a genuine science (SL-M 55–6; SL-dG 34–5; PR, Remark to §31; cf. EL Remark to §81). The following sections examine Hegel’s dialectics as well as these issues in more detail.

1. Hegel’s description of his dialectical method

2. applying hegel’s dialectical method to his arguments, 3. why does hegel use dialectics, 4. is hegel’s dialectical method logical, 5. syntactic patterns and special terminology in hegel’s dialectics, english translations of key texts by hegel, english translations of other primary sources, secondary literature, other internet resources, related entries.

Hegel provides the most extensive, general account of his dialectical method in Part I of his Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences , which is often called the Encyclopaedia Logic [EL]. The form or presentation of logic, he says, has three sides or moments (EL §79). These sides are not parts of logic, but, rather, moments of “every concept”, as well as “of everything true in general” (EL Remark to §79; we will see why Hegel thought dialectics is in everything in section 3 ). The first moment—the moment of the understanding—is the moment of fixity, in which concepts or forms have a seemingly stable definition or determination (EL §80).

The second moment—the “ dialectical ” (EL §§79, 81) or “ negatively rational ” (EL §79) moment—is the moment of instability. In this moment, a one-sidedness or restrictedness (EL Remark to §81) in the determination from the moment of understanding comes to the fore, and the determination that was fixed in the first moment passes into its opposite (EL §81). Hegel describes this process as a process of “self-sublation” (EL §81). The English verb “to sublate” translates Hegel’s technical use of the German verb aufheben , which is a crucial concept in his dialectical method. Hegel says that aufheben has a doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time (PhG §113; SL-M 107; SL-dG 81–2; cf. EL the Addition to §95). The moment of understanding sublates itself because its own character or nature—its one-sidedness or restrictedness—destabilizes its definition and leads it to pass into its opposite. The dialectical moment thus involves a process of self -sublation, or a process in which the determination from the moment of understanding sublates itself , or both cancels and preserves itself , as it pushes on to or passes into its opposite.

The third moment—the “ speculative ” or “ positively rational ” (EL §§79, 82) moment—grasps the unity of the opposition between the first two determinations, or is the positive result of the dissolution or transition of those determinations (EL §82 and Remark to §82). Here, Hegel rejects the traditional, reductio ad absurdum argument, which says that when the premises of an argument lead to a contradiction, then the premises must be discarded altogether, leaving nothing. As Hegel suggests in the Phenomenology , such an argument

is just the skepticism which only ever sees pure nothingness in its result and abstracts from the fact that this nothingness is specifically the nothingness of that from which it results . (PhG-M §79)

Although the speculative moment negates the contradiction, it is a determinate or defined nothingness because it is the result of a specific process. There is something particular about the determination in the moment of understanding—a specific weakness, or some specific aspect that was ignored in its one-sidedness or restrictedness—that leads it to fall apart in the dialectical moment. The speculative moment has a definition, determination or content because it grows out of and unifies the particular character of those earlier determinations, or is “a unity of distinct determinations ” (EL Remark to §82). The speculative moment is thus “truly not empty, abstract nothing , but the negation of certain determinations ” (EL-GSH §82). When the result “is taken as the result of that from which it emerges”, Hegel says, then it is “in fact, the true result; in that case it is itself a determinate nothingness, one which has a content” (PhG-M §79). As he also puts it, “the result is conceived as it is in truth, namely, as a determinate negation [ bestimmte Negation]; a new form has thereby immediately arisen” (PhG-M §79). Or, as he says, “[b]ecause the result, the negation, is a determinate negation [bestimmte Negation ], it has a content ” (SL-dG 33; cf. SL-M 54). Hegel’s claim in both the Phenomenology and the Science of Logic that his philosophy relies on a process of “ determinate negation [ bestimmte Negation]” has sometimes led scholars to describe his dialectics as a method or doctrine of “determinate negation” (see entry on Hegel, section on Science of Logic ; cf. Rosen 1982: 30; Stewart 1996, 2000: 41–3; Winfield 1990: 56).

There are several features of this account that Hegel thinks raise his dialectical method above the arbitrariness of Plato’s dialectics to the level of a genuine science. First, because the determinations in the moment of understanding sublate themselves , Hegel’s dialectics does not require some new idea to show up arbitrarily. Instead, the movement to new determinations is driven by the nature of the earlier determinations and so “comes about on its own accord” (PhG-P §79). Indeed, for Hegel, the movement is driven by necessity (see, e.g., EL Remarks to §§12, 42, 81, 87, 88; PhG §79). The natures of the determinations themselves drive or force them to pass into their opposites. This sense of necessity —the idea that the method involves being forced from earlier moments to later ones—leads Hegel to regard his dialectics as a kind of logic . As he says in the Phenomenology , the method’s “proper exposition belongs to logic” (PhG-M §48). Necessity—the sense of being driven or forced to conclusions—is the hallmark of “logic” in Western philosophy.

Second, because the form or determination that arises is the result of the self-sublation of the determination from the moment of understanding, there is no need for some new idea to show up from the outside. Instead, the transition to the new determination or form is necessitated by earlier moments and hence grows out of the process itself. Unlike in Plato’s arbitrary dialectics, then—which must wait around until some other idea comes in from the outside—in Hegel’s dialectics “nothing extraneous is introduced”, as he says (SL-M 54; cf. SL-dG 33). His dialectics is driven by the nature, immanence or “inwardness” of its own content (SL-M 54; cf. SL-dG 33; cf. PR §31). As he puts it, dialectics is “the principle through which alone immanent coherence and necessity enter into the content of science” (EL-GSH Remark to §81).

Third, because later determinations “sublate” earlier determinations, the earlier determinations are not completely cancelled or negated. On the contrary, the earlier determinations are preserved in the sense that they remain in effect within the later determinations. When Being-for-itself, for instance, is introduced in the logic as the first concept of ideality or universality and is defined by embracing a set of “something-others”, Being-for-itself replaces the something-others as the new concept, but those something-others remain active within the definition of the concept of Being-for-itself. The something-others must continue to do the work of picking out individual somethings before the concept of Being-for-itself can have its own definition as the concept that gathers them up. Being-for-itself replaces the something-others, but it also preserves them, because its definition still requires them to do their work of picking out individual somethings (EL §§95–6).

The concept of “apple”, for example, as a Being-for-itself, would be defined by gathering up individual “somethings” that are the same as one another (as apples). Each individual apple can be what it is (as an apple) only in relation to an “other” that is the same “something” that it is (i.e., an apple). That is the one-sidedness or restrictedness that leads each “something” to pass into its “other” or opposite. The “somethings” are thus both “something-others”. Moreover, their defining processes lead to an endless process of passing back and forth into one another: one “something” can be what it is (as an apple) only in relation to another “something” that is the same as it is, which, in turn, can be what it is (an apple) only in relation to the other “something” that is the same as it is, and so on, back and forth, endlessly (cf. EL §95). The concept of “apple”, as a Being-for-itself, stops that endless, passing-over process by embracing or including the individual something-others (the apples) in its content. It grasps or captures their character or quality as apples . But the “something-others” must do their work of picking out and separating those individual items (the apples) before the concept of “apple”—as the Being-for-itself—can gather them up for its own definition. We can picture the concept of Being-for-itself like this:

Later concepts thus replace, but also preserve, earlier concepts.

Fourth, later concepts both determine and also surpass the limits or finitude of earlier concepts. Earlier determinations sublate themselves —they pass into their others because of some weakness, one-sidedness or restrictedness in their own definitions. There are thus limitations in each of the determinations that lead them to pass into their opposites. As Hegel says, “that is what everything finite is: its own sublation” (EL-GSH Remark to §81). Later determinations define the finiteness of the earlier determinations. From the point of view of the concept of Being-for-itself, for instance, the concept of a “something-other” is limited or finite: although the something-others are supposed to be the same as one another, the character of their sameness (e.g., as apples) is captured only from above, by the higher-level, more universal concept of Being-for-itself. Being-for-itself reveals the limitations of the concept of a “something-other”. It also rises above those limitations, since it can do something that the concept of a something-other cannot do. Dialectics thus allows us to get beyond the finite to the universal. As Hegel puts it, “all genuine, nonexternal elevation above the finite is to be found in this principle [of dialectics]” (EL-GSH Remark to §81).

Fifth, because the determination in the speculative moment grasps the unity of the first two moments, Hegel’s dialectical method leads to concepts or forms that are increasingly comprehensive and universal. As Hegel puts it, the result of the dialectical process

is a new concept but one higher and richer than the preceding—richer because it negates or opposes the preceding and therefore contains it, and it contains even more than that, for it is the unity of itself and its opposite. (SL-dG 33; cf. SL-M 54)

Like Being-for-itself, later concepts are more universal because they unify or are built out of earlier determinations, and include those earlier determinations as part of their definitions. Indeed, many other concepts or determinations can also be depicted as literally surrounding earlier ones (cf. Maybee 2009: 73, 100, 112, 156, 193, 214, 221, 235, 458).

Finally, because the dialectical process leads to increasing comprehensiveness and universality, it ultimately produces a complete series, or drives “to completion” (SL-dG 33; cf. SL-M 54; PhG §79). Dialectics drives to the “Absolute”, to use Hegel’s term, which is the last, final, and completely all-encompassing or unconditioned concept or form in the relevant subject matter under discussion (logic, phenomenology, ethics/politics and so on). The “Absolute” concept or form is unconditioned because its definition or determination contains all the other concepts or forms that were developed earlier in the dialectical process for that subject matter. Moreover, because the process develops necessarily and comprehensively through each concept, form or determination, there are no determinations that are left out of the process. There are therefore no left-over concepts or forms—concepts or forms outside of the “Absolute”—that might “condition” or define it. The “Absolute” is thus unconditioned because it contains all of the conditions in its content, and is not conditioned by anything else outside of it. This Absolute is the highest concept or form of universality for that subject matter. It is the thought or concept of the whole conceptual system for the relevant subject matter. We can picture the Absolute Idea (EL §236), for instance—which is the “Absolute” for logic—as an oval that is filled up with and surrounds numerous, embedded rings of smaller ovals and circles, which represent all of the earlier and less universal determinations from the logical development (cf. Maybee 2009: 30, 600):

Since the “Absolute” concepts for each subject matter lead into one another, when they are taken together, they constitute Hegel’s entire philosophical system, which, as Hegel says, “presents itself therefore as a circle of circles” (EL-GSH §15). We can picture the entire system like this (cf. Maybee 2009: 29):

Together, Hegel believes, these characteristics make his dialectical method genuinely scientific. As he says, “the dialectical constitutes the moving soul of scientific progression” (EL-GSH Remark to §81). He acknowledges that a description of the method can be more or less complete and detailed, but because the method or progression is driven only by the subject matter itself, this dialectical method is the “only true method” (SL-M 54; SL-dG 33).

So far, we have seen how Hegel describes his dialectical method, but we have yet to see how we might read this method into the arguments he offers in his works. Scholars often use the first three stages of the logic as the “textbook example” (Forster 1993: 133) to illustrate how Hegel’s dialectical method should be applied to his arguments. The logic begins with the simple and immediate concept of pure Being, which is said to illustrate the moment of the understanding. We can think of Being here as a concept of pure presence. It is not mediated by any other concept—or is not defined in relation to any other concept—and so is undetermined or has no further determination (EL §86; SL-M 82; SL-dG 59). It asserts bare presence, but what that presence is like has no further determination. Because the thought of pure Being is undetermined and so is a pure abstraction, however, it is really no different from the assertion of pure negation or the absolutely negative (EL §87). It is therefore equally a Nothing (SL-M 82; SL-dG 59). Being’s lack of determination thus leads it to sublate itself and pass into the concept of Nothing (EL §87; SL-M 82; SL-dG 59), which illustrates the dialectical moment.

But if we focus for a moment on the definitions of Being and Nothing themselves, their definitions have the same content. Indeed, both are undetermined, so they have the same kind of undefined content. The only difference between them is “something merely meant ” (EL-GSH Remark to §87), namely, that Being is an undefined content, taken as or meant to be presence, while Nothing is an undefined content, taken as or meant to be absence. The third concept of the logic—which is used to illustrate the speculative moment—unifies the first two moments by capturing the positive result of—or the conclusion that we can draw from—the opposition between the first two moments. The concept of Becoming is the thought of an undefined content, taken as presence (Being) and then taken as absence (Nothing), or taken as absence (Nothing) and then taken as presence (Being). To Become is to go from Being to Nothing or from Nothing to Being, or is, as Hegel puts it, “the immediate vanishing of the one in the other” (SL-M 83; cf. SL-dG 60). The contradiction between Being and Nothing thus is not a reductio ad absurdum , or does not lead to the rejection of both concepts and hence to nothingness—as Hegel had said Plato’s dialectics does (SL-M 55–6; SL-dG 34–5)—but leads to a positive result, namely, to the introduction of a new concept—the synthesis—which unifies the two, earlier, opposed concepts.

We can also use the textbook Being-Nothing-Becoming example to illustrate Hegel’s concept of aufheben (to sublate), which, as we saw, means to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time. Hegel says that the concept of Becoming sublates the concepts of Being and Nothing (SL-M 105; SL-dG 80). Becoming cancels or negates Being and Nothing because it is a new concept that replaces the earlier concepts; but it also preserves Being and Nothing because it relies on those earlier concepts for its own definition. Indeed, it is the first concrete concept in the logic. Unlike Being and Nothing, which had no definition or determination as concepts themselves and so were merely abstract (SL-M 82–3; SL-dG 59–60; cf. EL Addition to §88), Becoming is a “ determinate unity in which there is both Being and Nothing” (SL-M 105; cf. SL-dG 80). Becoming succeeds in having a definition or determination because it is defined by, or piggy-backs on, the concepts of Being and Nothing.

This “textbook” Being-Nothing-Becoming example is closely connected to the traditional idea that Hegel’s dialectics follows a thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, which, when applied to the logic, means that one concept is introduced as a “thesis” or positive concept, which then develops into a second concept that negates or is opposed to the first or is its “antithesis”, which in turn leads to a third concept, the “synthesis”, that unifies the first two (see, e.g., McTaggert 1964 [1910]: 3–4; Mure 1950: 302; Stace, 1955 [1924]: 90–3, 125–6; Kosek 1972: 243; E. Harris 1983: 93–7; Singer 1983: 77–79). Versions of this interpretation of Hegel’s dialectics continue to have currency (e.g., Forster 1993: 131; Stewart 2000: 39, 55; Fritzman 2014: 3–5). On this reading, Being is the positive moment or thesis, Nothing is the negative moment or antithesis, and Becoming is the moment of aufheben or synthesis—the concept that cancels and preserves, or unifies and combines, Being and Nothing.

We must be careful, however, not to apply this textbook example too dogmatically to the rest of Hegel’s logic or to his dialectical method more generally (for a classic criticism of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis reading of Hegel’s dialectics, see Mueller 1958). There are other places where this general pattern might describe some of the transitions from stage to stage, but there are many more places where the development does not seem to fit this pattern very well. One place where the pattern seems to hold, for instance, is where the Measure (EL §107)—as the combination of Quality and Quantity—transitions into the Measureless (EL §107), which is opposed to it, which then in turn transitions into Essence, which is the unity or combination of the two earlier sides (EL §111). This series of transitions could be said to follow the general pattern captured by the “textbook example”: Measure would be the moment of the understanding or thesis, the Measureless would be the dialectical moment or antithesis, and Essence would be the speculative moment or synthesis that unifies the two earlier moments. However, before the transition to Essence takes place, the Measureless itself is redefined as a Measure (EL §109)—undercutting a precise parallel with the textbook Being-Nothing-Becoming example, since the transition from Measure to Essence would not follow a Measure-Measureless-Essence pattern, but rather a Measure-(Measureless?)-Measure-Essence pattern.

Other sections of Hegel’s philosophy do not fit the triadic, textbook example of Being-Nothing-Becoming at all, as even interpreters who have supported the traditional reading of Hegel’s dialectics have noted. After using the Being-Nothing-Becoming example to argue that Hegel’s dialectical method consists of “triads” whose members “are called the thesis, antithesis, synthesis” (Stace 1955 [1924]: 93), W.T. Stace, for instance, goes on to warn us that Hegel does not succeed in applying this pattern throughout the philosophical system. It is hard to see, Stace says, how the middle term of some of Hegel’s triads are the opposites or antitheses of the first term, “and there are even ‘triads’ which contain four terms!” (Stace 1955 [1924]: 97). As a matter of fact, one section of Hegel’s logic—the section on Cognition—violates the thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern because it has only two sub-divisions, rather than three. “The triad is incomplete”, Stace complains. “There is no third. Hegel here abandons the triadic method. Nor is any explanation of his having done so forthcoming” (Stace 1955 [1924]: 286; cf. McTaggart 1964 [1910]: 292).

Interpreters have offered various solutions to the complaint that Hegel’s dialectics sometimes seems to violate the triadic form. Some scholars apply the triadic form fairly loosely across several stages (e.g. Burbidge 1981: 43–5; Taylor 1975: 229–30). Others have applied Hegel’s triadic method to whole sections of his philosophy, rather than to individual stages. For G.R.G. Mure, for instance, the section on Cognition fits neatly into a triadic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis account of dialectics because the whole section is itself the antithesis of the previous section of Hegel’s logic, the section on Life (Mure 1950: 270). Mure argues that Hegel’s triadic form is easier to discern the more broadly we apply it. “The triadic form appears on many scales”, he says, “and the larger the scale we consider the more obvious it is” (Mure 1950: 302).

Scholars who interpret Hegel’s description of dialectics on a smaller scale—as an account of how to get from stage to stage—have also tried to explain why some sections seem to violate the triadic form. J.N. Findlay, for instance—who, like Stace, associates dialectics “with the triad , or with triplicity ”—argues that stages can fit into that form in “more than one sense” (Findlay 1962: 66). The first sense of triplicity echoes the textbook, Being-Nothing-Becoming example. In a second sense, however, Findlay says, the dialectical moment or “contradictory breakdown” is not itself a separate stage, or “does not count as one of the stages”, but is a transition between opposed, “but complementary”, abstract stages that “are developed more or less concurrently” (Findlay 1962: 66). This second sort of triplicity could involve any number of stages: it “could readily have been expanded into a quadruplicity, a quintuplicity and so forth” (Findlay 1962: 66). Still, like Stace, he goes on to complain that many of the transitions in Hegel’s philosophy do not seem to fit the triadic pattern very well. In some triads, the second term is “the direct and obvious contrary of the first”—as in the case of Being and Nothing. In other cases, however, the opposition is, as Findlay puts it, “of a much less extreme character” (Findlay 1962: 69). In some triads, the third term obviously mediates between the first two terms. In other cases, however, he says, the third term is just one possible mediator or unity among other possible ones; and, in yet other cases, “the reconciling functions of the third member are not at all obvious” (Findlay 1962: 70).

Let us look more closely at one place where the “textbook example” of Being-Nothing-Becoming does not seem to describe the dialectical development of Hegel’s logic very well. In a later stage of the logic, the concept of Purpose goes through several iterations, from Abstract Purpose (EL §204), to Finite or Immediate Purpose (EL §205), and then through several stages of a syllogism (EL §206) to Realized Purpose (EL §210). Abstract Purpose is the thought of any kind of purposiveness, where the purpose has not been further determined or defined. It includes not just the kinds of purposes that occur in consciousness, such as needs or drives, but also the “internal purposiveness” or teleological view proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle (see entry on Aristotle ; EL Remark to §204), according to which things in the world have essences and aim to achieve (or have the purpose of living up to) their essences. Finite Purpose is the moment in which an Abstract Purpose begins to have a determination by fixing on some particular material or content through which it will be realized (EL §205). The Finite Purpose then goes through a process in which it, as the Universality, comes to realize itself as the Purpose over the particular material or content (and hence becomes Realized Purpose) by pushing out into Particularity, then into Singularity (the syllogism U-P-S), and ultimately into ‘out-thereness,’ or into individual objects out there in the world (EL §210; cf. Maybee 2009: 466–493).

Hegel’s description of the development of Purpose does not seem to fit the textbook Being-Nothing-Becoming example or the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model. According to the example and model, Abstract Purpose would be the moment of understanding or thesis, Finite Purpose would be the dialectical moment or antithesis, and Realized Purpose would be the speculative moment or synthesis. Although Finite Purpose has a different determination from Abstract Purpose (it refines the definition of Abstract Purpose), it is hard to see how it would qualify as strictly “opposed” to or as the “antithesis” of Abstract Purpose in the way that Nothing is opposed to or is the antithesis of Being.

There is an answer, however, to the criticism that many of the determinations are not “opposites” in a strict sense. The German term that is translated as “opposite” in Hegel’s description of the moments of dialectics (EL §§81, 82)— entgegensetzen —has three root words: setzen (“to posit or set”), gegen , (“against”), and the prefix ent -, which indicates that something has entered into a new state. The verb entgegensetzen can therefore literally be translated as “to set over against”. The “ engegengesetzte ” into which determinations pass, then, do not need to be the strict “opposites” of the first, but can be determinations that are merely “set against” or are different from the first ones. And the prefix ent -, which suggests that the first determinations are put into a new state, can be explained by Hegel’s claim that the finite determinations from the moment of understanding sublate (cancel but also preserve) themselves (EL §81): later determinations put earlier determinations into a new state by preserving them.

At the same time, there is a technical sense in which a later determination would still be the “opposite” of the earlier determination. Since the second determination is different from the first one, it is the logical negation of the first one, or is not -the-first-determination. If the first determination is “e”, for instance, because the new determination is different from that one, the new one is “not-e” (Kosek 1972: 240). Since Finite Purpose, for instance, has a definition or determination that is different from the definition that Abstract Purpose has, it is not -Abstract-Purpose, or is the negation or opposite of Abstract Purpose in that sense. There is therefore a technical, logical sense in which the second concept or form is the “opposite” or negation of—or is “not”—the first one—though, again, it need not be the “opposite” of the first one in a strict sense.

Other problems remain, however. Because the concept of Realized Purpose is defined through a syllogistic process, it is itself the product of several stages of development (at least four, by my count, if Realized Purpose counts as a separate determination), which would seem to violate a triadic model. Moreover, the concept of Realized Purpose does not, strictly speaking, seem to be the unity or combination of Abstract Purpose and Finite Purpose. Realized Purpose is the result of (and so unifies) the syllogistic process of Finite Purpose, through which Finite Purpose focuses on and is realized in a particular material or content. Realized Purpose thus seems to be a development of Finite Purpose, rather than a unity or combination of Abstract Purpose and Finite Purpose, in the way that Becoming can be said to be the unity or combination of Being and Nothing.

These sorts of considerations have led some scholars to interpret Hegel’s dialectics in a way that is implied by a more literal reading of his claim, in the Encyclopaedia Logic , that the three “sides” of the form of logic—namely, the moment of understanding, the dialectical moment, and the speculative moment—“are moments of each [or every; jedes ] logically-real , that is each [or every; jedes ] concept” (EL Remark to §79; this is an alternative translation). The quotation suggests that each concept goes through all three moments of the dialectical process—a suggestion reinforced by Hegel’s claim, in the Phenomenology , that the result of the process of determinate negation is that “a new form has thereby immediately arisen” (PhG-M §79). According to this interpretation, the three “sides” are not three different concepts or forms that are related to one another in a triad—as the textbook Being-Nothing-Becoming example suggests—but rather different momentary sides or “determinations” in the life, so to speak, of each concept or form as it transitions to the next one. The three moments thus involve only two concepts or forms: the one that comes first, and the one that comes next (examples of philosophers who interpret Hegel’s dialectics in this second way include Maybee 2009; Priest 1989: 402; Rosen 2014: 122, 132; and Winfield 1990: 56).

For the concept of Being, for example, its moment of understanding is its moment of stability, in which it is asserted to be pure presence. This determination is one-sided or restricted however, because, as we saw, it ignores another aspect of Being’s definition, namely, that Being has no content or determination, which is how Being is defined in its dialectical moment. Being thus sublates itself because the one-sidedness of its moment of understanding undermines that determination and leads to the definition it has in the dialectical moment. The speculative moment draws out the implications of these moments: it asserts that Being (as pure presence) implies nothing. It is also the “unity of the determinations in their comparison [ Entgegensetzung ]” (EL §82; alternative translation): since it captures a process from one to the other, it includes Being’s moment of understanding (as pure presence) and dialectical moment (as nothing or undetermined), but also compares those two determinations, or sets (- setzen ) them up against (- gegen ) each other. It even puts Being into a new state (as the prefix ent - suggests) because the next concept, Nothing, will sublate (cancel and preserve) Being.

The concept of Nothing also has all three moments. When it is asserted to be the speculative result of the concept of Being, it has its moment of understanding or stability: it is Nothing, defined as pure absence, as the absence of determination. But Nothing’s moment of understanding is also one-sided or restricted: like Being, Nothing is also an undefined content, which is its determination in its dialectical moment. Nothing thus sublates itself : since it is an undefined content , it is not pure absence after all, but has the same presence that Being did. It is present as an undefined content . Nothing thus sublates Being: it replaces (cancels) Being, but also preserves Being insofar as it has the same definition (as an undefined content) and presence that Being had. We can picture Being and Nothing like this (the circles have dashed outlines to indicate that, as concepts, they are each undefined; cf. Maybee 2009: 51):

In its speculative moment, then, Nothing implies presence or Being, which is the “unity of the determinations in their comparison [ Entgegensetzung ]” (EL §82; alternative translation), since it both includes but—as a process from one to the other—also compares the two earlier determinations of Nothing, first, as pure absence and, second, as just as much presence.

The dialectical process is driven to the next concept or form—Becoming—not by a triadic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, but by the one-sidedness of Nothing—which leads Nothing to sublate itself—and by the implications of the process so far. Since Being and Nothing have each been exhaustively analyzed as separate concepts, and since they are the only concepts in play, there is only one way for the dialectical process to move forward: whatever concept comes next will have to take account of both Being and Nothing at the same time. Moreover, the process revealed that an undefined content taken to be presence (i.e., Being) implies Nothing (or absence), and that an undefined content taken to be absence (i.e., Nothing) implies presence (i.e., Being). The next concept, then, takes Being and Nothing together and draws out those implications—namely, that Being implies Nothing, and that Nothing implies Being. It is therefore Becoming, defined as two separate processes: one in which Being becomes Nothing, and one in which Nothing becomes Being. We can picture Becoming this way (cf. Maybee 2009: 53):

In a similar way, a one-sidedness or restrictedness in the determination of Finite Purpose together with the implications of earlier stages leads to Realized Purpose. In its moment of understanding, Finite Purpose particularizes into (or presents) its content as “ something-presupposed ” or as a pre-given object (EL §205). I go to a restaurant for the purpose of having dinner, for instance, and order a salad. My purpose of having dinner particularizes as a pre-given object—the salad. But this object or particularity—e.g. the salad—is “inwardly reflected” (EL §205): it has its own content—developed in earlier stages—which the definition of Finite Purpose ignores. We can picture Finite Purpose this way:

In the dialectical moment, Finite Purpose is determined by the previously ignored content, or by that other content. The one-sidedness of Finite Purpose requires the dialectical process to continue through a series of syllogisms that determines Finite Purpose in relation to the ignored content. The first syllogism links the Finite Purpose to the first layer of content in the object: the Purpose or universality (e.g., dinner) goes through the particularity (e.g., the salad) to its content, the singularity (e.g., lettuce as a type of thing)—the syllogism U-P-S (EL §206). But the particularity (e.g., the salad) is itself a universality or purpose, “which at the same time is a syllogism within itself [ in sich ]” (EL Remark to §208; alternative translation), in relation to its own content. The salad is a universality/purpose that particularizes as lettuce (as a type of thing) and has its singularity in this lettuce here—a second syllogism, U-P-S. Thus, the first singularity (e.g., “lettuce” as a type of thing)—which, in this second syllogism, is the particularity or P —“ judges ” (EL §207) or asserts that “ U is S ”: it says that “lettuce” as a universality ( U ) or type of thing is a singularity ( S ), or is “this lettuce here”, for instance. This new singularity (e.g. “this lettuce here”) is itself a combination of subjectivity and objectivity (EL §207): it is an Inner or identifying concept (“lettuce”) that is in a mutually-defining relationship (the circular arrow) with an Outer or out-thereness (“this here”) as its content. In the speculative moment, Finite Purpose is determined by the whole process of development from the moment of understanding—when it is defined by particularizing into a pre-given object with a content that it ignores—to its dialectical moment—when it is also defined by the previously ignored content. We can picture the speculative moment of Finite Purpose this way:

Finite Purpose’s speculative moment leads to Realized Purpose. As soon as Finite Purpose presents all the content, there is a return process (a series of return arrows) that establishes each layer and redefines Finite Purpose as Realized Purpose. The presence of “this lettuce here” establishes the actuality of “lettuce” as a type of thing (an Actuality is a concept that captures a mutually-defining relationship between an Inner and an Outer [EL §142]), which establishes the “salad”, which establishes “dinner” as the Realized Purpose over the whole process. We can picture Realized Purpose this way:

If Hegel’s account of dialectics is a general description of the life of each concept or form, then any section can include as many or as few stages as the development requires. Instead of trying to squeeze the stages into a triadic form (cf. Solomon 1983: 22)—a technique Hegel himself rejects (PhG §50; cf. section 3 )—we can see the process as driven by each determination on its own account: what it succeeds in grasping (which allows it to be stable, for a moment of understanding), what it fails to grasp or capture (in its dialectical moment), and how it leads (in its speculative moment) to a new concept or form that tries to correct for the one-sidedness of the moment of understanding. This sort of process might reveal a kind of argument that, as Hegel had promised, might produce a comprehensive and exhaustive exploration of every concept, form or determination in each subject matter, as well as raise dialectics above a haphazard analysis of various philosophical views to the level of a genuine science.

We can begin to see why Hegel was motivated to use a dialectical method by examining the project he set for himself, particularly in relation to the work of David Hume and Immanuel Kant (see entries on Hume and Kant ). Hume had argued against what we can think of as the naïve view of how we come to have scientific knowledge. According to the naïve view, we gain knowledge of the world by using our senses to pull the world into our heads, so to speak. Although we may have to use careful observations and do experiments, our knowledge of the world is basically a mirror or copy of what the world is like. Hume argued, however, that naïve science’s claim that our knowledge corresponds to or copies what the world is like does not work. Take the scientific concept of cause, for instance. According to that concept of cause, to say that one event causes another is to say that there is a necessary connection between the first event (the cause) and the second event (the effect), such that, when the first event happens, the second event must also happen. According to naïve science, when we claim (or know) that some event causes some other event, our claim mirrors or copies what the world is like. It follows that the necessary, causal connection between the two events must itself be out there in the world. However, Hume argued, we never observe any such necessary causal connection in our experience of the world, nor can we infer that one exists based on our reasoning (see Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature , Book I, Part III, Section II; Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Section VII, Part I). There is nothing in the world itself that our idea of cause mirrors or copies.

Kant thought Hume’s argument led to an unacceptable, skeptical conclusion, and he rejected Hume’s own solution to the skepticism (see Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason , B5, B19–20). Hume suggested that our idea of causal necessity is grounded merely in custom or habit, since it is generated by our own imaginations after repeated observations of one sort of event following another sort of event (see Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature , Book I, Section VI; Hegel also rejected Hume’s solution, see EL §39). For Kant, science and knowledge should be grounded in reason, and he proposed a solution that aimed to reestablish the connection between reason and knowledge that was broken by Hume’s skeptical argument. Kant’s solution involved proposing a Copernican revolution in philosophy ( Critique of Pure Reason , Bxvi). Nicholas Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who said that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around. Kant proposed a similar solution to Hume’s skepticism. Naïve science assumes that our knowledge revolves around what the world is like, but, Hume’s criticism argued, this view entails that we cannot then have knowledge of scientific causes through reason. We can reestablish a connection between reason and knowledge, however, Kant suggested, if we say—not that knowledge revolves around what the world is like—but that knowledge revolves around what we are like . For the purposes of our knowledge, Kant said, we do not revolve around the world—the world revolves around us. Because we are rational creatures, we share a cognitive structure with one another that regularizes our experiences of the world. This intersubjectively shared structure of rationality—and not the world itself—grounds our knowledge.

However, Kant’s solution to Hume’s skepticism led to a skeptical conclusion of its own that Hegel rejected. While the intersubjectively shared structure of our reason might allow us to have knowledge of the world from our perspective, so to speak, we cannot get outside of our mental, rational structures to see what the world might be like in itself. As Kant had to admit, according to his theory, there is still a world in itself or “Thing-in-itself” ( Ding an sich ) about which we can know nothing (see, e.g., Critique of Pure Reason , Bxxv–xxvi). Hegel rejected Kant’s skeptical conclusion that we can know nothing about the world- or Thing-in-itself, and he intended his own philosophy to be a response to this view (see, e.g., EL §44 and the Remark to §44).

How did Hegel respond to Kant’s skepticism—especially since Hegel accepted Kant’s Copernican revolution, or Kant’s claim that we have knowledge of the world because of what we are like, because of our reason? How, for Hegel, can we get out of our heads to see the world as it is in itself? Hegel’s answer is very close to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle’s response to Plato. Plato argued that we have knowledge of the world only through the Forms. The Forms are perfectly universal, rational concepts or ideas. Because the world is imperfect, however, Plato exiled the Forms to their own realm. Although things in the world get their definitions by participating in the Forms, those things are, at best, imperfect copies of the universal Forms (see, e.g., Parmenides 131–135a). The Forms are therefore not in this world, but in a separate realm of their own. Aristotle argued, however, that the world is knowable not because things in the world are imperfect copies of the Forms, but because the Forms are in things themselves as the defining essences of those things (see, e.g., De Anima [ On the Soul ], Book I, Chapter 1 [403a26–403b18]; Metaphysics , Book VII, Chapter 6 [1031b6–1032a5] and Chapter 8 [1033b20–1034a8]).

In a similar way, Hegel’s answer to Kant is that we can get out of our heads to see what the world is like in itself—and hence can have knowledge of the world in itself—because the very same rationality or reason that is in our heads is in the world itself . As Hegel apparently put it in a lecture, the opposition or antithesis between the subjective and objective disappears by saying, as the Ancients did,

that nous governs the world, or by our own saying that there is reason in the world, by which we mean that reason is the soul of the world, inhabits it, and is immanent in it, as it own, innermost nature, its universal. (EL-GSH Addition 1 to §24)

Hegel used an example familiar from Aristotle’s work to illustrate this view:

“to be an animal”, the kind considered as the universal, pertains to the determinate animal and constitutes its determinate essentiality. If we were to deprive a dog of its animality we could not say what it is. (EL-GSH Addition 1 to §24; cf. SL-dG 16–17, SL-M 36-37)

Kant’s mistake, then, was that he regarded reason or rationality as only in our heads, Hegel suggests (EL §§43–44), rather than in both us and the world itself (see also below in this section and section 4 ). We can use our reason to have knowledge of the world because the very same reason that is in us, is in the world itself as it own defining principle. The rationality or reason in the world makes reality understandable, and that is why we can have knowledge of, or can understand, reality with our rationality. Dialectics—which is Hegel’s account of reason—characterizes not only logic, but also “everything true in general” (EL Remark to §79).

But why does Hegel come to define reason in terms of dialectics, and hence adopt a dialectical method? We can begin to see what drove Hegel to adopt a dialectical method by returning once again to Plato’s philosophy. Plato argued that we can have knowledge of the world only by grasping the Forms, which are perfectly universal, rational concepts or ideas. Because things in the world are so imperfect, however, Plato concluded that the Forms are not in this world, but in a realm of their own. After all, if a human being were perfectly beautiful, for instance, then he or she would never become not-beautiful. But human beings change, get old, and die, and so can be, at best, imperfect copies of the Form of beauty—though they get whatever beauty they have by participating in that Form. Moreover, for Plato, things in the world are such imperfect copies that we cannot gain knowledge of the Forms by studying things in the world, but only through reason, that is, only by using our rationality to access the separate realm of the Forms (as Plato argued in the well-known parable of the cave; Republic , Book 7, 514–516b).

Notice, however, that Plato’s conclusion that the Forms cannot be in this world and so must be exiled to a separate realm rests on two claims. First, it rests on the claim that the world is an imperfect and messy place—a claim that is hard to deny. But it also rests on the assumption that the Forms—the universal, rational concepts or ideas of reason itself—are static and fixed, and so cannot grasp the messiness within the imperfect world. Hegel is able to link reason back to our messy world by changing the definition of reason. Instead of saying that reason consists of static universals, concepts or ideas, Hegel says that the universal concepts or forms are themselves messy . Against Plato, Hegel’s dialectical method allows him to argue that universal concepts can “overgrasp” (from the German verb übergreifen ) the messy, dialectical nature of the world because they, themselves, are dialectical . Moreover, because later concepts build on or sublate (cancel, but also preserve) earlier concepts, the later, more universal concepts grasp the dialectical processes of earlier concepts. As a result, higher-level concepts can grasp not only the dialectical nature of earlier concepts or forms, but also the dialectical processes that make the world itself a messy place. The highest definition of the concept of beauty, for instance, would not take beauty to be fixed and static, but would include within it the dialectical nature or finiteness of beauty, the idea that beauty becomes, on its own account, not-beauty. This dialectical understanding of the concept of beauty can then overgrasp the dialectical and finite nature of beauty in the world, and hence the truth that, in the world, beautiful things themselves become not-beautiful, or might be beautiful in one respect and not another. Similarly, the highest determination of the concept of “tree” will include within its definition the dialectical process of development and change from seed to sapling to tree. As Hegel says, dialectics is “the principle of all natural and spiritual life” (SL-M 56; SL-dG 35), or “the moving soul of scientific progression” (EL §81). Dialectics is what drives the development of both reason as well as of things in the world. A dialectical reason can overgrasp a dialectical world.

Two further journeys into the history of philosophy will help to show why Hegel chose dialectics as his method of argument. As we saw, Hegel argues against Kant’s skepticism by suggesting that reason is not only in our heads, but in the world itself. To show that reason is in the world itself, however, Hegel has to show that reason can be what it is without us human beings to help it. He has to show that reason can develop on its own, and does not need us to do the developing for it (at least for those things in the world that are not human-created). As we saw (cf. section 1 ), central to Hegel’s dialectics is the idea that concepts or forms develop on their own because they “self-sublate”, or sublate (cancel and preserve) themselves , and so pass into subsequent concepts or forms on their own accounts, because of their own, dialectical natures. Thus reason, as it were, drives itself, and hence does not need our heads to develop it. Hegel needs an account of self-driving reason to get beyond Kant’s skepticism.

Ironically, Hegel derives the basic outlines of his account of self-driving reason from Kant. Kant divided human rationality into two faculties: the faculty of the understanding and the faculty of reason. The understanding uses concepts to organize and regularize our experiences of the world. Reason’s job is to coordinate the concepts and categories of the understanding by developing a completely unified, conceptual system, and it does this work, Kant thought, on its own, independently of how those concepts might apply to the world. Reason coordinates the concepts of the understanding by following out necessary chains of syllogisms to produce concepts that achieve higher and higher levels of conceptual unity. Indeed, this process will lead reason to produce its own transcendental ideas, or concepts that go beyond the world of experience. Kant calls this necessary, concept-creating reason “speculative” reason (cf. Critique of Pure Reason , Bxx–xxi, A327/B384). Reason creates its own concepts or ideas—it “speculates”—by generating new and increasingly comprehensive concepts of its own, independently of the understanding. In the end, Kant thought, reason will follow out such chains of syllogisms until it develops completely comprehensive or unconditioned universals—universals that contain all of the conditions or all of the less-comprehensive concepts that help to define them. As we saw (cf. section 1 ), Hegel’s dialectics adopts Kant’s notion of a self-driving and concept-creating “speculative” reason, as well as Kant’s idea that reason aims toward unconditioned universality or absolute concepts.

Ultimately, Kant thought, reasons’ necessary, self-driving activity will lead it to produce contradictions—what he called the “antinomies”, which consist of a thesis and antithesis. Once reason has generated the unconditioned concept of the whole world, for instance, Kant argued, it can look at the world in two, contradictory ways. In the first antinomy, reason can see the world (1) as the whole totality or as the unconditioned, or (2) as the series of syllogisms that led up to that totality. If reason sees the world as the unconditioned or as a complete whole that is not conditioned by anything else, then it will see the world as having a beginning and end in terms of space and time, and so will conclude (the thesis) that the world has a beginning and end or limit. But if reason sees the world as the series, in which each member of the series is conditioned by the previous member, then the world will appear to be without a beginning and infinite, and reason will conclude (the antithesis) that the world does not have a limit in terms of space and time (cf. Critique of Pure Reason , A417–18/B445–6). Reason thus leads to a contradiction: it holds both that the world has a limit and that it does not have a limit at the same time. Because reason’s own process of self-development will lead it to develop contradictions or to be dialectical in this way, Kant thought that reason must be kept in check by the understanding. Any conclusions that reason draws that do not fall within the purview of the understanding cannot be applied to the world of experience, Kant said, and so cannot be considered genuine knowledge ( Critique of Pure Reason , A506/B534).

Hegel adopts Kant’s dialectical conception of reason, but he liberates reason for knowledge from the tyranny of the understanding. Kant was right that reason speculatively generates concepts on its own, and that this speculative process is driven by necessity and leads to concepts of increasing universality or comprehensiveness. Kant was even right to suggest—as he had shown in the discussion of the antinomies—that reason is dialectical, or necessarily produces contradictions on its own. Again, Kant’s mistake was that he fell short of saying that these contradictions are in the world itself. He failed to apply the insights of his discussion of the antinomies to “ things in themselves ” (SL-M 56; SL-dG 35; see also section 4 ). Indeed, Kant’s own argument proves that the dialectical nature of reason can be applied to things themselves. The fact that reason develops those contradictions on its own, without our heads to help it , shows that those contradictions are not just in our heads, but are objective, or in the world itself. Kant, however, failed to draw this conclusion, and continued to regard reason’s conclusions as illusions. Still, Kant’s philosophy vindicated the general idea that the contradictions he took to be illusions are both objective—or out there in the world—and necessary. As Hegel puts it, Kant vindicates the general idea of “the objectivity of the illusion and the necessity of the contradiction which belongs to the nature of thought determinations” (SL-M 56; cf. SL-dG 35), or to the nature of concepts themselves.

The work of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (see entry on Fichte ) showed Hegel how dialectics can get beyond Kant—beyond the contradictions that, as Kant had shown, reason (necessarily) develops on its own, beyond the reductio ad absurdum argument (which, as we saw above, holds that a contradiction leads to nothingness), and beyond Kant’s skepticism, or Kant’s claim that reason’s contradictions must be reined in by the understanding and cannot count as knowledge. Fichte argued that the task of discovering the foundation of all human knowledge leads to a contradiction or opposition between the self and the not-self (it is not important, for our purposes, why Fichte held this view). The kind of reasoning that leads to this contradiction, Fichte said, is the analytical or antithetical method of reasoning, which involves drawing out an opposition between elements (in this case, the self and not-self) that are being compared to, or equated with, one another. While the traditional reductio ad absurdum argument would lead us to reject both sides of the contradiction and start from scratch, Fichte argued that the contradiction or opposition between the self and not-self can be resolved. In particular, the contradiction is resolved by positing a third concept—the concept of divisibility—which unites the two sides ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 110–11; Fichte 1982: 108–110). The concept of divisibility is produced by a synthetic procedure of reasoning, which involves “discovering in opposites the respect in which they are alike ” ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 112–13; Fichte 1982: 111). Indeed, Fichte argued, not only is the move to resolve contradictions with synthetic concepts or judgments possible, it is necessary . As he says of the move from the contradiction between self and not-self to the synthetic concept of divisibility,

there can be no further question as to the possibility of this [synthesis], nor can any ground for it be given; it is absolutely possible, and we are entitled to it without further grounds of any kind. ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 114; Fichte 1982: 112)

Since the analytical method leads to oppositions or contradictions, he argued, if we use only analytic judgments, “we not only do not get very far, as Kant says; we do not get anywhere at all” ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 113; Fichte 1982: 112). Without the synthetic concepts or judgments, we are left, as the classic reductio ad absurdum argument suggests, with nothing at all. The synthetic concepts or judgments are thus necessary to get beyond contradiction without leaving us with nothing.

Fichte’s account of the synthetic method provides Hegel with the key to moving beyond Kant. Fichte suggested that a synthetic concept that unifies the results of a dialectically-generated contradiction does not completely cancel the contradictory sides, but only limits them. As he said, in general, “[t]o limit something is to abolish its reality, not wholly , but in part only” ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 108; Fichte 1982: 108). Instead of concluding, as a reductio ad absurdum requires, that the two sides of a contradiction must be dismissed altogether, the synthetic concept or judgment retroactively justifies the opposing sides by demonstrating their limit, by showing which part of reality they attach to and which they do not ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 108–10; Fichte 1982: 108–9), or by determining in what respect and to what degree they are each true. For Hegel, as we saw (cf. section 1 ), later concepts and forms sublate—both cancel and preserve —earlier concepts and forms in the sense that they include earlier concepts and forms in their own definitions. From the point of view of the later concepts or forms, the earlier ones still have some validity, that is, they have a limited validity or truth defined by the higher-level concept or form.

Dialectically generated contradictions are therefore not a defect to be reigned in by the understanding, as Kant had said, but invitations for reason to “speculate”, that is, for reason to generate precisely the sort of increasingly comprehensive and universal concepts and forms that Kant had said reason aims to develop. Ultimately, Hegel thought, as we saw (cf. section 1 ), the dialectical process leads to a completely unconditioned concept or form for each subject matter—the Absolute Idea (logic), Absolute Spirit (phenomenology), Absolute Idea of right and law ( Philosophy of Right ), and so on—which, taken together, form the “circle of circles” (EL §15) that constitutes the whole philosophical system or “Idea” (EL §15) that both overgrasps the world and makes it understandable (for us).

Note that, while Hegel was clearly influenced by Fichte’s work, he never adopted Fichte’s triadic “thesis—antithesis—synthesis” language in his descriptions of his own philosophy (Mueller 1958: 411–2; Solomon 1983: 23), though he did apparently use it in his lectures to describe Kant’s philosophy (LHP III: 477). Indeed, Hegel criticized formalistic uses of the method of “ triplicity [Triplizität]” (PhG-P §50) inspired by Kant—a criticism that could well have been aimed at Fichte. Hegel argued that Kantian-inspired uses of triadic form had been reduced to “a lifeless schema” and “an actual semblance [ eigentlichen Scheinen ]” (PhG §50; alternative translation) that, like a formula in mathematics, was simply imposed on top of subject matters. Instead, a properly scientific use of Kant’s “triplicity” should flow—as he said his own dialectical method did (see section 1 )—out of “the inner life and self-movement” (PhG §51) of the content.

Scholars have often questioned whether Hegel’s dialectical method is logical. Some of their skepticism grows out of the role that contradiction plays in his thought and argument. While many of the oppositions embedded in the dialectical development and the definitions of concepts or forms are not contradictions in the strict sense, as we saw ( section 2 , above), scholars such as Graham Priest have suggested that some of them arguably are (Priest 1989: 391). Hegel even holds, against Kant (cf. section 3 above), that there are contradictions, not only in thought, but also in the world. Motion, for instance, Hegel says, is an “ existent contradiction”. As he describes it:

Something moves, not because now it is here and there at another now, but because in one and the same now it is here and not here, because in this here, it is and is not at the same time. (SL-dG 382; cf. SL-M 440)

Kant’s sorts of antinomies (cf. section 3 above) or contradictions more generally are therefore, as Hegel puts it in one place, “in all objects of all kinds, in all representations, concepts and ideas” (EL-GSH Remark to §48). Hegel thus seems to reject, as he himself explicitly claims (SL-M 439–40; SL-dG 381–82), the law of non-contradiction, which is a fundamental principle of formal logic—the classical, Aristotelian logic (see entries on Aristotle’s Logic and Contradiction ) that dominated during Hegel’s lifetime as well as the dominant systems of symbolic logic today (cf. Priest 1989: 391; Düsing 2010: 97–103). According to the law of non-contradiction, something cannot be both true and false at the same time or, put another way, “x” and “not-x” cannot both be true at the same time.

Hegel’s apparent rejection of the law of non-contradiction has led some interpreters to regard his dialectics as illogical, even “absurd” (Popper 1940: 420; 1962: 330; 2002: 443). Karl R. Popper, for instance, argued that accepting Hegel’s and other dialecticians’ rejection of the law of non-contradiction as part of both a logical theory and a general theory of the world “would mean a complete breakdown of science” (Popper 1940: 408; 1962: 317; 2002: 426). Since, according to today’s systems of symbolic logic, he suggested, the truth of a contradiction leads logically to any claim (any claim can logically be inferred from two contradictory claims), if we allow contradictory claims to be valid or true together, then we would have no reason to rule out any claim whatsoever (Popper 1940: 408–410; 1962: 317–319; 2002: 426–429).

Popper was notoriously hostile toward Hegel’s work (cf. Popper 2013: 242–289; for a scathing criticism of Popper’s analysis see Kaufmann 1976 [1972]), but, as Priest has noted (Priest 1989: 389–91), even some sympathetic interpreters have been inspired by today’s dominant systems of symbolic logic to hold that the kind of contradiction that is embedded in Hegel’s dialectics cannot be genuine contradiction in the strict sense. While Dieter Wandschneider, for instance, grants that his sympathetic theory of dialectic “is not presented as a faithful interpretation of the Hegelian text” (Wandschneider 2010: 32), he uses the same logical argument that Popper offered in defense of the claim that “dialectical contradiction is not a ‘normal’ contradiction, but one that is actually only an apparent contradiction” (Wandschneider 2010: 37). The suggestion (by the traditional, triadic account of Hegel’s dialectics, cf. section 2 , above) that Being and Nothing (or non-being) is a contradiction, for instance, he says, rests on an ambiguity. Being is an undefined content, taken to mean being or presence, while Nothing is an undefined content, taken to mean nothing or absence ( section 2 , above; cf. Wandschneider 2010: 34–35). Being is Nothing (or non-being) with respect to the property they have as concepts, namely, that they both have an undefined content. But Being is not Nothing (or non-being) with respect to their meaning (Wandschneider 2010: 34–38). The supposed contradiction between them, then, Wandschneider suggests, takes place “in different respects ”. It is therefore only an apparent contradiction. “Rightly understood”, he concludes, “there can be no talk of contradiction ” (Wandschneider 2010: 38).

Inoue Kazumi also argues that dialectical contradiction in the Hegelian sense does not violate the law of non-contradiction (Inoue 2014: 121–123), and he rejects Popper’s claim that Hegel’s dialectical method is incompatible with good science. A dialectical contradiction, Inoue says, is a contradiction that arises when the same topic is considered from different vantage points, but each vantage point by itself does not violate the law of non-contradiction (Inoue 2014: 120). The understanding leads to contradictions, as Hegel said (cf. section 3 above), because it examines a topic from a fixed point of view; reason embraces contradictions because it examines a topic from multiple points of view (Inoue 2014: 121). The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the Earth and the heliocentric theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, for instance, Inoue suggests, are both correct from certain points of view. We live our everyday lives from a vantage point in which the sun makes a periodic rotation around the Earth roughly every 24 hours. Astronomers make their observations from a geocentric point of view and then translate those observations into a heliocentric one. From these points of view, the geocentric account is not incorrect. But physics, particularly in its concepts of mass and force, requires the heliocentric account. For science—which takes all these points of view into consideration—both theories are valid: they are dialectically contradictory, though neither theory, by itself, violates the law of non-contradiction (Inoue 2014: 126–127). To insist that the Earth really revolves around the sun is merely an irrational, reductive prejudice, theoretically and practically (Inoue 2014: 126). Dialectical contradictions, Inoue says, are, as Hegel said, constructive: they lead to concepts or points of view that grasp the world from ever wider and more encompassing perspectives, culminating ultimately in the “Absolute” (Inoue 2014: 121; cf. section 1 , above). Hegel’s claim that motion violates the law of non-contradiction, Inoue suggests, is an expression of the idea that contradictory claims can be true when motion is described from more than one point of view (Inoue 2014: 123). (For a similar reading of Hegel’s conception of dialectical contradiction, which influenced Inoue’s account [Inoue 2014: 121], see Düsing 2010: 102–103.)

Other interpreters, however, have been inspired by Hegel’s dialectics to develop alternative systems of logic that do not subscribe to the law of non-contradiction. Priest, for instance, has defended Hegel’s rejection of the law of non-contradiction (cf. Priest 1989; 1997 [2006: 4]). The acceptance of some contradictions, he has suggested, does not require the acceptance of all contradictions (Priest 1989: 392). Popper’s logical argument is also unconvincing. Contradictions lead logically to any claim whatsoever, as Popper said, only if we presuppose that nothing can be both true and false at the same time (i.e. only if we presuppose that the law of non-contradiction is correct), which is just what Hegel denies. Popper’s logical argument thus assumes what it is supposed to prove or begs the question (Priest 1989: 392; 1997 [2006: 5–6]), and so is not convincing. Moreover, consistency (not allowing contradictions), Priest suggests, is actually “a very weak constraint” (Priest 1997 [2006: 104]) on what counts as a rational inference. Other principles or criteria—such as being strongly disproved (or supported) by the data—are more important for determining whether a claim or inference is rational (Priest 1997 [2006: 105]). And, as Hegel pointed out, Priest says, the data—namely, “the world as it appears ” (as Hegel puts it in EL) or “ordinary experience itself” (as Hegel puts it in SL)—suggest that there are indeed contradictions (EL Remark to §48; SL-dG 382; cf. SL-M 440; Priest 1989: 389, 399–400). Hegel is right, for instance, Priest argues, that change, and motion in particular, are examples of real or existing contradictions (Priest 1985; 1989: 396–97; 1997 [2006: 172–181, 213–15]). What distinguishes motion, as a process, from a situation in which something is simply here at one time and then some other place at some other time is the embodiment of contradiction: that, in a process of motion, there is one (span of) time in which something is both here and not here at the same time (in that span of time) (Priest 1985: 340–341; 1997 [2006: 172–175, 213–214]). A system of logic, Priest suggests, is always just a theory about what good reasoning should be like (Priest 1989: 392). A dialectical logic that admits that there are “dialetheia” or true contradictions (Priest 1989: 388), he says, is a broader theory or version of logic than traditional, formal logics that subscribe to the law of non-contradiction. Those traditional logics apply only to topics or domains that are consistent, primarily domains that are “static and changeless” (Priest 1989: 391; cf. 395); dialectical/dialetheic logic handles consistent domains, but also applies to domains in which there are dialetheia. Thus Priest, extending Hegel’s own concept of aufheben (“to sublate”; cf. section 1 , above), suggests that traditional “formal logic is perfectly valid in its domain, but dialectical (dialetheic) logic is more general” (Priest 1989: 395). (For an earlier example of a logical system that allows contradiction and was inspired in part by Hegel [and Marx], see Jaśkowski 1999: 36 [1969: 143] [cf. Inoue 2014: 128–129]. For more on dialetheic logic generally, see the entry on Dialetheism .)

Worries that Hegel’s arguments fail to fit his account of dialectics (see section 2 , above) have led some interpreters to conclude that his method is arbitrary or that his works have no single dialectical method at all (Findlay 1962: 93; Solomon 1983: 21). These interpreters reject the idea that there is any logical necessity to the moves from stage to stage. “[T]he important point to make here, and again and again”, Robert C. Solomon writes, for instance,

is that the transition from the first form to the second, or the transition from the first form of the Phenomenology all the way to the last, is not in any way a deductive necessity. The connections are anything but entailments, and the Phenomenology could always take another route and other starting points. (Solomon 1983: 230)

In a footnote to this passage, Solomon adds “that a formalization of Hegel’s logic, however ingenious, is impossible” (Solomon 1983: 230).

Some scholars have argued that Hegel’s necessity is not intended to be logical necessity. Walter Kaufmann suggested, for instance, that the necessity at work in Hegel’s dialectic is a kind of organic necessity. The moves in the Phenomenology , he said, follow one another “in the way in which, to use a Hegelian image from the preface, bud, blossom and fruit succeed each other” (Kaufmann 1965: 148; 1966: 132). Findlay argued that later stages provide what he called a “ higher-order comment ” on earlier stages, even if later stages do not follow from earlier ones in a trivial way (Findlay 1966: 367). Solomon suggested that the necessity that Hegel wants is not “‘necessity’ in the modern sense of ‘logical necessity,’” (Solomon 1983: 209), but a kind of progression (Solomon 1983: 207), or a “necessity within a context for some purpose ” (Solomon 1983: 209). John Burbidge defines Hegel’s necessity in terms of three senses of the relationship between actuality and possibility, only the last of which is logical necessity (Burbidge 1981: 195–6).

Other scholars have defined the necessity of Hegel’s dialectics in terms of a transcendental argument. A transcendental argument begins with uncontroversial facts of experience and tries to show that other conditions must be present—or are necessary—for those facts to be possible. Jon Stewart argues, for instance, that “Hegel’s dialectic in the Phenomenology is a transcendental account” in this sense, and thus has the necessity of that form of argument (Stewart 2000: 23; cf. Taylor 1975: 97, 226–7; for a critique of this view, see Pinkard 1988: 7, 15).

Some scholars have avoided these debates by interpreting Hegel’s dialectics in a literary way. In his examination of the epistemological theory of the Phenomenology , for instance, Kenneth R. Westphal offers “a literary model” of Hegel’s dialectics based on the story of Sophocles’ play Antigone (Westphal 2003: 14, 16). Ermanno Bencivenga offers an interpretation that combines a narrative approach with a concept of necessity. For him, the necessity of Hegel’s dialectical logic can be captured by the notion of telling a good story—where “good” implies that the story is both creative and correct at the same time (Bencivenga 2000: 43–65).

Debate over whether Hegel’s dialectical logic is logical may also be fueled in part by discomfort with his particular brand of logic. Unlike today’s symbolic logics, Hegel’s logic is not only syntactic, but also semantic (cf. Berto 2007; Maybee 2009: xx–xxv; Margolis 2010: 193–94). Hegel’s interest in semantics appears, for instance, in the very first stages of his logic, where the difference between Being and Nothing is “something merely meant ” (EL-GSH Remark to §87; cf. section 2 above). While some of the moves from stage to stage are driven by syntactic necessity, other moves are driven by the meanings of the concepts in play. Indeed, Hegel rejected what he regarded as the overly formalistic logics that dominated the field during his day (EL Remark to §162; SL-M 43–44; SL-dG 24). A logic that deals only with the forms of logical arguments and not the meanings of the concepts used in those argument forms will do no better in terms of preserving truth than the old joke about computer programs suggests: garbage in, garbage out. In those logics, if we (using today’s versions of formal, symbolic logic) plug in something for the P or Q (in the proposition “if P then Q ” or “ P → Q ”, for instance) or for the “ F ”, “ G ”, or “ x ” (in the proposition “if F is x , then G is x ” or “ F x → G x ”, for instance) that means something true, then the syntax of formal logics will preserve that truth. But if we plug in something for those terms that is untrue or meaningless (garbage in), then the syntax of formal logic will lead to an untrue or meaningless conclusion (garbage out). Today’s versions of prepositional logic also assume that we know what the meaning of “is” is. Against these sorts of logics, Hegel wanted to develop a logic that not only preserved truth, but also determined how to construct truthful claims in the first place. A logic that defines concepts (semantics) as well as their relationships with one another (syntax) will show, Hegel thought, how concepts can be combined into meaningful forms. Because interpreters are familiar with modern logics focused on syntax, however, they may regard Hegel’s syntactic and semantic logic as not really logical (cf. Maybee 2009: xvii–xxv).

In Hegel’s other works, the moves from stage to stage are often driven, not only by syntax and semantics—that is, by logic (given his account of logic)—but also by considerations that grow out of the relevant subject matter. In the Phenomenology , for instance, the moves are driven by syntax, semantics, and by phenomenological factors. Sometimes a move from one stage to the next is driven by a syntactic need—the need to stop an endless, back-and-forth process, for instance, or to take a new path after all the current options have been exhausted (cf. section 5 ). Sometimes, a move is driven by the meaning of a concept, such as the concept of a “This” or “Thing”. And sometimes a move is driven by a phenomenological need or necessity—by requirements of consciousness , or by the fact that the Phenomenology is about a consciousness that claims to be aware of (or to know) something. The logic of the Phenomenology is thus a phenomeno -logic, or a logic driven by logic—syntax and semantics—and by phenomenological considerations. Still, interpreters such as Quentin Lauer have suggested that, for Hegel,

phenomeno-logy is a logic of appearing, a logic of implication, like any other logic, even though not of the formal entailment with which logicians and mathematicians are familiar. (Lauer 1976: 3)

Lauer warns us against dismissing the idea that there is any implication or necessity in Hegel’s method at all (Lauer 1976: 3). (Other scholars who also believe there is a logical necessity to the dialectics of the Phenomenology include Hyppolite 1974: 78–9 and H.S. Harris 1997: xii.)

We should also be careful not to exaggerate the “necessity” of formal, symbolic logics. Even in these logics, there can often be more than one path from some premises to the same conclusion, logical operators can be dealt with in different orders, and different sets of operations can be used to reach the same conclusions. There is therefore often no strict, necessary “entailment” from one step to the next, even though the conclusion might be entailed by the whole series of steps, taken together. As in today’s logics, then, whether Hegel’s dialectics counts as logical depends on the degree to which he shows that we are forced—necessarily—from earlier stages or series of stages to later stages (see also section 5 ).

Although Hegel’s dialectics is driven by syntax, semantics and considerations specific to the different subject matters ( section 4 above), several important syntactic patterns appear repeatedly throughout his works. In many places, the dialectical process is driven by a syntactic necessity that is really a kind of exhaustion: when the current strategy has been exhausted, the process is forced, necessarily, to employ a new strategy. As we saw ( section 2 ), once the strategy of treating Being and Nothing as separate concepts is exhausted, the dialectical process must, necessarily, adopt a different strategy, namely, one that takes the two concepts together. The concept of Becoming captures the first way in which Being and Nothing are taken together. In the stages of Quantum through Number, the concepts of One and Many take turns defining the whole quantity as well as the quantitative bits inside that make it up: first, the One is the whole, while the Many are the bits; then the whole and the bits are all Ones; then the Many is the whole, while the bits are each a One; and finally the whole and the bits are all a Many. We can picture the development like this (cf. Maybee 2009, xviii–xix):

Since One and Many have been exhausted, the next stage, Ratio, must, necessarily, employ a different strategy to grasp the elements in play. Just as Being-for-itself is a concept of universality for Quality and captures the character of a set of something-others in its content (see section 1 ), so Ratio (the whole rectangle with rounded corners) is a concept of universality for Quantity and captures the character of a set of quantities in its content (EL §105–6; cf. Maybee 2009, xviii–xix, 95–7). In another version of syntactic necessity driven by exhaustion, the dialectical development will take account of every aspect or layer, so to speak, of a concept or form—as we saw in the stages of Purpose outlined above, for instance ( section 2 ). Once all the aspects or layers of a concept or form have been taken account of and so exhausted, the dialectical development must also, necessarily, employ a different strategy in the next stage to grasp the elements in play.

In a second, common syntactic pattern, the dialectical development leads to an endless, back-and-forth process—a “bad” (EL-BD §94) or “spurious” (EL-GSH §94) infinity—between two concepts or forms. Hegel’s dialectics cannot rest with spurious infinities. So long as the dialectical process is passing endlessly back and forth between two elements, it is never finished, and the concept or form in play cannot be determined. Spurious infinities must therefore be resolved or stopped, and they are always resolved by a higher-level, more universal concept. In some cases, a new, higher-level concept is introduced that stops the spurious infinity by grasping the whole, back-and-forth process. Being-for-itself (cf. section 1 ), for instance, is introduced as a new, more universal concept that embraces—and hence stops—the whole, back-and-forth process between “something-others”. However, if the back-and-forth process takes place between a concept and its own content—in which case the concept already embraces the content—then that embracing concept is redefined in a new way that grasps the whole, back-and-forth process. The new definition raises the embracing concept to a higher level of universality—as a totality (an “all”) or as a complete and completed concept. Examples from logic include the redefinition of Appearance as the whole World of Appearance (EL §132; cf. SL-M 505–7, SL-dG 443–4), the move in which the endless, back-and-forth process of Real Possibility redefines the Condition as a totality (EL §147; cf. SL-M 547, SL-dG 483), and the move in which a back-and-forth process created by finite Cognition and finite Willing redefines the Subjective Idea as Absolute Idea (EL §§234–5; cf. SL-M 822–3, SL-dG 733–4).

Some of the most famous terms in Hegel’s works—“in itself [ an sich ]”, “for itself [ für sich ]” and “in and for itself [ an und für sich ]”—capture other, common, syntactic patterns. A concept or form is “in itself” when it has a determination that it gets by being defined against its “other” (cf. Being-in-itself, EL §91). A concept or form is “for itself” when it is defined only in relation to its own content, so that, while it is technically defined in relation to an “other”, the “other” is not really an “other” for it. As a result, it is really defined only in relation to itself. Unlike an “in itself” concept or form, then, a “for itself” concept or form seems to have its definition on its own, or does not need a genuine “other” to be defined (like other concepts or forms, however, “for itself” concepts or forms turn out to be dialectical too, and hence push on to new concepts or forms). In the logic, Being-for-itself (cf. section 1 ), which is defined by embracing the “something others” in its content, is the first, “for itself” concept or form.

A concept or form is “in and for itself” when it is doubly “for itself”, or “for itself” not only in terms of content —insofar as it embraces its content—but also in terms of form or presentation, insofar as it also has the activity of presenting its content. It is “for itself” (embraces its content) for itself (through its own activity), or not only embraces its content (the “for itself” of content) but also presents its content through its own activity (the “for itself” of form). The second “for itself” of form provides the concept with a logical activity (i.e., presenting its content) and hence a definition that goes beyond—and so is separate from—the definition that its content has. Since it has a definition of its own that is separate from the definition of its content, it comes to be defined—in the “in itself” sense— against its content, which has become its “other”. Because this “other” is still its own content, however, the concept or form is both “in itself” but also still “for itself” at the same time, or is “in and for itself” (EL §§148–9; cf. Maybee 2009: 244–6). The “in and for itself” relationship is the hallmark of a genuine Concept (EL §160), and captures the idea that a genuine concept is defined not only from the bottom up by its content, but also from the top down through its own activity of presenting its content. The genuine concept of animal, for instance, is not only defined by embracing its content (namely, all animals) from the bottom up, but also has a definition of its own, separate from that content, that leads it to determine (and so present), from the top down, what counts as an animal.

Other technical, syntactic terms include aufheben (“to sublate”), which we already saw ( section 1 ), and “abstract”. To say that a concept or form is “abstract” is to say that it is only a partial definition. Hegel describes the moment of understanding, for instance, as abstract (EL §§79, 80) because it is a one-sided or restricted definition or determination ( section 1 ). Conversely, a concept or form is “concrete” in the most basic sense when it has a content or definition that it gets from being built out of other concepts or forms. As we saw ( section 2 ), Hegel regarded Becoming as the first concrete concept in the logic.

Although Hegel’s writing and his use of technical terms can make his philosophy notoriously difficult, his work can also be very rewarding. In spite of—or perhaps because of—the difficulty, there are a surprising number of fresh ideas in his work that have not yet been fully explored in philosophy.

• [EL], The Encyclopedia Logic [Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften I] . Because the translations of EL listed below use the same section numbers as well as sub-paragraphs (“Remarks”) and sub-sub-paragraphs (“Additions”), citations simply to “EL” refer to either translation. If the phrasing in English is unique to a specific translation, the translators’ initials are added.
• [EL-BD], Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline Part I: Science of Logic [Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften I] , translated by Klaus Brinkmann and Daniel O. Dahlstrom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• [EL-GSH], The Encyclopedia Logic: Part 1 of the Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences [Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften I] , translated by T.F. Geraets, W.A. Suchting, and H.S. Harris, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1991.
• [LHP], Lectures on the History of Philosophy [Geschichte der Philosophie] , in three volumes, translated by E.S. Haldane and Frances H. Simson, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1974.
• [PhG], Phenomenology of Spirit [Phänomenologie des Geistes] . Because the translations of PhG listed below use the same section numbers, citations simply to “PhG” refer to either translation. If the phrasing in English is unique to a specific translation, the translator’s initial is added.
• [PhG-M], Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit [Phänomenologie des Geistes] , translated by A.V. Miller, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
• [PhG-P], Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: The Phenomenology of Spirit [Phänomenologie des Geistes] , translated and edited by Terry Pinkard, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
• [PR], Elements of the Philosophy of Right [Philosophie des Rechts] , edited by Allen W. Wood and translated by H.B. Nisbet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• [SL-dG], Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: The Science of Logic [Wissenschaft der Logik] , translated by George di Giovanni, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• [SL-M], Hegel’s Science of Logic [Wissenschaft der Logik] , translated by A.V. Miller, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
• Aristotle, 1954, The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation (in two volumes), edited by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Citations to Aristotle’s text use the Bekker numbers, which appear in the margins of many translations of Aristotle’s works.)
• Fichte, J.G., 1982 [1794/95], The Science of Knowledge , translated by Peter Heath and John Lachs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Citations to Fichte’s work include references to the volume and page number in the German edition of Fichte’s collected works edited by I.H Fichte, which are used in the margins of many translations of Fichte’s works.)
• Kant, Immanuel, 1999 [1781], Critique of Pure Reason , translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Citations to Kant’s text use the “Ak.” numbers, which appear in the margins of many translations of Kant’s works.)
• Plato, 1961, The Collected Dialogues of Plato: Including the Letters , edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Citations to Plato’s text use the Stephanus numbers, which appear in the margins of many translations of Plato’s works.)
• Bencivenga, Ermanno, 2000, Hegel’s Dialectical Logic , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Berto, Francesco, 2007, “Hegel’s Dialectics as a Semantic Theory: An Analytic Reading”, European Journal of Philosophy , 15(1): 19–39.
• Burbidge, John, 1981, On Hegel’s Logic: Fragments of a Commentary , Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
• Düsing, Klaus, 2010, “Ontology and Dialectic in Hegel’s Thought”, translated by Andrés Colapinto, in The Dimensions of Hegel’s Dialectic , Nectarios G. Limmnatis (ed.), London: Continuum, pp. 97–122.
• Findlay, J.N., 1962, Hegel: A Re-Examination , New York: Collier Books.
• –––, 1966, Review of Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, and Commentary , by Walter Kaufmann. The Philosophical Quarterly , 16(65): 366–68.
• Forster, Michael, 1993, “Hegel’s Dialectical Method”, in The Cambridge Companion to Hegel , Frederick C. Beiser (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 130–170.
• Fritzman, J.M., 2014, Hegel , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Harris, Errol E., 1983, An Interpretation of the Logic of Hegel , Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Harris, H.S. (Henry Silton), 1997, Hegel’s Ladder (in two volumes: vol. I, The Pilgrimage of Reason , and vol. II, The Odyssey of Spirit ), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).
• Hyppolite, Jean, 1974, Genesis and Structure of Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit ”, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
• Inoue, Kazumi, 2014, “Dialectical Contradictions and Classical Formal Logic”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science , 28(2), 113–132.
• Jaśkowski, Stanislaw, 1999 [1969], “A Propositional Calculus for Inconsistent Deductive Systems”, translated by Olgierd Wojtasiewicz and A. Pietruszczak, Logic and Logical Philosophy (7)7: 35–56. (This article is a republication, with some changes, of a 1969 translation by Wojtasiewicz entitled “Propositional Calculus for Contradictory Deductive Systems (Communicated at the Meeting of March 19, 1948)”, published in Studia Logica , 24, 143–160.)
• Kaufmann, Walter Arnold, 1965, Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, and Commentary , Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company Inc.
• –––, 1966, A Reinterpretation , Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. (This is a republication of the first part of Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, and Commentary .)
• –––, 1976 [1972], “The Hegel Myth and its Method”, in Hegel: A Collection of Critical Essays , Alasdair MacIntyre (ed.), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press: 21–60. (This is a republication of the 1972 Anchor Books/Doubleday edition.)
• Kosok, Michael, 1972, “The Formalization of Hegel’s Dialectical Logic: Its Formal Structure, Logical Interpretation and Intuitive Foundation”, in Hegel: A Collection of Critical Essays , Alisdair MacIntyre (ed.), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press: 237–87.
• Lauer, Quentin, 1976, A Reading of Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit” , New York: Fordham University Press.
• Margolis, Joseph, 2010, “The Greening of Hegel’s Dialectical Logic”, in The Dimensions of Hegel’s Dialectic , Nectarios G. Limmnatis (ed.), London: Continuum, pp. 193–215.
• Maybee, Julie E., 2009, Picturing Hegel: An Illustrated Guide to Hegel’s “Encyclopaedia Logic” , Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
• McTaggart, John McTaggart Ellis, 1964 [1910], A Commentary of Hegel’s Logic , New York: Russell and Russell Inc. (This edition is a reissue of McTaggart’s book, which was first published in 1910.)
• Mueller, Gustav, 1958, “The Hegel Legend of ‘Synthesis-Antithesis-Thesis’”, Journal of the History of Ideas , 19(3): 411–14.
• Mure, G.R.G., 1950, A Study of Hegel’s Logic , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pinkard, Terry, 1988, Hegel’s Dialectic: The Explanation of a Possibility , Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Priest, Graham, 1985, “Inconsistencies in Motion”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 22(4): 339–346.
• –––, 1989, “Dialectic and Dialetheic”, Science and Society , 53(4): 388–415.
• –––, 1997 [2006], In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent , expanded edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press; first edition, Martinus Nijhoff, 1997.
• Popper, Karl R., 1940, “What is Dialectic?”, Mind , 49(196): 403–426. (This article was reprinted, with some changes, in two different editions of Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge , listed below.)
• –––, 1962, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge , New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 2002, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge , second edition, London: Routledge Classics.
• –––, 2013, The Open Society and its Enemies , Princeton: Princeton University Press. (This is a one-volume republication of the original, two-volume edition first published by Princeton University Press in 1945.)
• Rosen, Michael, 1982, Hegel’s Dialectic and its Criticism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rosen, Stanley, 2014, The Idea of Hegel’s “Science of Logic” , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Singer, Peter, 1983, Hegel , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Solomon, Robert C., 1983, In the Spirit of Hegel: A Study of G.W.F. Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit” , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Stace, W.T., 1955 [1924], The Philosophy of Hegel: A Systematic Exposition , New York: Dover Publications. (This edition is a reprint of the first edition, published in 1924.)
• Stewart, Jon, 1996, “Hegel’s Doctrine of Determinate Negation: An Example from ‘Sense-certainty’ and ‘Perception’”, Idealistic Studies , 26(1): 57–78.
• –––, 2000, The Unity of Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit”: A Systematic Interpretation , Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
• Taylor, Charles, 1975, Hegel , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wandschneider, Dieter, 2010, “Dialectic as the ‘Self-Fulfillment’ of Logic”, translated by Anthony Jensen, in The Dimensions of Hegel’s Dialectic , Nectarios G. Limmnatis (ed.), London: Continuum, pp. 31–54.
• Westphal, Kenneth R., 2003, Hegel’s Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the “Phenomenology of Spirit” , Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
• Winfield, Richard Dien, 1990, “The Method of Hegel’s Science of Logic ”, in Essays on Hegel’s Logic , George di Giovanni (ed.), Albany, NY: State University of New York, pp. 45–57.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Hegel on Dialectic , Philosophy Bites podcast interview with Robert Stern
• Hegel , Philosophy Talks preview video, interview notes and recorded radio interview with Allen Wood, which includes a discussion of Hegel’s dialectics

Aristotle | Aristotle, General Topics: logic | Fichte, Johann Gottlieb | Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich | Hume, David | Kant, Immanuel | Plato

Copyright © 2020 by Julie E. Maybee < julie . maybee @ lehman . cuny . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Persuasive Writing In Three Steps: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

April 14, 2021 by Ryan Law in

Great writing persuades. It persuades the reader that your product is right for them, that your process achieves the outcome they desire, that your opinion supersedes all other opinions. But spend an hour clicking around the internet and you’ll quickly realise that most content is passive, presenting facts and ideas without context or structure. The reader must connect the dots and create a convincing argument from the raw material presented to them. They rarely do, and for good reason: It’s hard work. The onus of persuasion falls on the writer, not the reader. Persuasive communication is a timeless challenge with an ancient solution. Zeno of Elea cracked it in the 5th century B.C. Georg Hegel gave it a lick of paint in the 1800s. You can apply it to your writing in three simple steps: thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

Use Dialectic to Find Logical Bedrock

“ Dialectic ” is a complicated-sounding idea with a simple meaning: It’s a structured process for taking two seemingly contradictory viewpoints and, through reasoned discussion, reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Over centuries of use the term has been burdened with the baggage of philosophy and academia. But at its heart, dialectics reflects a process similar to every spirited conversation or debate humans have ever had:

• Person A presents an idea: “We should travel to the Eastern waterhole because it’s closest to camp.”
• Person B disagrees and shares a counterargument: “I saw wolf prints on the Eastern trail, so we should go to the Western waterhole instead.”
• Person A responds to the counterargument , either disproving it or modifying their own stance to accommodate the criticism: “I saw those same wolf prints, but our party is large enough that the wolves won’t risk an attack.”
• Person B responds in a similar vein: “Ordinarily that would be true, but half of our party had dysentery last week so we’re not at full strength.”
• Person A responds: “They got dysentery from drinking at the Western waterhole.”

This process continues until conversational bedrock is reached: an idea that both parties understand and agree to, helped by the fact they’ve both been a part of the process that shaped it.

Dialectic is intended to help draw closer to the “truth” of an argument, tempering any viewpoint by working through and resolving its flaws. This same process can also be used to persuade.

Create Inevitability with Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis

The philosopher Georg Hegel is most famous for popularizing a type of dialectics that is particularly well-suited to writing: thesis, antithesis, synthesis (also known, unsurprisingly, as Hegelian Dialectic ).

• Thesis: Present the status quo, the viewpoint that is currently accepted and widely held.
• Antithesis: Articulate the problems with the thesis. (Hegel also called this phase “the negative.”)
• Synthesis: Share a new viewpoint (a modified thesis) that resolves the problems.

Hegel’s method focused less on the search for absolute truth and more on replacing old ideas with newer, more sophisticated versions . That, in a nutshell, is the same objective as much of content marketing (and particularly thought leadership content ): We’re persuading the reader that our product, processes, and ideas are better and more useful than the “old” way of doing things. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis (or TAS) is a persuasive writing structure because it:

• Reduces complex arguments into a simple three-act structure. Complicated, nuanced arguments are simplified into a clear, concise format that anyone can follow. This simplification reflects well on the author: It takes mastery of a topic to explain it in it the simplest terms.
• Presents a balanced argument by “steelmanning” the best objection. Strong, one-sided arguments can trigger reactance in the reader: They don’t want to feel duped. TAS gives voice to their doubts, addressing their best objection and “giv[ing] readers the chance to entertain the other side, making them feel as though they have come to an objective conclusion.”
• Creates a sense of inevitability. Like a story building to a satisfying conclusion, articles written with TAS take the reader on a structured, logical journey that culminates in precisely the viewpoint we wish to advocate for. Doubts are voiced, ideas challenged, and the conclusion reached feels more valid and concrete as a result.

There are two main ways to apply TAS to your writing: Use it beef up your introductions, or apply it to your article’s entire structure.

Writing Article Introductions with TAS

Take a moment to scroll back to the top of this article. If I’ve done my job correctly, you’ll notice a now familiar formula staring back at you: The first three paragraphs are built around Hegel’s thesis, antithesis, synthesis structure. Here’s what the introduction looked like during the outlining process . The first paragraph shares the thesis, the accepted idea that great writing should be persuasive:

Next up, the antithesis introduces a complicating idea, explaining why most content marketing isn’t all that persuasive:

Finally, the synthesis shares a new idea that serves to reconcile the two previous paragraphs: Content can be made persuasive by using the thesis, antithesis, synthesis framework. The meat of the article is then focused on the nitty-gritty of the synthesis.

Introductions are hard, but thesis, antithesis, synthesis offers a simple way to write consistently persuasive opening copy. In the space of three short paragraphs, the article’s key ideas are shared , the entire argument is summarised, and—hopefully—the reader is hooked.

Best of all, most articles—whether how-to’s, thought leadership content, or even list content—can benefit from Hegelian Dialectic , for the simple reason that every article introduction should be persuasive enough to encourage the reader to stick around.

Structuring Entire Articles with TAS

Harder, but most persuasive, is to use thesis, antithesis, synthesis to structure your entire article. This works best for thought leadership content. Here, your primary objective is to advocate for a new idea and disprove the old, tired way of thinking—exactly the use case Hegel intended for his dialectic. It’s less useful for content that explores and illustrates a process, because the primary objective is to show the reader how to do something (like this article—otherwise, I would have written the whole darn thing using the framework). Arjun Sethi’s article The Hive is the New Network is a great example.

The article’s primary purpose is to explain why the “old” model of social networks is outmoded and offer a newer, better framework. (It would be equally valid—but less punchy—to publish this with the title “ Why the Hive is the New Network.”) The thesis, antithesis, synthesis structure shapes the entire article:

• Thesis: Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram grew by creating networks “that brought existing real-world relationships online.”
• Antithesis: As these networks grow, the less useful they become, skewing towards bots, “celebrity, meme and business accounts.”
• Synthesis: To survive continued growth, these networks need to embrace a new structure and become hives.

With the argument established, the vast majority of the article is focused on synthesis. After all, it requires little elaboration to share the status quo in a particular situation, and it’s relatively easy to point out the problems with a given idea. The synthesis—the solution that needs to reconcile both thesis and antithesis—is the hardest part to tackle and requires the greatest word count. Throughout the article, Arjun is systematically addressing the “best objections” to his theory and demonstrating why the “Hive” is the best solution:

• Antithesis: Why now? Why didn’t Hives emerge in the first place?
• Thesis: We were limited by technology, but today, we have the necessary infrastructure: “We’re no longer limited to a broadcast radio model, where one signal is received by many nodes. ...We sync with each other instantaneously, and all the time.”
• Antithesis: If the Hive is so smart, why aren’t our brightest and best companies already embracing it?
• Thesis: They are, and autonomous cars are a perfect example: “Why are all these vastly different companies converging on the autonomous car? That’s because for these companies, it’s about platform and hive, not just about roads without drivers.”

It takes bravery to tackle objections head-on and an innate understanding of the subject matter to even identify objections in the first place, but the effort is worthwhile. The end result is a structured journey through the arguments for and against the “Hive,” with the reader eventually reaching the same conclusion as the author: that “Hives” are superior to traditional networks.

Destination: Persuasion

Persuasion isn’t about cajoling or coercing the reader. Statistics and anecdotes alone aren’t all that persuasive. Simply sharing a new idea and hoping that it will trigger an about-turn in the reader’s beliefs is wishful thinking. Instead, you should take the reader on a journey—the same journey you travelled to arrive at your newfound beliefs, whether it’s about the superiority of your product or the zeitgeist-changing trend that’s about to break. Hegelian Dialectic—thesis, antithesis, synthesis— is a structured process for doing precisely that. It contextualises your ideas and explains why they matter. It challenges the idea and strengthens it in the process. Using centuries-old processes, it nudges the 21st-century reader onto a well-worn path that takes them exactly where they need to go.

Ryan is the Content Director at Ahrefs and former CMO of Animalz.

Why ‘Vertical Volatility’ Is the Missing Link in Your Keyword Strategy

Get insight and analysis on the world's top SaaS brands, each and every Monday morning.

Success! Now check your email to confirm your subscription.

There was an error submitting your subscription. Please try again.

Newest Articles

• Exploring the Role of Research Design and Methodology
• Writing Essays and Articles on Philosophy
• Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Idealism: The History and Concepts of a Modern Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Theory of Forms
• Epistemology
• Materialism
• Moral relativism
• Utilitarianism
• Virtue ethics
• Normative ethics
• Applied ethics
• Moral Psychology
• Philosophy of art
• Philosophy of language
• Philosophy of beauty
• Nature of Art
• Philosophy of Film
• Philosophy of Music
• Deductive reasoning
• Inductive reasoning
• Justification
• Perception and Knowledge
• Beliefs and Truth
• Modern philosophy
• Romanticism
• Analytic philosophy
• Enlightenment philosophy
• Existentialism
• Enlightenment
• Ancient philosophy
• Classical Greek philosophy
• Renaissance philosophy
• Medieval philosophy
• Pre-Socratic philosophy
• Hellenistic philosophy
• Presocratic philosophy
• Rationalism
• Scholasticism
• Jewish philosophy
• Early Islamic philosophy
• Reasoning and Argumentation
• Seeking Justice After a Tractor-Trailer Accident: Why You Need an Experienced Lawyer
• Critical Thinking
• Fallacies and logical errors
• Skepticism and doubt
• Creative Thinking
• Lateral thinking
• Thought experiments
• Argumentation and Logic
• Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
• Fallacies and Rebuttals
• Inductive Reasoning and Analogy
• Reasoning and Problem-Solving
• Critical Thinking and Decision Making
• Creative Thinking and Problem Solving
• Analytical Thinking and Reasoning
• Philosophical Writing and Analysis
• Argumentative Writing and Analysis
• Interpreting Philosophical Texts
• Philosophical Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Research Design and Methodology
• Ethics and Morality
• Aesthetics and Beauty
• Metaphysical terms
• Ontological argument
• Ethical terms
• Aesthetic terms
• Metaphysical theories
• Kant's Categorical Imperative
• Aristotle's Four Causes
• Plato's Theory of Forms
• Hegel's Dialectic
• Ethical theories
• Aesthetic theories
• John Dewey's aesthetic theory
• Immanuel Kant's aesthetic theory
• Modern philosophical texts
• Foucault's The Order of Things
• Descartes' Meditations
• Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
• Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
• Ancient philosophical texts
• Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
• Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
• Plato's Republic
• Ancient philosophers
• Modern philosophers
• Modern philosophical schools
• German Idealism
• British Empiricism
• Ancient philosophical schools
• The Skeptic school
• The Cynic school
• The Stoic school
• The Epicurean school
• The Socratic school
• Philosophy of Language
• Semantics and Pragmatics of Language Usage
• Analytic-Synthetic Distinction
• Meaning of Words and Phrases
• Philosophy of Science
• Scientific Realism and Rationalism
• Induction and the Hypothetico-Deductive Model
• Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
• Philosophy of Mind
• Mind-Body Dualism and Emergentism
• Materialism and Physicalism
• Identity Theory and Personal Identity
• Philosophy of Religion
• Religious Pluralism and Exclusivism
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering
• Religious Experience and Faith
• Metaphysical Theories
• Idealism and Realism
• Determinism, Fatalism, and Libertarianism
• Phenomenalism and Nominalism
• Epistemological Theories
• Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism
• Rationalism and Empiricism
• Foundationalism and Coherentism
• Aesthetic Theories
• Formalist Aesthetics, Emotional Aesthetics, Experiential Aesthetics
• Relational Aesthetics, Sociological Aesthetics, Historical Aesthetics
• Naturalistic Aesthetics, Immanent Aesthetics, Transcendental Aesthetics
• Ethical Theories
• Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Deontology
• Subjectivism, Egoism, Hedonism
• Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, Care Ethics
• Metaphysical Terms
• Cause, Necessity, Possibility, Impossibility
• Identity, Persistence, Time, Space
• Substance, Attribute, Essence, Accident
• Logic and Argumentation Terms
• Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction, Induction
• Inference, Validity, Soundness, Refutation
• Premise, Conclusion, Entailment, Contradiction
• Epistemological Terms
• Perception and Knowledge Claims
• Infallibility, Verifiability, Coherence Theory of Truth
• Justification, Beliefs and Truths
• Ethical Terms
• Modern Texts
• A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft
• Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
• The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
• Medieval Texts
• The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides
• The Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas
• The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Averroes
• Ancient Texts
• The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
• The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero
• The Republic by Plato
• Hegel's Dialectic: A Comprehensive Overview
• Philosophical theories

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's dialectic is one of the most influential philosophical theories of the modern era. It has been studied and debated for centuries, and its influence can be seen in many aspects of modern thought. Hegel's dialectic has been used to explain a wide range of topics from politics to art, from science to religion. In this comprehensive overview, we will explore the major tenets of Hegel's dialectic and its implications for our understanding of the world. Hegel's dialectic is based on the premise that all things have an inherent contradiction between their opposites.

It follows that any idea or concept can be understood through a synthesis of the two opposing forces. This synthesis creates a new and higher understanding, which then leads to further progress and development. Hegel's dialectic has been used in many different fields, from philosophy to economics, and it provides an important framework for understanding how our world works. In this article, we will explore the historical origins and development of Hegel's dialectic. We will also examine its application in various fields, from politics to art, from science to religion.

Finally, we will consider the implications of Hegel's dialectic for our understanding of the world today. Hegel's dialectic is a philosophical theory developed by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the early 19th century. It is based on the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis , which are steps in the process of progress. The thesis is an idea or statement that is the starting point of an argument. The antithesis is a statement that contradicts or negates the thesis.

The synthesis is a combination of the two opposing ideas, which produces a new idea or statement. This process can be repeated multiple times, leading to an evolution of ideas. Hegel's dialectic has been used in many fields, such as politics and economics . It has been used to explain how ideas progress through debate and discussion.

In politics, it has been used to explain how different points of view can lead to compromise or resolution. In economics, it has been used to explain how different economic theories can lead to new solutions and strategies. Hegel's dialectic can also be applied to everyday life. For example, it can be used to resolve conflicts between people or groups.

Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis

Thesis and antithesis are two conflicting ideas, while synthesis is the result of their interaction. The dialectic process is a way of understanding how the world works, as it helps to explain the constant flux of ideas and events. It also helps to explain how change and progress are possible. Thesis and antithesis can be thought of as two sides of a coin. One side represents an idea or opinion, while the other side represents its opposite.

When the two sides come together, they create a synthesis that incorporates both sides. This synthesis can then be used to create new ideas or opinions. The dialectic process can be applied in various contexts, such as politics and economics. In politics, it can be used to explain how different factions come together to create policies that are beneficial to all parties. In economics, it can be used to explain how supply and demand interact to create a stable market. Hegel's dialectic can also be used in everyday life.

Applications of Hegel's Dialectic

For example, in the political sphere, it can be used to explore how different ideologies can be reconciled or how compromises can be reached. In economics, Hegel's dialectic has been used to explain the process of economic growth and development. It can be seen as a way of understanding how different economic systems interact with each other and how different economic actors are affected by changes in the marketplace. For example, it can help to explain how different economic policies can lead to different outcomes. Hegel's dialectic has also been applied to other social sciences, such as sociology and anthropology. In particular, it has been used to explore how different social systems interact with each other and how different social groups are affected by changes in their environment.

Using Hegel's Dialectic in Everyday Life

This process can be used to explain how various aspects of life, such as career or relationships, evolve over time. Thesis represents an idea or concept, while antithesis represents the opposite of that idea or concept. Synthesis is the resolution between the two opposing forces. This process is repeated until a conclusion is reached.

For example, in a career conflict between two people, one might present an idea while the other presents the opposite idea. Through discussion and negotiation, the two parties can come to a synthesis that meets both their needs. Hegel's dialectic can also be used to resolve conflicts between groups of people. It involves each party presenting their ideas and opinions, then engaging in dialogue to reach a compromise or agreement.

This process can be applied to any area of life, from politics and economics to relationships and personal growth. It helps to create understanding and respect between different perspectives, allowing everyone to come together in a meaningful way. By understanding and applying Hegel's dialectic in everyday life, we can better navigate our relationships and interactions with others. Through dialogue, negotiation, and compromise we can work towards resolutions that benefit all parties involved.

In economics, it has been used to explain how market forces interact with each other and how different economic theories can be used to explain the same phenomenon. The dialectic has also been used in other fields such as philosophy, science, and psychology. In philosophy, it has been used to explain the relationship between theory and practice and how theories evolve over time. In science, it has been used to explain the relationship between empirical evidence and logical reasoning.

This theory can be applied to any area of life, from career to relationships. The core of Hegel's dialectic involves the concept of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, which is a way of understanding how ideas evolve over time. In this way, the dialectic helps to identify contradictions in a situation and find a resolution through synthesis. In terms of its application to everyday life, the dialectic can be used to find common ground between two opposing sides. For example, if two people are in disagreement, the dialectic can help them identify the underlying issues and then work to resolve them.

Additionally, it can help individuals and groups identify areas where they have common interests, which can lead to more productive conversations and outcomes. The dialectic is also useful in understanding how different perspectives can lead to different solutions. By recognizing different points of view, individuals and groups can gain insight into why certain solutions may not work for everyone involved. This can help to create a more productive environment for collaboration. Finally, the dialectic can be used as a tool for self-reflection. By understanding how different ideas evolve over time and how different perspectives interact, individuals can gain insight into their own views and values.

For example, it can be used to explain the development of a new policy proposal or a new form of government. In economics, Hegel's dialectic can be used to explain the dynamics of supply and demand, or the emergence of a new economic system. In addition, Hegel's dialectic has been applied in other areas, such as education and religion. In education, this theory can be used to explain the process of learning and understanding new concepts. In religion, it can be used to explain the evolution of religious beliefs and practices over time.

This is followed by a synthesis of the two, which creates a new, higher form of understanding. This new understanding then forms the basis for further analysis, which can lead to further synthesis and resolution. Hegel's dialectic can be applied to any area of life, such as career or relationships. For example, if two people have different approaches to a problem, they can use the dialectic to work together to find a solution that works for both of them.

This could involve identifying their respective points of view and then looking for common ground where they can agree. As the synthesis forms, it can provide a basis for further discussion, which may eventually lead to a resolution. The same process can be used to resolve conflicts between groups, such as political parties or countries. By recognizing each side's point of view and then looking for common ground, it is possible to find ways to bridge the divide between them.

This can help create an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect, which can lead to constructive dialogue and positive outcomes. Hegel's dialectic is a valuable tool for helping people and groups come to agreement and harmony despite their differences. By recognizing both sides' points of view and then looking for common ground, it is possible to create a synthesis that can provide a basis for further discussion and resolution. Hegel's dialectic is a powerful philosophical tool that helps to explain how ideas evolve over time. Through the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, it provides a framework for understanding how opposing forces interact and ultimately create new ideas and solutions.

This theory has been applied to many areas, such as politics and economics, and can be used in everyday life. The article has provided a comprehensive overview of Hegel's dialectic and its various applications.

Top Articles

• Understanding Existentialism: A Brief Introduction

• Foundationalism and Coherentism: An Overview

• Lateral Thinking: An Overview
• Exploring Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
• Understanding Utilitarianism: A Guide
• Exploring Plato's Theory of Forms
• Exploring the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant
• Exploring the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction in Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Art: Exploring Aesthetics and Beauty
• Exploring Expression: A Philosophical and Aesthetic Overview
• The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring the Philosophy of Beauty
• Induction and the Hypothetico-Deductive Model: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring the Life and Works of David Hume
• Philosophy of Film: Exploring Aesthetics and Types of Philosophy
• Understanding Inference, Validity, Soundness, and Refutation
• Materialism and Physicalism: Exploring the Philosophical Concepts
• Analytic Philosophy: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
• Exploring Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, and Care Ethics
• Analytic Philosophy: A Primer
• Exploring the Phenomenon: A Philosophical and Metaphysical Investigation
• Exploring the Theory of Forms: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Aesthetic Theories: Formalism, Emotionalism and Experientialism
• The Stoic School: An Overview
• Exploring Cosmology: What We Know and What We Don't
• Virtue Ethics: What it is and How it Works
• Exploring Plato's Republic
• Understanding Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism and Deontology
• Early Islamic Philosophy
• Idealism and Realism: A Philosophical Comparison
• A Comprehensive Overview of Kant's Categorical Imperative
• Exploring the History and Impact of Empiricism
• Exploring 'The Summa Theologiae' by Thomas Aquinas
• A Comprehensive Overview of Foucault's The Order of Things
• Aristotle: A Comprehensive Overview
• Understanding Inductive Reasoning
• Exploring Subjectivism, Egoism and Hedonism
• Exploring Skepticism and Doubt: A Philosophical and Critical Thinking Perspective
• Exploring Hellenistic Philosophy: An Introduction
• Exploring Rationalism and Empiricism
• Understanding Inductive Reasoning and Analogy
• Altruism: Exploring the Power of Selflessness
• Exploring Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• An Introduction to Scholasticism and its Role in Medieval Philosophy

Exploring the Rationalism of Renaissance Philosophy

• Exploring Theology: A Comprehensive Overview

Understanding Fallacies and Rebuttals

• Exploring the Concept of Beauty
• Exploring Inference: A Philosophical Thinking Primer
• Exploring Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
• Understanding Utilitarianism
• Exploring Religious Pluralism and Exclusivism
• Exploring Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
• Exploring Moral Psychology: A Closer Look
• The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Pre-Socratic Philosophy: An Overview
• Understanding Fallacies and Logical Errors
• Exploring Virtue: A Philosophical and Ethical Perspective
• Deontology: An Introduction to an Ethical Theory
• Substance, Attribute, Essence, and Accident: A Philosophical and Metaphysical Overview
• Perception and Knowledge: An Overview
• Justification: A Comprehensive Overview
• Classical Greek Philosophy: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Virtue Ethics: The Philosophical Theory
• Medieval Philosophy: An Overview
• Exploring Noumenon: A Philosophical and Metaphysical Overview
• A Comprehensive Overview of Presocratic Philosophy
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering: A Philosophical Exploration
• Epistemology: Understanding the Nature of Knowledge
• An Overview of Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra
• Exploring the Concept of Idealism
• Understanding Deontology: Ethics and Principles
• Exploring Identity, Persistence, Time, and Space
• Exploring the Skeptic School of Ancient Philosophy
• Exploring Aristotle's Four Causes
• The Cynic School: An In-depth Look
• Exploring Infallibility, Verifiability, and the Coherence Theory of Truth
• Exploring Egoism: What It Is and What It Means
• Understanding the Meaning of Words and Phrases
• Exploring the Socratic School: An Overview
• Explore The Epicurean School of Ancient Philosophy
• Exploring Jewish Philosophy
• Philosophy of Music: Exploring the Aesthetics of Sound
• Understanding Utilitarianism: An Overview
• Comparing Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction and Induction

Exploring Ontology: A Comprehensive Overview

• Exploring the Life and Work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
• Exploring Deductive Reasoning

New Articles

Which cookies do you want to accept?

• Scholarly Community Encyclopedia
• Log in/Sign up

Video Upload Options

• MDPI and ACS Style
• Chicago Style

In philosophy, the triad of thesis, antithesis, synthesis (German: These, Antithese, Synthese; originally: Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis) is a progression of three ideas or propositions. The first idea, the thesis, is a formal statement illustrating a point; it is followed by the second idea, the antithesis, that contradicts or negates the first; and lastly, the third idea, the synthesis, resolves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis. It is often used to explain the dialectical method of German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, but Hegel never used the terms himself; instead his triad was concrete, abstract, absolute. The thesis, antithesis, synthesis triad actually originated with Johann Fichte.

1. History of the Idea

Thomas McFarland (2002), in his Prolegomena to Coleridge's Opus Maximum , [ 1 ] identifies Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason (1781) as the genesis of the thesis/antithesis dyad. Kant concretises his ideas into:

• Thesis: "The world has a beginning in time, and is limited with regard to space."
• Antithesis: "The world has no beginning and no limits in space, but is infinite, in respect to both time and space."

Inasmuch as conjectures like these can be said to be resolvable, Fichte's Grundlage der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre ( Foundations of the Science of Knowledge , 1794) resolved Kant's dyad by synthesis, posing the question thus: [ 1 ]

• No synthesis is possible without a preceding antithesis. As little as antithesis without synthesis, or synthesis without antithesis, is possible; just as little possible are both without thesis.

Fichte employed the triadic idea "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" as a formula for the explanation of change. [ 2 ] Fichte was the first to use the trilogy of words together, [ 3 ] in his Grundriss des Eigentümlichen der Wissenschaftslehre, in Rücksicht auf das theoretische Vermögen (1795, Outline of the Distinctive Character of the Wissenschaftslehre with respect to the Theoretical Faculty ): "Die jetzt aufgezeigte Handlung ist thetisch, antithetisch und synthetisch zugleich." ["The action here described is simultaneously thetic, antithetic, and synthetic." [ 4 ] ]

Still according to McFarland, Schelling then, in his Vom Ich als Prinzip der Philosophie (1795), arranged the terms schematically in pyramidal form.

According to Walter Kaufmann (1966), although the triad is often thought to form part of an analysis of historical and philosophical progress called the Hegelian dialectic, the assumption is erroneous: [ 5 ]

Whoever looks for the stereotype of the allegedly Hegelian dialectic in Hegel's Phenomenology will not find it. What one does find on looking at the table of contents is a very decided preference for triadic arrangements. ... But these many triads are not presented or deduced by Hegel as so many theses, antitheses, and syntheses. It is not by means of any dialectic of that sort that his thought moves up the ladder to absolute knowledge.

Gustav E. Mueller (1958) concurs that Hegel was not a proponent of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, and clarifies what the concept of dialectic might have meant in Hegel's thought. [ 6 ]

"Dialectic" does not for Hegel mean "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." Dialectic means that any "ism" – which has a polar opposite, or is a special viewpoint leaving "the rest" to itself – must be criticized by the logic of philosophical thought, whose problem is reality as such, the "World-itself".

According to Mueller, the attribution of this tripartite dialectic to Hegel is the result of "inept reading" and simplistic translations which do not take into account the genesis of Hegel's terms:

Hegel's greatness is as indisputable as his obscurity. The matter is due to his peculiar terminology and style; they are undoubtedly involved and complicated, and seem excessively abstract. These linguistic troubles, in turn, have given rise to legends which are like perverse and magic spectacles – once you wear them, the text simply vanishes. Theodor Haering's monumental and standard work has for the first time cleared up the linguistic problem. By carefully analyzing every sentence from his early writings, which were published only in this century, he has shown how Hegel's terminology evolved – though it was complete when he began to publish. Hegel's contemporaries were immediately baffled, because what was clear to him was not clear to his readers, who were not initiated into the genesis of his terms. An example of how a legend can grow on inept reading is this: Translate "Begriff" by "concept," "Vernunft" by "reason" and "Wissenschaft" by "science" – and they are all good dictionary translations – and you have transformed the great critic of rationalism and irrationalism into a ridiculous champion of an absurd pan-logistic rationalism and scientism. The most vexing and devastating Hegel legend is that everything is thought in "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." [ 7 ]

Karl Marx (1818–1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820–1895) adopted and extended the triad, especially in Marx's The Poverty of Philosophy (1847). Here, in Chapter 2, Marx is obsessed by the word "thesis"; [ 8 ] it forms an important part of the basis for the Marxist theory of history. [ 9 ]

2. Writing Pedagogy

In modern times, the dialectic of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis has been implemented across the world as a strategy for organizing expositional writing. For example, this technique is taught as a basic organizing principle in French schools: [ 10 ]

The French learn to value and practice eloquence from a young age. Almost from day one, students are taught to produce plans for their compositions, and are graded on them. The structures change with fashions. Youngsters were once taught to express a progression of ideas. Now they follow a dialectic model of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. If you listen carefully to the French arguing about any topic they all follow this model closely: they present an idea, explain possible objections to it, and then sum up their conclusions. ... This analytical mode of reasoning is integrated into the entire school corpus.

Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis has also been used as a basic scheme to organize writing in the English language. For example, the website WikiPreMed.com advocates the use of this scheme in writing timed essays for the MCAT standardized test: [ 11 ]

For the purposes of writing MCAT essays, the dialectic describes the progression of ideas in a critical thought process that is the force driving your argument. A good dialectical progression propels your arguments in a way that is satisfying to the reader. The thesis is an intellectual proposition. The antithesis is a critical perspective on the thesis. The synthesis solves the conflict between the thesis and antithesis by reconciling their common truths, and forming a new proposition.

• Samuel Taylor Coleridge: Opus Maximum. Princeton University Press, 2002, p. 89.
• Harry Ritter, Dictionary of Concepts in History. Greenwood Publishing Group (1986), p.114
• Williams, Robert R. (1992). Recognition: Fichte and Hegel on the Other. SUNY Press. p. 46, note 37. 
• Fichte, Johann Gottlieb; Breazeale, Daniel (1993). Fichte: Early Philosophical Writings. Cornell University Press. p. 249. 
• Walter Kaufmann (1966). "§ 37". Hegel: A Reinterpretation. Anchor Books. ISBN 978-0-268-01068-3. OCLC 3168016. https://archive.org/details/hegelreinterpret00kauf. 
• Mueller, Gustav (1958). "The Hegel Legend of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis"". Journal of the History of Ideas 19 (4): 411–414. doi:10.2307/2708045.  https://dx.doi.org/10.2307%2F2708045
• Mueller 1958, p. 411.
• marxists.org: Chapter 2 of "The Poverty of Philosophy", by Karl Marx https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02.htm
• Shrimp, Kaleb (2009). "The Validity of Karl Marx's Theory of Historical Materialism". Major Themes in Economics 11 (1): 35–56. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/mtie/vol11/iss1/5/. Retrieved 13 September 2018. 
• Nadeau, Jean-Benoit; Barlow, Julie (2003). Sixty Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong: Why We Love France But Not The French. Sourcebooks, Inc.. p. 62. https://archive.org/details/sixtymillionfren00nade_041. 
• "The MCAT writing assignment.". Wisebridge Learning Systems, LLC. http://www.wikipremed.com/mcat_essay.php. Retrieved 1 November 2015. 

• Terms and Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Advisory Board

What is Dialectic Materialism: Basic Methodology of Marx

Karl Marx is one of the most influential thinkers in the history of sociology, and his concept of dialectic materialism is a central aspect of his political and economic philosophy. Dialectical materialism refers to the theory that human history is shaped by the interaction between the material conditions of society and the ideas, values, and beliefs of individuals.

Marx believed that the material conditions of society, including the means of production, the distribution of wealth and resources, and the structure of the economy, are the primary determinants of social and political life. These material conditions are not fixed or eternal, but are constantly in flux, subject to change and development over time.

The material conditions of society, according to Marx, give rise to conflicting social classes, each with its own interests and objectives. The struggle between these classes, in turn, drives the process of historical development and leads to the transformation of social and economic systems. This struggle is the dialectical process, which involves the synthesis of opposing forces and the creation of something new and different.

Marx’s concept of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is a central aspect of his theory of dialectical materialism. This concept refers to a process of change and development in which an existing idea, system, or condition (thesis) is challenged by an opposing force (antithesis) and the two are ultimately synthesized into a new, integrated, and higher-level idea or condition (synthesis).

The concept of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis is based on the idea that change and development occur through the resolution of contradictions. The thesis represents the existing state of affairs, while the antithesis represents the opposing forces that challenge it. The synthesis is the result of the resolution of the contradictions between the thesis and antithesis.

For Marx, the material conditions of society, including the means of production, the distribution of wealth and resources, and the structure of the economy, are the primary determinants of social and political life. These material conditions give rise to conflicting social classes, each with its own interests and objectives. The struggle between these classes is the dialectical process, which involves the synthesis of opposing forces and the creation of something new and different.

For example, Marx viewed the capitalist system as the thesis, and the working class as the antithesis. The struggle between the capitalist class and the working class leads to the synthesis of a new and higher-level social and economic system, such as socialism.

Marx argued that the process of historical development is not linear or predictable, but is shaped by the contradictions and conflicts that arise from the contradictions between the material conditions of society and the ideas and values of individuals. He saw history as a process of continuous change and development, driven by the struggle between different classes and the contradictions that arise from the material conditions of society.

Marx also believed that the ideas, values, and beliefs of individuals are shaped by the material conditions of society. He argued that individuals’ consciousness is determined by their social and economic conditions, and that ideas and beliefs are products of material reality, rather than the other way around.

Marx’s theory of dialectical materialism was developed in response to the idealist philosophical traditions of the time, which saw ideas and beliefs as the primary determinants of social and political life. Marx rejected this view and argued that it was the material conditions of society that shaped ideas, rather than the other way around.

Marx’s concept of dialectical materialism was central to his political and economic philosophy. He believed that the exploitation of the working class by the ruling class was the result of the material conditions of capitalism, and that the only way to achieve a fair and just society was to overthrow the capitalist system and establish a socialist society based on collective ownership of the means of production.

Marx’s ideas have had a profound impact on sociology and other social sciences, and his concept of dialectical materialism continues to be a subject of debate and discussion among scholars. Some view his ideas as outdated and irrelevant, while others see them as a powerful tool for understanding the complexities of contemporary society and the challenges facing the world today.

In conclusion, Karl Marx’s concept of dialectical materialism is a central aspect of his political and economic philosophy and continues to be a subject of debate and discussion among scholars. Marx believed that the material conditions of society are the primary determinants of social and political life, and that the struggle between conflicting social classes drives the process of historical development. He saw history as a process of continuous change and development, driven by the contradictions and conflicts that arise from the material conditions of society and the ideas and values of individuals. Despite its controversies, Marx’s concept of dialectical materialism remains an important part of the intellectual heritage of sociology and continues to shape our understanding of the social and political world.

Related Posts

Discourse, power and knowledge – by michel foucault (2022), talcott parsons: the social system, and general action theory (1952), leave a comment cancel reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

What Is Dialectics? What Is The Triad Thesis?

Hegel’s dialectical triad, the synthesis, dialectical materialism and marxism, limitations of dialectics.

Dialectics underscores reality’s dynamic and contradictory nature, as seen in the Hegelian triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

Dialectics is a philosophical concept that originates from ancient Greek philosophy and has been developed and refined over centuries by various thinkers. At its core, dialectics is a way of reasoning and understanding the world that emphasizes reality’s dynamic, interconnected, and contradictory nature. 

The term ‘dialectics’ comes from the Greek word ‘dialektikḗ,’ which means the art of conversation or discussion. In the classical Greek tradition, dialectics was associated with the Socratic method of questioning and refuting opposing arguments to arrive at a deeper truth. 

In modern philosophy, dialectics has taken on a more specific meaning, implying a contradictory process between opposing sides that aims to supersede the logic of reductio ad absurdum . 

This means that if the premises of an argument result in a contradiction, the premises are false, rendering one either devoid of premises or devoid of any substantive foundation.

Recommended Video for you:

Hegel’s conception of dialectics is centered around the idea of a triad, which consists of three interconnected elements: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

The thesis represents the initial, established idea or position that serves as the starting point of the dialectical process. It is the generally accepted or dominant view on a particular issue or topic, providing a foundation upon which the dialectical exploration begins. The thesis is not necessarily absolute or infallible; it is simply the initial point of departure for the dialectical inquiry. It can be a specific theory, belief, social norm, or any established understanding that is widely held or considered the norm.

The antithesis is the opposing idea or position that arises in reaction to the thesis. It challenges and contradicts the existing thesis, often by highlighting its limitations, inconsistencies, or flaws. The antithesis represents a different perspective, a counterargument, or an alternative way of understanding the same issue or topic.

It emerges as a response to the perceived inadequacies or shortcomings of the thesis, introducing a new element, a different set of assumptions, or a contrasting approach that challenges the status quo. The antithesis is not merely a negation of the thesis; it is a necessary component of the dialectical process, as it pushes the dialogue forward.

Also Read: What Is Metaphysics?

The  synthesis  is the resolution or reconciliation of the thesis and the antithesis. It represents a new, higher-level understanding that incorporates elements of both the thesis and the antithesis, while transcending their limitations. The synthesis is not a simple compromise or a midpoint between the two opposing positions; rather, it is a qualitatively different perspective that combines and transforms the previous viewpoints.

The synthesis arises from the dynamic interaction and tension between the thesis and the antithesis, as they challenge and inform each other. It represents a more comprehensive, nuanced, and integrated  understanding  of the issue or topic at hand.

The synthesis does not necessarily negate or completely discard the thesis and antithesis; instead, it incorporates their valuable aspects and elevates the discourse to a new level. This new synthesis then becomes the new thesis, leading to the emergence of a new antithesis, and the cycle continues, driving the dialectical process forward.

The thesis and antithesis are not seen as static, fixed entities, but rather as constantly evolving and interacting with one another. The synthesis, in turn, becomes a new thesis, which is then challenged by a new antithesis, leading to a further synthesis, and so on. Hegel saw this perpetual cycle  of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis as the driving force behind the development of knowledge, society, and history.

The Industrial Revolution exemplifies the dialectical process. The thesis was the dominance of traditional agricultural and craft-based economic systems. The antithesis was the rise of industrialization, mechanization, and the factory system. The synthesis was the development of modern capitalist industrial societies with new social classes, technologies, and economic structures.

Hegel’s dialectical philosophy had a profound influence on the development of Marxism and the idea of dialectical materialism. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founders of Marxism, appropriated and transformed Hegel’s dialectics to fit their materialist, revolutionary worldview. In Marxist dialectical materialism, the focus shifts from the realm of ideas to the material, economic, and social conditions of human existence. The dialectical process is seen as the driving force behind the development of human societies and the class struggle.

The Marxist dialectical triad reworks the 3 components. Thesis becomes the existing mode of production, social relations, and the dominant class in a given society. Antithesis is the contradictions and conflicts within the existing social and economic system, which give rise to the oppressed class. Synthesis is the revolutionary transformation of the social and economic system, leading to a new, more just and equitable society.

For Marxists, the dialectical process is not simply an abstract philosophical concept, but a tool for understanding and transforming the material world. The goal of dialectical materialism is to identify and resolve the inherent contradictions within capitalist society, leading to a socialist revolution and the establishment of a communist society.

Also Read: Can History Be Changed By People?

Despite its widespread influence, dialectics has also faced significant criticism and limitations. The Hegelian-Marxist triad of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis has been criticized for being too simplistic and unable to capture the full complexity of real-world phenomena.

Dialectical theories have been accused of exhibiting a deterministic view of history, suggesting that the dialectical process inevitably leads to a predetermined outcome. Some critics also argue that dialectical theories lack sufficient empirical evidence and are more rooted in philosophical speculation than in rigorous scientific observation and testing.

Dialectical theories, particularly in the Marxist tradition, have been criticized for being heavily influenced by ideological and political agendas, rather than being purely objective and scientific, and for downplaying the role of individual agency and free will in shaping historical and social developments.

Despite these criticisms, dialectics remain a powerful and influential philosophical framework that continues to be debated and developed by thinkers across various disciplines. Its emphasis on the dynamic, contradictory, and interconnected nature of reality has inspired many to challenge traditional, static, and linear modes of thinking and to seek a more nuanced understanding of the complex world in which we live.

At its core, dialectics emphasizes the dynamic, interconnected, and contradictory nature of reality, and the constant process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis that drives the development of knowledge, society, and history.

While dialectics has faced significant criticism and limitations, it remains a powerful and influential framework for understanding the world around us. By embracing the dialectical perspective, we can challenge our assumptions, engage with opposing viewpoints, and strive for a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the complex and ever-changing reality we inhabit.

• What is Dialectic?.
• Dialectic Creativity, Based Upon Hegel's Triad of Thesis, ....
• Hegel's Dialectics - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Mueller, G. E. (1958, June). The Hegel Legend of "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis". Journal of the History of Ideas. JSTOR.

Shreya Sethi is currently a law student at National Academy of Legal Studies & Research (NALSAR) University, Hyderabad. She likes to believe that she was born with a book in her hand and that she has subsequently only replaced it occasionally to suit her reading list. She also enjoys a good cup of tea as she watches a better sunset. She is passionate about history, arguably, the greatest story ever told

What Are Syllogisms?

Why Isn’t Nihilism Perceived Positively?

Orientalism: Definition, History, Explanation, Examples And Criticism

How Has The Atomic Model Evolved Over The Years?

Münchhausen Trilemma: Is It Possible To Prove Any Truth?

Right Wing Vs. Left Wing: What’s The Difference?

What is an Ethical Dilemma?

What Makes a Hero?

Photosynthesis: The Biochemistry Behind How Plants Make Their Food

What is Calculus in Math? Simple Explanation with Examples

Quantum Physics: Here’s Why Movies Always Get It Wrong

Is Mathematics INVENTED or DISCOVERED?

• Corrections

What Is Hegel’s Dialectic Method?

A brief presentation of Hegel’s metaphysical doctrine, while exploring his conception of logic and dialectic method.

When considering Hegel’s contribution to logic, nothing is more significant than his dialectic method. The method is prevalent in almost all of his works, the most notable being Logic , Philosophy of History , and Phenomenology of Spirit . He describes it as “the only true method” and the basic principle of all his theories. Thanks to his dialectics, we get the peculiar kind of philosophy that he comes up with. But what does the dialectic method consist of? And, more importantly, how did it shape his philosophy?

Hegel’s Conception of Logic

First, let’s look at Hegel’s conception of logic to understand his dialectic method in its entirety. In the introduction to his Science of Logic , Hegel tells us that the goal of logic is truth. However, he is not referring to the traditional understanding of logic, analyzing the statement purely by its form and not diving into the content of it. Because, after all, the content can be anything. Logic usually studies forms of argument such as follows:

Everything that is A is B

Therefore, x is B

Get the latest articles delivered to your inbox

Please check your inbox to activate your subscription.

Here, we have a form without content. We could write ‘human’, ‘mortal’, and ‘Socrates’ for A, B, or x. The argument would be valid in either case but not necessarily true. That’s why logicians conclude that logic tells us nothing about the actual world. Hegel takes this stance as well. And when he says that the goal of logic is truth, he is certainly not referring to the formal logic we mentioned here but to something else. Logic, he says, is the study of thought. But in his Phenomenology of Spirit, he shows that there is no objective reality independent of thought. Thought is objective reality, and objective reality is thought. Therefore, when logic studies thought, it must also be studying reality.

So, in saying that logic is not about the world of nature, Hegel accepts part of the traditional view. However, he goes further with the idea that reality, or truth, can be found only in the world of nature and people. Ultimate reality is to be found in what is mental or intellectual, not in what is material. It is to be found in rational thought. Logic is the study of this ultimate reality in its pure form, abstracted from the particular forms it takes in the finite minds of human beings or the natural world.

The Dialectic Method

Now, let’s see the connection between logic and the dialectic method to determine precisely what the method consists of. Hegel describes the dialectic method as “the only true method” of scholarly and scientific exposition. He uses this method in Logic to uncover the form of pure thought.

Let’s explain his dialectic with an example from his Philosophy of History . Here, Hegel tells us that one immense dialectical movement has dominated world history from the Greek world to the present. Greece was a society based on customary morality, a harmonious society in which citizens identified themselves with the community and had no thought of acting in opposition. This customary community forms the starting point of the dialectical movement known as the thesis .

The next stage is for the thesis to show itself to be inadequate or inconsistent. In ancient Greece, this inadequacy is revealed through the life and death of Socrates. Socrates was the one who initiated the citizens of the community to think for themselves, and thus, intellectual thought was born. As a result, the community based on custom collapsed in the name of the principle of independent thought. This reformation brings acceptance of the supreme right of individual conscience. The harmony of the Greek community has been lost, but freedom is triumphant. This is the second stage of the dialectical movement. It is the opposite or negation of the first stage, known as antithesis .

The second stage then also shows itself to be inadequate. Freedom, taken by itself, turns out to be too abstract and barren to serve as the basis of society. When put into practice, the principle of absolute freedom turns into the terror of the French Revolution . We can then see that individuals’ customary harmony and abstract freedom are one-sided. They must be brought together and unified in a manner that preserves them and avoids their different forms of one-sidedness. This results in a third and more adequate stage, the synthesis .

In the Philosophy of History, the synthesis in the overall dialectic movement is the German society of Hegel’s time. He saw it as harmonious because it was an organic community yet preserved individual freedom because it was rationally organized. To summarize, every dialectical movement takes the following path:

thesis – antithesis – synthesis 

Every dialectical movement terminates with a synthesis, but not every synthesis stops the dialectic process. The synthesis, though adequately reconciling the previous thesis and antithesis, will be one-sided in some other aspect. It will then serve as the thesis for a new dialectical movement, so the process will continue.

In Logic, the same method is applied to the abstract categories in which we think. Hegel starts with the most indeterminate concept: being, or bare existence. Pure being, he says, is pure indeterminateness. Pure being has in it no object for thought to grasp. It is entirely empty. In fact, it is nothing. From this beginning, the dialectic of his Logic moves forward. The first thesis, being , has turned into its antithesis, nothing . Being and nothing are opposite and the same – their truth, therefore, is that movement into and apart from each other. In other words, it is becoming . So, the dialectic leads on and on (Peter Singer, Hegel: A Very Short Introduction, 103).

For Hegel, dialectics is a method of exposition, and it works because the world works dialectically.

The Absolute Idea

The dialectic method has its end in the absolute idea. It is the ending point for the method – from the thesis to the antithesis, then with the synthesis, we try to overcome the one-sidedness until we reach “the absolute idea.”

It seems as though the Logic parallels the Phenomenology of Spirit , except that it moves in the realm of concepts instead of in the realm of consciousness. Accordingly, it has as its goal not absolute knowledge but the absolute idea itself. But what is the absolute idea? Well, it is everything. Although that may seem like we’re explaining too much with just one word, it literally means everything. Hegel says that the absolute idea “contains every determinate-ness.” By that, he means that it includes within itself every determinate or distinct thing – every human being, every tree, every star, every flower, every grain of sand. Nature and mind, he says, are different ways in which their existence is manifested – they are different forms of the absolute idea.

It is the essence of the absolute idea to manifest itself in distinct, limited forms and then return to itself. Self-comprehension is the form in which it returns to itself. This is the process we observed in his Logic , Philosophy of History, and the Phenomenology of Spirit .

The End of Transcendental Idealism

Hegel’s dialectic approach, known as Absolute Idealism or Absolute Spirit, can be seen as a response to Kant’s dualism between the noumenal and phenomenal realms. Hegel rejected the notion of a fixed and unknowable realm of things-in-themselves and instead proposed that reality is fundamentally a dynamic and interconnected process.

According to Hegel, reality unfolds through a dialectical process of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. He argued that the development of consciousness and knowledge occurs through the clash and reconciliation of opposing concepts or categories. Hegel believed that an inherent impulse toward self-realization and self-understanding drives the movement of thought, history, and spirit.

In Hegel’s view, the Absolute Spirit is the ultimate reality that encompasses and transcends all particular manifestations of thought and existence. It is a dynamic and evolving process that includes reality’s subjective and objective dimensions. By embracing the dialectical method and expanding the scope of inquiry beyond the limits of Kant’s dualism, Hegel aimed to reconcile the subjective and objective aspects of reality and provide a comprehensive account of knowledge and existence. In this sense, he transcends Kant’s transcendental idealism by presenting a more expansive and holistic understanding of reality.

What is Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s Political Philosophy?

By Antonio Panovski BA Philosophy Antonio holds a BA in Philosophy from SS. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, North Macedonia. His main areas of interest are contemporary, as well as analytic philosophy, with a special focus on the epistemological aspect of them, although he’s currently thoroughly examining the philosophy of science. Besides writing, he loves cinema, music, and traveling.

Frequently Read Together

Where Was Ancient Greece Located?

What Were the City States of Ancient Greece?

The French Revolution in 5 Iconic Paintings

Thesis Antithesis Synthesis

        Often attributed to the philosophers Hegel or Marx, these terms have been used to describe the development of reasoning about evidence.  They sometimes even occur in historically documented events, but they probably are best thought of as a convenient mental model for styles of thought.  That is, they help us decide how to position ourselves in the flow of scholarly discourse about our topic.  It's always hard to find a "starting place" for real knowledge because it always builds upon old knowledge, either making it better or demolishing it or some compromise in betweeen.  But the pattern of the discourse flow, a repeating conversation, will become familiar to you.  It usually goes like this.

1)  Are we beginning something new?  (Nobody has ever thought of interpreting Casablanca as a film noir .)

                In that case, we position our ideas as a thesis .  ( The similarities in this evidence from films noir and from Casablanca suggests that Casablanca is a film noir . )

2)  Are we responding to something a previous thesis asserts?  (X has argued that Casablanca is a film noir .)

                In that case, we position our ideas as an antithesis to a previous thesis.  ( X suggests Casablanca is a film noir, but this is unlikely because films noir typically end with the hero's destruction and the triumph of evil's power. )

3)  Are we responding to the existence of a debate between a thesis and its antithesis, or to a series of theses?  (X says Casablanca is a film noir and Y says it is not.)

                In that case, we take the best points made by each, if they do not contradict, and create a synthesis of the thesis-antithesis dyad or the series of theses. 

( X has recently argued that, based upon comparison of evidence from other films noir and from Casablanca , that   Casablanca ought to be viewed as a film noir .  Y challenged X's argument by drawing our attention to evidence in Casablanca and in films noir that suggests Casablanca should not be viewed as a film noir .  Z recently has proposed a subgenre of film noir  which he calls "ironic film noir ," based on evidence from more recent films that X and Y do not consider, like Repo Man (1984) and Diva (1981).    In these films, the triumph of evil and destruction of the hero are thwarted at the last moment by supernatural or extremely unlikely interventions in a world that remains deeply corrupt.  If we look at X's and Y's evidence in the light of Z's reasoning, we probably should conclude that Casablanca is best understood as an ironic film noir, but with a comic rather than satiric attitude toward its characters and their dilemma. )

        Don't make the mistake of assuming that all theses have to be positive and all antitheses have to be negative.  Note that the thesis might easily have begun arguing that Casablanca was not film noir if X had begun by analyzing the roles played by Bogart, Greenstreet, and Lorre in previous films noir and argued that the differences between their characters and the plots of those movies and those of Casablanca meant that Casablanca was meant to be viewed as a rebellion against film noir to promote positive views of society in a time of war.  In that case, Y's antithesis might well have looked for similarities between those same characters and plots to argue that Casablanca was a failed film noir, a genre hijacked by the Hollywood studios from the auteur directors in a truly "corrupt city" that was the whole world, now that war had become a global norm. 

        Syntheses also do not always arise from the happy discovery of the solution in someone else's published reasoning.  Sometimes we have to come up with the synthesizing position ourselves.  Had Z's article not existed, the synthesis might have agreed with X that Casablanca was similar to films noir but also might have agreed with Y that it was not similar enough to films noir for twentieth-century audiences to view it that way.  Then the synthesis might have offered its own way to view the movie as playing with film noir conventions while it subconsciously flirts with some other, culturally taboo notions (e.g., the tragedy of a misunderstood, sympathetic African-American musician who was treated like a servant and betrayed to the criminal underworld and the Nazis [Sam's the mediator of Rick and Ilsa's entire romance, but who does he wind up with?  Ferrari, the creep!  And won't the Nazis eventually figure out his boss had something to do with Strasser's murder?], or homoerotic "bromance"?  ["Rickie" and "Louis" do walk off into the future together, eh?]).

4)  OR ARE WE DISCOVERING THAT THE THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE WE WERE OPERATING UNDER WAS WRONG ?!?!?

Literature Review Survival Library Guide: Thesis, antithesis and synthesis

• What is a literature review?
• Thesis, antithesis and synthesis
• 1. Choose your topic
• 2. Collect relevant material
• 3. Read/Skim articles
• 4. Group articles by themes
• 5. Use citation databases
• 6. Find agreement & disagreement
• Review Articles - A new option on Google Scholar
• How To Follow References
• Newspaper archives
• Aditi's Humanities Referencing Style Guide
• Referencing and RefWorks
• New-version RefWorks Demo
• Tracking Your Academic Footprint This link opens in a new window
• Finding Seminal Authors and Mapping the Shape of the Literature
• Types of Literature Review, including "Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide"
• Research Data Management
• Tamzyn Suleiman's guide to Systematic Reviews
• Danielle Abrahamse's Search String Design and Search Template

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis

The classic pattern of academic arguments is:

Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

An Idea (Thesis) is proposed, an opposing Idea (Antithesis) is proposed, and a revised Idea incorporating (Synthesis) the opposing Idea is arrived at. This revised idea sometimes sparks another opposing idea, another synthesis, and so on…

If you can show this pattern at work in your literature review, and, above all, if you can suggest a new synthesis of two opposing views, or demolish one of the opposing views, then you are almost certainly on the right track.

Next topic: Step 1: Choose your topic

• << Previous: What is a literature review?
• Next: 1. Choose your topic >>
• Last Updated: Apr 2, 2024 12:22 PM
• URL: https://libguides.lib.uct.ac.za/litreviewsurvival

Hegel-by-HyperText Resources

Excerpt from Hegel for Beginners

Source : Hegel for Beginners , by Llyod Spencer and Andrzej Krauze, Published by Icon Books, 14 of 175 pages reproduced here, minus the abundant illustrations.

"Classical reasoning assumes the principle of logical identity: A = A or A is not non-A".

"But in writing that book I became aware of employing a new and unprecedented way of thinking".

Dialectical Thinking

Aufhebung or sublation, a grammar of thinking.

"I liken my study of logic to the study of grammar. You only really see the rewards when you later come to observe language in use and you grasp what it is that makes the language of poetry so evocative".

Three Kinds of Contradiction

• The three divisions of the Science of Logic involve three different kinds of contradiction. In the first division Being the opposed pair of concepts at first seem flatly opposed, as if they would have nothing at all to do with one another: Being Nothing / Quantity Quality. Only be means of analysis or deduction can they be shown to be intimately interrelated.
• In the second division Essence the opposed pairs immediately imply one another. The Inner and the Outer, for example: to define one is at the same time to define the other.
• In the third division the Concept [ Notion ] we reach an altogether more sophisticated level of contradiction. Here we have concepts such as identity whose component parts, Universality and Particularity, are conceptually interrelated.

Triadic Structure

• The analytic logic of understanding which focuses the data of sense-experience to yield knowledge of the natural phenomenal world.
• The dialectical logic of understanding which operates independently of sense-experience and erroneously professes to give knowledge of the transcendent noumena ("things in themselves" or also the "infinite" or the "whole")
• Analytic understanding is only adequate for natural science and practical everyday life, not for philosophy.
• Dialectic reason s not concerned with Kant's "transcendent", nor with the abstract "mutilated" parts of reality, but with reality as a totality , and therefore gives true knowledge.

What is Knowing?

"the whole of philosophy resembles a circle of circles".

Further Reading: Introduction to Shorter Logic | Meaning of Hegel's Logic

—  Hegel-by-HyperText Home Page @ marxists.org  —

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

• Living reference work entry
• First Online: 21 January 2023
• Cite this living reference work entry

• Rachel A. Gisewhite 2 &
• Eric M. Eller 2  

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was a German philosopher and educator in the nineteenth century. Among his most famous theories is the Hegelian dialectic, which describes an ongoing process of evolution encompassing man, nature, and spirit into a holistic understanding of the universe. Humankind, as an embodied, subjective self, strives for the Absolute, or truth and growth. This self-realization can occur only if embedded within a community that values and grants freedom, and the historical and cultural context of the community serves as a foundation and launching point for continued evolution. Bildung is prominent within Hegel’s work, a term used to describe the education of the individual and collective toward a more ethical, socially responsive state. This chapter examines Hegel’s life, his social and historical context, and the central tenants of the Hegelian dialectic and Bildung to consider what this might mean for institutionalized education in a postmodern world. Through Bildung , it is possible to envision an educational system that promotes the learning of ethics in everyday life, value systems, and freedom of others.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Education and Modernity

Human Structure, Bildung and Freedom: Edith Stein’s Philosophy of Education

Beyond Barbour: A Theology of Science from Ancient and Modern Thinkers

Allen, J. (1946). Hegel: His philosophy and its educational implications. Peabody Journal of Education, 24 (3), 151–158.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bykova, M. (2020). Hegel’s philosophy of Bildung . In M. Bykova & K. Westphal (Eds.), The Palgrave Hegel handbook. Palgrave handbooks in German idealism . Palgrave, Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26597-7_22 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Craig, E. (2002). Philosophy: A brief insight . Sterling Publishing.

Book   Google Scholar  

Froeb, K., & Canfora, M. (2003). Hegel’s biography . Retrieved from http://hegel.net/hegelbio.htm

Frost, S. E., Jr. (1962). Basic teachings of the great philosophers . Doubleday.

Google Scholar  

Harwood, J. (2010). Philosophy: A beginner’s guide to the ideas of 100 great thinkers . Quercus Publishing Plc.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1941). Dissertatio philosophica de orbitis planetarum (Leipzig, trans.). In G. Lasson (Ed.), Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel Sämtliche (pp. 347–401) (Original work published 1801).

Hegel, G. W. F. (1991). Hegel: Elements of the philosophy of right . Cambridge University Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (2018). Hegel: The phenomenology of spirit (M. Inwood, Trans.), Oxford University Press.

Hegel, G. W. F., Behler, E., Miller, A. V., Taubeneck, S. A., & Behler, D. (1991). Encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences in outline, and critical writings . Continuum.

Jessup, S. (2012). Education for citizenship and ‘ethical life’: An exploration of the Hegelian concepts of Bildung and Sittlichkeit . Journal of Philosophy of Education, 46 (2), 287–302.

Lilge, F. (1974). Philosophy and education in Hegel. British Journal of Educational Studies, 22 (2), 147–165.

Løvlie, L., & Standish, P. (2002). Introduction: Bildung and the idea of a liberal education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 36 (3), 317–340.

Luqueer, F. L. (1896). Hegel as educator (vol. 2, p. 1). Macmillan.

Maclaren, K. (2008). The role of emotion in an existential education: Insights from Hegel and Plato. International Philosophical Quarterly, 48 (4), 472–492.

Martin, W. M. (2007). In defense of bad infinity: A Fichtean response to Hegel’s Differenzschrift. Hegel Bulletin, 28 (1–2), 168–187.

Moran, D. (2000). Introduction of phenomenology . Routledge.

Mueller, G. E. (1958). The Hegel legend of “thesis-antithesis-synthesis”. Journal of the History of Ideas, 19 (3), 411–414.

Pinkard, T. (2001). Hegel: A biography . Cambridge University Press.

Schnitker, S. A., & Emmons, R. A. (2013). Hegel’s thesis-antithesis-synthesis model. In A. L. C. Runehov & L. Oviedo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of sciences and religions . Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8265-8_200183 .

Stojanov, K. (2018). Education, self-consciousness and social action: Bildung as a neo-Hegelian concept (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315161259 .

Tubbs, N. (2008). Education in Hegel . Continuum International Publishing Group.

Zovko, J. (2018). Hegel’s concept of education from the point of view of his idea of ‘second nature’. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 50 (6), 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2017.1374842 .

Further Reading

Baur, M. (Ed.). (2014). G.W.F. Hegel: Key concepts . Routledge.

Beiser, F. C. (1993). The Cambridge companion to Hegel . Cambridge University Press.

Bristow, W. F. (2007). Hegel and the transformation of philosophical critique . Oxford University Press.

Butler, C., Seiler, C., & Hegel, C. B. G. (1984). Hegel: The letters . Indiana University Press.

DeLaurentiis, A., & Edwards, J. (Eds.). (2013). The Bloomsbury companion to Hegel . Continuum Press.

Houlgate, S., & Baur, M. (Eds.). (2011). A companion to Hegel . Blackwell.

Moyar, D., & Quante, M. (Eds.). (2008). Hegel’s phenomenology of Spirit: A critical guide . Cambridge University Press.

Pinkard, T. (1994). Hegel’s phenomenology: The sociality of reason . Cambridge University Press.

Rosenkranz, K. (1969). Hegels Leben (1844) . Reprographischer Nachdruck, WB Darmstadt.

Somr, M. (2013). GWF Hegel–education as a moment of historical reality. Studia Edukacyjne NR, 24 , 289–301.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS, USA

Rachel A. Gisewhite & Eric M. Eller

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel A. Gisewhite .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Educational Leadership, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, USA

Brett A. Geier

Section Editor information

University of Redlands, Redlands,, CA, USA

Annie Knox Associate Professor

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Gisewhite, R.A., Eller, E.M. (2023). Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. In: Geier, B.A. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Educational Thinkers . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81037-5_46-1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-81037-5_46-1

Received : 26 October 2022

Accepted : 30 October 2022

Published : 21 January 2023

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-81037-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-81037-5

eBook Packages : Springer Reference Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Anatomy & Physiology
• Astrophysics
• Earth Science
• Environmental Science
• Organic Chemistry
• Precalculus
• Trigonometry
• English Grammar
• U.S. History
• World History

... and beyond

• Socratic Meta
• Featured Answers

What are thesis, antithesis, synthesis? In what ways are they related to Marx?

• Reflections
• Reflections 2007

Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis: What is Natural Selection?

• Degrees and Programs
• Careers for Majors
• Faculty Profiles
• Faculty Office Hours
• Finding the Department
• class schedule
• Course Descriptions
• Faculty and Staff Employment
• Philosophy Society and Listserv
• Why Major in Philosophy?
• Table of Contents
• Editorial Page
• Alumni Profiles
• Philosophy Links

Duane Meehan

1. an introduction to theory of natural selection, original and new..

One pair of any mammal, on the formula of geometric increase, absent natural selection, and unimpeded by scarcity, with all conditions being optimal, “will produce offspring whose numbers would become so inordinately great that no country could support their kind” (Darwin 33). This probable rate of reproduction is a purely statistically determined trend, which trend determination permits census predictions for a future population of mammals. Natural selection theory predicts and explains unique probabilities of fitness of groups of organisms by census (Matthen, 83). And Matthen, who advocates the idea of determinations of fitness by population census, tells us that “in the last analysis, fitness involves sui generis (i.e., “of its own kind”, “alone of its kind” or “unique”) probabilities estimated not by causal, or even mathematical, analysis, but by census” (83). For example, “Even slow-breeding man has doubled in twenty five years, and at this rate, in less than a thousand years, there would literally not be standing-room for his progeny” (Darwin 33). Census prediction of populations of animals is, historically, one of the central descriptive tasks of natural selection theory. Natural selection theory determines how, under actual environmental conditions, populations of organisms successfully achieve extensive reproductive success. Consider this, circa 1859, Darwinian story of census prediction by statistical analysis of one pair of wild elephants breeding under actual environmental conditions, (Darwin will subsequently proffer his thesis regarding the how of successful extensive reproduction, which thesis is given below in a nutshell summary of Darwin):

The elephant is reckoned the slowest breeder of all known animals, and I have taken some pains to estimate its probable minimum rate of natural increase; it will be safest to assume that it begins breeding when thirty years old, and goes on breeding until ninety years old, bringing forth six young in the interval, and surviving till one hundred years old; if this be so, after a period of 740 to 750 years there would be nearly nineteen million elephants alive, descended from the first pair (Darwin 33).

The following nutshell description of the Darwinian notion of natural selection is meant to acquaint the reader with the essence of the original, historical, notion of natural selection, and, to prep the reader for immersion in the troubled waters of current theory of natural selection.

Out in the wild, natural selection is the “means” (Darwin iii) whereby the biosphere sorts which groups of living things will perish, and which will survive and reproduce. In raw nature, the majority of the individuals of every kind of life form are refused survival by a premature death, a death stopping all chances of reproduction. Premature death is the main means by which individual organisms are eliminated from what is usually an initially immense number, or population, of individuals of a new generation. Premature death is the negative side of the natural means of selection, by which vast populations are paired down to a size which nearly matches resources available in the environment.

The positive side of natural selection consists in the cases of those living things which successfully adapt to the hardships of life; survive; reproduce; and, preserve their kind by passing their adaptive characteristics on to the next generation, and, perhaps, onto an increasing number of survivors across said generations. Darwin derived a fundamental positive principle of life-preservation from observing the minority of living things which, out of an initially vast population, survive. Darwin then gives us the how , i.e., the means, of that successful, fruitful, survival, “I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection” (Darwin 32). Thus, natural selection is that positive/negative principle, operating in nature, by means of which populations of living things differentially survive to reproduce pre-existing traits, which prove efficient for survival, or perish, due to the inheritance of variation(s) in fitness traits which prove to be ineffective for coping with an environment which is, itself, in flux.

Today, one hundred and forty-eight years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859), the globe teems with theorists and theories, scientists and sciences, seeking precise understanding of what natural selection is. In what follows, the reader is invited to reflect, along with the writer, about the contending structures of two main theoretical positions, i.e., the “dynamical”, and the “statistical” (Walsh 452 ), which are in debate among philosophers of biology, and which claim to be describing what natural selection is. Is the theory of natural selection a statistical theory or a dynamical one? That is, is natural selection theory a theory of actual dynamic environmental causal forces which have effects upon the protoplasm of organisms, or, is natural selection theory properly an acausal state of affairs which comprehends only statistical trends, absolutely random genetic events, and takes probabilistic census of the fitness of extant, and future, ensembles of organisms? That is the question which shall be answered in the course of this essay, for, herein, writer and reader shall, together, reflect upon a recent synthesis of the most theoretically intelligible portions of these opposing positions, which synthesis is an alternative theory of natural selection, and, as my thesis proposes, that synthesis, or synthetic theory, constitutes both an answer to the aforementioned question, which is the crux of the dynamical versus statistical debate in the philosophy of biology, and a resolution of the statistical versus dynamical debate. Said synthesis and synthetic resolution is, without her specifically saying so, proffered by Dr. R. Millstein in her recent essay “Natural Selection as a Population-Level Causal Process” (December 2006), which essay, as a synthetic moment in the history of theory of natural selection, is the central focus of this study.

Before proceeding further I explain a few phrases/notions, either just now employed, or, yet to be employed. “Theoretical intelligibility” is that state of affairs wherein a given theoretical model exhibits no flaws in reasoning which would constitute it as nonsense, e.g., infinite regress; self-inconsistency/contradiction; logical fallacy; incoherence. “Theoretical unintelligibility” is the state of affairs wherein a theory does exhibit any ilk of flawed reasoning which would constitute a given proposition, or theory, as nonsense. I define the phrase “synthetic resolution” as a state of affairs wherein a scholar becomes cognizant of particularly antithetical theoretical structures, represented by differing thinkers within his field of expertise and, he or she subsequently works-out a possible resolution of the antithetical positions, thereafter issuing a written synthesis of the most theoretically intelligible portions of the antithetical arguments. The upsurge of a synthetic resolution of originally antithetical positions is constituted both in the sense that the conflicting theoretical stances are brought into focus by elimination of the theoretically unintelligible portions thereof, (which elimination may consist in making certain concessions that one’s theoretical position does indeed contain a certain measure of flawed and unintelligible reasoning), and, the debate is brought to a synthetic moment (we can speak of a thetic moment wherein a thesis is posited; an antithetic moment wherein that thesis is contradicted; and a synthetic moment, wherein a truce arises as the result the reciprocal acceptance of reasoned argument for and/or against one’s original position), wherein antithetical stances become, for the time being, integrated.

In what is immediately subjoined, I simultaneously arrange the order wherein I shall present evidence and, describe salient characteristics of the three theoretical stances which constitute the thesis, antithesis and, synthesis, originally mentioned in the title. Dynamical theory of natural selection, or, natural selection as a dynamical theory, is the original thesis regarding the means of the evolution of species. The original theory of natural selection is the Darwinian theory, (think of the original thesis of what natural selection is as the “original Coke” flavor of selection theory), and, its central characteristics are causality, i.e., natural selection is on the original theory seen as the “cause” of the origin of all design in living things (Ariew, 1), and, is seen as force, i.e., natural selection per se is a “force”, alike the Newtonian mechanistic (i.e., causal) forces of gravity, or, of the electrostatic force, which mechanistic selective force(s) effect change(s) in the protoplasm of organisms (Matthen, 58). The force that is natural selection is deemed to be both a force in itself, and, to be separable into a series of different and distinctive forces, which can act singly, or combine, to collectively effect structural modification in organisms (Matthen, 58; Walsh, 453). That series of causal forces includes, for instance, selection, mutation, migration, random genetic drift, and, in-breeding (Matthen, 58; Walsh, 453). The several causal forces to which the dynamically-oriented evolutionists subscribe are, according to their theoretical view, the why of evolutionary change in species of organisms. Natural selection as “causal force(s)” is a theoretical construct, subject to being doubted, critiqued, partially corrected, or, completely destroyed, by any antithetical reasoning which might possibly demonstrate the theoretical unintelligibility of natural selection as “causal force”.

I shall further show that the statistical theory of natural selection is the antithesis of dynamical-causal theory of natural selection. Statistical theory of natural selection is antithetical to dynamical theory, because, the statistical view of natural selection holds that natural selection is absolutely not an ensemble of causal forces which constitute means of precipitating effects within the protoplasm of living things (Matthen, 68). The statistical version of natural selection is an acausal (Millstein, 651) and mathematical methodology, concerned with calculation and prediction oftrend within populations of organisms (Matthen, 57). For statistically-oriented theorists natural selection is a trend, and is not a causal process wherein a prior event precipitates a subsequent event (Matthen, 79). Statistical theory of natural selection holds, for example, that natural selection is the operation within populations of organisms of pure random chance, which biologists commonly call “random drift” (i.e., a biological process whereby bodily form arises as the result of pure random and non-teleological events) (Walsh 453), whereby ensembles/populations of organisms, tend to drift, en masse, toward the fittest possible of all design solutions (Ariew, 12) to alleviate the problems of survival within their particular environment; a trend precisely analogous to a mass of gas molecules which tend, en masse, to randomly constitute a particular temperature and pressure within an enclosure (Walsh, 463). For the statistically-oriented natural selectionists, random drift is “probabilistic cause”, i.e., a cause effected by pure chance (Matthen, 81). (Think of the acausal statistical view of natural selection, which is directly antithetical to causal-dynamical theory of natural selection, as the “new Coke” flavor of natural selection theory).

I shall further show, (and this is the thesis of the present essay), that a synthetic theory of natural selection has just now appeared (i.e., 4 Dec 06). Which synthetic theory is the result of the thought of a young philosopher of biology who is engaged in a particular dialectical logic, which logic is the logic of struggle between extant scholars exhibiting significant differences in theoretical stances, which stances ultimately become reconciled into one position, which both preserves and dispenses with elements of the original antithetical positions. This dialectical logic is the mode whereby human history proceeds (Sartre, 15). In the struggle between groups, antagonisms are reconciled into a transformational synthesis of formerly antagonistic elements, which synthesis preserves portions of what were former antagonisms in a new outlook, born out of the original dialectical tensions. (Sartre, 505-563). Scholars in the field of theory of natural selection are assailing what they deem to be the theoretical unintelligibilties of their opposing positions. Theoretical unintelligibility is a state of affairs wherein a given theory exhibits any ilk of fallacious/incoherent thinking. It is out of the conflict of these ascriptions of unintelligibility between scholars engaged in the dynamical/statistical debate, regarding what natural selection is, that concessions are reciprocally made by opposing sides. These sides constitute, when all is said and done, a synthetical resolution, or synthetic theoretical stance regarding what was, theretofore, a zone of pure contention. My thesis posits the claim that Dr. Millstein’s synthetic theory constitutes a synthetic moment of resolution of a debate, current in philosophy of biology, between the dynamical and the statistical versions of natural selection theory. Dr. Millstein’s treatise expresses both what now has to be conceded to the opposition, as having been mistaken, in the dynamical causal theory of natural selection, and, stands firm on that portion of the dynamical theory which she can still support against the onslaught of the purist statisticians. Dr. Millstein predicates her firm causalistic stance upon the results of scientific observations of the montane willow leaf beetle, which observations were seeking, and found, an environmental causal mechanism which can effect beetle protoplasm, which cause-effect could be pointed-to in order to explain and support what, otherwise, was purely statistical beetle census data, which purely statistical data, by itself, according to Millstein, Dahlhoff, and Rank, is insufficient to demonstrate natural selection to be at work (Millstein 634). (Think of this synthetic theory of natural selection as roughly analogous to the state of affairs wherein “original Coke” was created and then abandoned for a “new Coke”; which was then reversed, such that “original Coke” was conserved while the world refused the “new Coke.” Then, the world proceeded to embrace and retain the “new Coke” too, thus creating a synthetic state of affairs wherein both the old and new Coca Cola coexist.)

2. Mainstays of Arguments Con, and Pro, Regarding the Process of Causation in Natural Selection, Including Attendant Concessions to Con, Wherein Synthetic Conclusions Regarding What Natural Selection Is are Drawn.

Within the dialectical/polemical interactions between philosophers of biology who subscribe to antithetical sets of theoretical instrumentations whereby they respectively reason about, and posit solutions to theoretical problems in natural selection, there is struggle and conflict regarding what constitutes an accurate determination of what natural selection is, and, is not. And, within that philosophical conflict, destructions of opposing theoretical stances are effectuated. As one set of theorists have put it, there are “recent attempts to purge the theory (of natural selection) of a causal concept of fitness” (Bouchard, 693) by showing that natural selection is a purely statistical trend (Matthen, 78; Millstein, 627), (precisely like the operation of the second law of thermodynamics, which describes trends toward entropy), toward increased fitness of organisms (Bouchard, 693). And, Bouchard and Rosenberg, for their part, refute, and attempt to reduce to ineffectuality, the statistical trend conception of natural selection, by demonstrating the inapplicability of the second law of thermodynamics to natural selection (Bouchard, 704), upon which thermodynamic law Matthen and Ariew (2002), and, Walsh, et. al. (2004) predicate their statistical and probabilistic (i.e., proceeding by pure chance) theories of natural selection. There is no space in this paper to discuss Bouchard and Rosenberg’s opposition to Matthen and Ariew’s thesis. I will address only the contrary theoretical stance taken by Matthen and Ariew to the fundamental dynamical thesis that natural selection is a causal process, and, how Millstein achieves a synthetic resolution of theoretical difference between causal and purely statistical conceptions of natural selection.

The dynamical theoretical view of natural selection, which maintains selection is a process of causation, wherein external environmental selective forces produce effects within the protoplasm of organisms, which organisms are either somatically structured such that they are fit to survive alongside those environmental forces, or, perish, is under attack by at least two sets of scholars, i.e., Matthen and Ariew (2002), and Walsh, Lewens and Ariew (2002), and, is defended by at least two other sets of scholars, i.e., Millstein (2006) with Dahlhoff and Rank (2000), and, Bouchard and Rosenberg (2004).

As a result of their employment of a particular set of intellectual instruments, in pursuit of a determination of what natural selection is, and is not, Matthen and Ariew (2002), have viably demonstrated the theoretical unintelligibility of the construct of “force”, as that construct is employed by dynamical theorists of natural selection. Matthen and Ariew have painstakingly shown that adaptive forces which produce the an organism’s traits, unlike Newtonian forces, do not add-up, and, thereby, effectually destroy “force” as a theoretical construct employed in dynamical theory of natural selection. In Newtonian mechanics when calculating the fall of a feather one can intelligibly add the force of gravity to wind shear and to the electrostatic force, however, one cannot add up diverse ‘forces of natural selection, like mutation, migration, random genetic drift, selection, and inbreeding’ which, like apples and oranges, do not add up (Matthen 68). The dynamicists, who have been claiming the possibility of adding the above mentioned types natural selection factors, as if they are so many vectors of Newtonian force, which, taken together, determine the design and appearance of adaptive organismic traits, have, via Matthen and Ariew’s incisive reasoning, lost to theoretical unintelligibility, their construct of vectors of force in natural selection.

Matthen and Ariew have demonstrated, via reasoned argument from theory of thermodynamics, that natural selection is not a simple basic process of causal force(s) effecting organic protoplasm, and have done so, with what may be equally destructive force, to the Newtonian mechanistic structure of dynamical/causal theory of natural selection.

For Matthen and Ariew evolution is not caused by natural selection (79). For Matthen and Ariew “the increase of fitness in a population by natural selection” (79) is not a linear “causally connected process ... within which the earlier events caused the later” (79). “The same holds for a spread of adaptive features through a population” (79), i.e., the spread of adaptive features through a population is not a causal process wherein prior events precipitate subsequent events. Rather, natural selection transpires alike “thermodynamic change of state”, as illustrated by a standing pot of water coming to boil on a stove. Let us start by considering the case of a pot of water brought to a boil on a stove. At a phenomenal level, this seems like an orderly process. Heat flows from stove to liquid, the liquid circulates, carrying heat with it; gradually, it comes to a boil. Closer examination shows, however, that the transformation is not an orderly one at all. This is most evident perhaps in the actual phase transition, which is highly jerky. Parts of the liquid heave up and down; bubbles form more or less randomly. When the liquid is actually boiling, its surface is chaotic. A microscopic examination would display similar disorder at earlier stages. The energy transfer from the bottom of the pan to the top is disorderly, with myriad local exceptions (for example, adjacent small regions with unequal temperature with no mutual heat transfer), reversals (energy flow from low- to high-temperature regions), and other fits and starts. Such discontinuities violate the spatiotemporal continuity required of fundamental physical processes, which are strictly law governed. To halt, reverse, delay, or accelerate a fundamental process takes energy and work. But in the pot of water such changes of direction occur spontaneously. This shows that heat flow is not a fundamental process (79). The same is true of evolution. The discontinuities of natural selection are much more evident to the observer than those of thermodynamics, gross enough, in fact, to be recordable by a careful observer. These discontinuities show that natural selection, like thermodynamic change of state, is a time-asymmetric statistical trend instantiated by populations (80).

By taking up a boiling pot analogy, Matthen and Ariew reason that natural selection is not a simple basic linear process of causality, wherein prior events precipitate subsequent events, rather, natural selection is a statistical trend analogous to discontinuous trends transpiring, thermodynamically, in a boiling pot of water. For Matthen and Ariew the second law of thermodynamics, as illustrated by occurrences in a boiling pot of water, as a purely statistically describable phenomenon, is the closest theoretical model to what is actually transpiring in, or as, natural selection. (Given the structure of the state of affairs just described, wherein scholars of natural selection posit a thesis which subsequently encounters the positing of its antithesis, and, in turn, the antithetical position encounters its antithesis, is a multi-directional state of affairs which itself exhibits the entropy described by the second law of thermodynamics! Millstein will impart a synthetic order to this state of affairs.)

As a thinker long engaged within the entropic thetic-antithetic climate of the scholarly polemical dialectic in theory of natural selection, which is an ongoing dialectic among philosophers of biology, Dr. Roberta Millstein, a Ph. D. in biostatistics has arrived at a dialectically achieved realization that natural selection is “a statistical causal” (640) phenomenon. Accordingly, Millstein constructs an alternative theory of natural selection via the synthesis of statistical and causal elements of extant antithetical positions regarding what natural selection is. While other theorists, locked in an either/or conflict over dynamical versus statistical models of natural selection, are busy destroying each others theories, Millstein rationally concedes: 1) natural selection is not a force, i.e., “they (i.e., Matthen and Ariew) have shown that natural selection is not a force” (634), that is, the dynamical notion of “force” is destroyed on account of being theoretically unintelligible at the level of living organisms, and, 2) that natural selection is, indeed, statistical, for, Millstein declares “natural selection is a causal statistical process” (640). However, Millstein does not, will not, cannot, concede that dynamical causality has sustained theoretical destruction, for, according to her, the purely statistically-oriented thinkers “conflate the concept of ‘force’ with the concept of ‘cause’” (634), therefore, Millstein states “but this, (i.e., the showing that natural selection is not a force), fails to demonstrate that it (i.e., natural selection) is not a causal process” (634), and, accordingly, Millstein posits an argument demonstrating causal process to be indubitably operational in natural selection, which argument is supported by evidence garnered by the objective scientific biological field research of evolutionary biologists Elizabeth Dahlhoff and Nathan Rank.

Dahlhoff and Rank have shown a particular “mechanistic” phenomenon, i.e., a causal mechanism (10065) to be working, whereby a particular selective environmental factor (10056), i.e., ambient air temperature, is effecting a causal genetic agent (i.e., a gene a.k.a. the “PGI locus allele”) to precipitate an effect (i.e., heat shock protein production) within the protoplasm of a species of insect known as the montane willow leaf beetle (10056).

Dahlhoff and Rank conducted a series of unique censuses (Matthen, 83), of fractions of different montane willow leaf beetle populations, within the biosphere of certain mountainsides in the California Sierra Nevada range. The evolutionary biologists conducted studies in accord with their custom designed “natural- selection formula” (Matthen, 75), which took into account: ambient environmental air temperatures; resident beetle body temperatures; beetle genetic differences ; differential beetle heat shock protein expression; and, heritability of capacity for heat shock protein expression (Dahlhoff 10056). Rank determined that beetles of certain genetic configuration were, by virtue of their ability to manufacture heat shock protein, (a protein requisite for reconstituting other bodily proteins tend to disintegrate in extreme hot or cold), survived the extremes of mountain temperature. Rank identified a causal mechanistic process wherein certain pre-established genetic types of beetles were fit, heat-shock-protein- wise, to survive exposure to extreme variations in hot/cold. Rank therefore concluded that environmental temperature is a “selective factor” in natural selection of beetle genetic types adapted/able/fit to survive by virtue of a pre-capacity for heat shock protein expression, across a greater spectrum of temperatures than other genetic types of beetle. Here environmental temperature is acting as a “selective factor” upon a causal factor, which causal factor is that part of a beetles’ particular gene mediating manufacture of heat shock protein, whereby the beetle may survive radical extremes of temperature, reproduce, and pass a heat shock efficiency trait onto its progeny. A state of affairs wherein organisms survive by virtue of an advantageous trait, which trait is passed on to the next generation, is precisely natural selection. (Beetles fit to refold unfolding proteins in the most extreme conditions of ambient air temperature possess a genetic variation which is preserved precisely because via that variation survival is achieved, (recall Darwin’s definition, given above, which declares natural selection is the preservation of any slight advantageous variation). The natural selector here is environmental temperature. The selection here is for beetles possessing a pre-established ability to manufacture a given protein, and, against those who cannot manufacture the protein, across a sufficiently wide spectrum of ambient air temperatures which precipitate heat shock stress.

The results of an objective scientific field study, which demonstrated the existence of a mechanistic (i.e., causal) connection transpiring between environment and organism, constitutes a veritable broadsword in the hand of a philosopher of sufficient daring to take command, within a warring fractional theoretical fray, among diverse philosophers of biology. The power of the Dahlhoff-Rank study is that it constitutes solid evidence of a real and objectively demonstrated causal mechanism of natural selection at work in an actual population of organisms, providing a sharp-eyed philosopher of biology with biological evidence whereupon to predicate theory constitutive thought efficient to establish, factually, causal mechanism in natural selection, with the force of objective scientific evidence. What Millstein proceeds, therefore, to ordain, is a population-level construct of causality, and, a statistical causal construct of natural selection which, taken together, constitute both an alternative theory of what natural selection is, and a synthetic resolution of the dynamical versus statistical debate in philosophy of biology.

On Millstein’s synthetic view, natural selection is a statistical causal phenomenon wherein specific causal mechanisms which entail an environmental selective factor(s) (e.g., temperature) effecting a heritable bodily structure (e.g., a gene) to cause the sufficient manufacture, for example, of a given stress protein, or not. Which manufacture, or not, either preserves the life of a given population, or not. And, the differential ability to produce the requisite protein is a population-level phenomenon, for when one is speaking of differences, one is necessarily speaking of differences among ensembles of beings. For Millstein natural selection is a statistical phenomenon because, indeed, trends are transpiring, however, for Millstein those trends are not completely intelligible absent the specific causal mechanism exampled above (634). Millstein’s achievement is, thus, in part, the constitution of an alternate theory of what natural selection is, which alternate theory is a synthetic structure which integrates acausal statistical constructs and the causal constructs of dynamical theory, which integration constitutes a synthetic resolution of differences between differing factions, and, therefore, constitutes resolution of the statistical versus causal process debate in natural selection.

Thus, the answer to the enthymematical question(s) posed in the introduction, i.e., “Is theory of natural selection a statistical theory of a dynamical one?” That is, is natural selection theory a theory of actual dynamic environmental causal forces which have effects upon the protoplasm of organisms, or, is natural selection theory properly an acausal state of affairs which comprehends only statistical trends, absolutely random genetic events, and takes probabilistic census of the fitness of extant, and future, ensembles of organisms? This answer becomes: what natural selection is is a statistical-causal phenomenon, i.e., natural selection is statistical-trend and causal-process, in one. Natural selection is not either causal, or, statistical, it is both causal process and statistical trend.

Works Cited

• Ariew, Andre. “Adaptationism and its Alternatives: Explaining origins, prevalence, and diversity of organic forms.” The Online Writery. 2006. 17 pp. 20 Jan 2007
• Bouchard, F. and A. Rosenberg. “Fitness, Probability and the Principles of Natural Selection.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2004): 693-712.
• Dahlhoff, E. P. and N. E. Rank. “Functional and Physiological Consequences of Genetic Variation at Phosphoglucose Isomerase: Heat Shock Protein Expression Is Related to Enzyme Genotype in a Montane Beetle.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97 (2000): 10056-61.
• Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection. Chicago: U. of Chicago, 1987.
• Matthen, M., and A. Ariew. “Two Ways of Thinking About Fitness and Natural Selection.” The Journal of Philosophy 17 (2004): 55-83.
• Millstein, Roberta L. “Natural Selection as a Population-Level Causal Process.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 57 (2006): 627-65.
• Sartre, Jean-Paul. Critique of Dialectical Reason, Volume I Theory of Practical Ensembles. Paris: Editions Gallimard, 1960.
• Walsh, D. M., Tim Lewens, and A. Ariew. “The Trials of Life: Natural Selection and Random Drift.” Philosophy of Science 69 (September 2002): 429-446.
• Sexual Assault / Title IX
• Request Information
• Current Students
• Alumni & Friends
• Accessibility
• Mission Statement
• Academic Programs
• Viewbook of Colleges
• Privacy Statement
• Emergency Info
• Annual Security Report
• Campus Safety Plan
• Register a Complaint
• Notice of Non-Discrimination and Retaliation Prohibition
• Maps & Directions
• Career Opportunities

25800 Carlos Bee Boulevard | Hayward, CA 94542 | 510-885-3000

Get the Reddit app

/r/askphilosophy aims to provide serious, well-researched answers to philosophical questions.

I was taught thesis-antithesis-synthesis for Hegel; should I be worried about my education?

In my 19th century philosophy class, taught by a Hegel scholar, the professor explained dialectics as follows: there is a thesis, which is negated into an antithesis, and then this antithesis is negated again into a synthesis. The synthesis is a sublation (aufhebung I think is the German word) of the thesis, which now has new infirmation from the antithesis. The synthesis contains inherent contradictions which make it its own thesis. She was very clear that Hegel is "a philosopher of triads" in contrast to Kant who was "a philosopher of dualisms". Further, she made a point that for every concept in the dialectic you can "zoom in" for a detailed movement of how that concept was arrived at.

At least, this is my recollection of what I learned; but she definitely did use the thesis-antithesis-synthesis terminology that is so frequently disparaged on here and elsewhere on the internet. Another professor, who isn't a Hegel scholar, also used the terms. I was aware that they were not Hegel's terms but I figured people making a point about "thesis-antithesis-synthesis" being wrong were just being petty over terminology as I believed it could easily be replaced by something like "affirmation, negation, negation of the negation".

From her I also got the impression that Hegel sought to eliminate contingency through a metaphysics of concrete universals, most obviously through his philosophy of history where he seems to view history as the process of God becoming aware of itself and thus seemingly contingent historical events are retroactively interpreted as a necessity for the march of history. I've heard that this is also wrong. I remember less about this in my professor's lectures so I might be misinterpreting her here.

From this professor I have received very positive feedback about my understanding of Hegel, so I somewhat doubt I am misunderstanding her lectures. Thus I am wondering, given how negative people on here are about this interpretation of Hegel, if I should worry that I am at a substandard institution? People on here say some pretty harsh things, like that nobody who's read Hegel could understand dialectics like this; my professor has done scholarly work on Hegel!

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue