dniprovska (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
dniprovska) wrote2011-10-28 03:25 pm
dniprovska) wrote2011-10-28 03:25 pm
Entry tags:
dialectics
The laws of dialectics: unity of opposites (that save energy for establishing ties and bonds between things and systems), transition from quantitative changes to qualitative (which eliminates the least viable elements) and negation of negation (that preserves the most functional elements and forms basis for new changes), are the principles of the most efficient way of self-organization of matter.
The other problem that complicates the comprehension of dialectics is the problem of dialectical contradictions (antinomies). The adepts of dialectics hold that in contrast to formal (metaphysical) logic dialectical analysis operates with contradictions (antinomies), as everything is based on and moved by the unity and struggle of opposites (thesis and antithesis). This approach was sharply criticised by many post-classic philosophers (especially by positivists) and to say the truth, this critic was partially fair, as classic dialectical concepts failed to provide a clear criterions for distinguishing dialectical contradictions from formal ones.
The main reason of such theoretical uncertainty is that dialectics has not completely emancipated from formal logic. Great dialectics (such as Kant, Hegel and Marx) continued to mix the laws of dialectical and formal logic and applied the principles pertaining only to formal logic towards definition of dialectical terms.
It should be marked that Marx made important step forward holding that both formal and dialectical logic are not the logic of mind, but the logic of the objective reality reflected in human mind. So, if proceed from the axiom that the ultimate criterion for everything (including contradictions) is objective reality, then contradictions may be defined as incompatibility of things/aspects/processes (reflected in abstract logical constructions) in the objective reality. And vice versa: the statement reflecting things/aspects/processes that are actually coexist in the real life and this coexistence is experimentally proven can not be qualified as contradictory. That which is usually called “dialectical contradiction” is not contradiction but is complementary characteristic. “Dialectical contradictions” are none other than reflections of different aspects of a single thing made from different points of view, or different reflections of the same thing/aspect produced by two (or more) subjects/objects with different characteristics.
(N. Bohr and A. Einstein understood this idea very clearly; Bohr’s principle of complementarity and Einstein’s relativity principle are vivid examples of dialectical approach towards the problems of physics.)
Let us view the well known Heraclites’ antinomy reading that sea water is the clearest and the dirtiest (for fishes it is clear while for men it is dirty). This statement contains not a single contradiction as in objective reality sea water is used both by fishes and by Homo sapiens; as these organisms belong to different species they have different structure and metabolism, so the reactions of their organisms on sea water will be different. But the assertion that sea water is both salt and sweet will be by any means contradictory as in the real life sea water can not be simultaneously salt and sweet.
The ban on contradictions is valid both for formal and for dialectical logic. What should be remembered is that the final and universal criterion for qualifying any statement or conclusion as right or wrong, contradictory or not contradictory is not the laws of formal logic, but practice (reference to the objective reality).
For better comprehension of the very essence of dialectical method one should refer to etymology of the term. Dialectics comes from dialogue. Dialogues were very popular in Ancient Greece, whose philosophers contributed much to development of dialectics – Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and others widely used the form of dialogue for expression of their ideas. Each participant of the dialogue (contest) presented his point of view while clashes and combinations of different and even opposite opinions produced comprehensive (multidimensional) image of the discussed subject [thesis – antithesis – synthesis].
Hegel extrapolated this scheme (pertaining mainly to the development of thought) to the development of material systems which led to formalization of dialectical method and its divergence with practice. However, polysemantic character of dialectical statements (which seems contradictory for common sense) is not the whim of armchair pundits being fond of intellectual games – it is conditioned by fluid and multidimensional nature of the objective reality.
There are numbers of phenomena and processes that can not be described in terms of formal logic demanding strict choice between two alternatives (either ... or), they require synthetic description including both thesis and antithesis. In such case synthesis is achieved due to introduction of additional elements of thought which eliminate formal contradiction between opposites and turn them into complementary characteristics. For example, if we simply say that sear water is the clearest and the dirtiest it will be a contradiction, but if we specify that for fishes it is clear while for men it is dirty, the contradiction will be eliminated.
Hegel once marked that each kind of logic has its special field of application, to his mind formal logic is applicable to the problems of everyday life (submitted to the principles of common sense) while dialectical method is useful for solving more complex philosophical and scientific problems. This valuable remark was often ignored both by adepts and critics of dialectics who tried to apply dialectical principles to the problems that belong to the realm of formal logics which only discredited dialectical method.
Dialectics and formal logics are two types of logic with specific axioms and sphere of application, in this context they may be compared with and non-Euclid or classic physic and Relativity/quantum mechanic.
In the realm of formal logic (common sense) all objects and systems have constant structure (being immutable during a long period of time) and all processes have cyclical nature. In this sphere each thing has its permanent place and performs strictly definite function. According to formal (metaphysical) approach every thing may have only a single quality (meaning) and each event (process) has single and strictly definite sense. Common sense views all subjects separately and determines their quality through examining their structure and comparing it with the respective etalon. (Formal logic adequately describes the behaviour of such objects as planetary system where all objects have their permanent orbits, technical mechanisms constructed according to a certain scheme, where each detail performs definite function, living cells and organisms that have already finished their evolution and are reproduced in the same form, traditional society with constant socio-economical and political structure, etc.).
In the realm of dialectics all things and systems undergo perpetual metamorphoses and change their places and relations many times, so from the point of view of dialectics a thing as such does not have an immanent quality (predestination) – its quality appears at the intersection of connections with other objects; the same is with the sense of events – an event does not have a single interpretation, its meaning depends on the properties of the reflecting object/subject. That is why dialectical method never views a subject of study separately, but only in the context of its relations with other objects and observes all things and events from different points of view.
The subjects of study that require dialectical approach are the Universe as a whole where objects move with enormous speeds; biosphere, where living organisms undergo mutations and evolve into a new species; the industrial society with great dynamic of socio-economic changes, etc.
Formal logic is the realm of pure reason and verified knowledge – it describes systems where all important parameters may be exactly measured and which future state is quite predictable. Dialectics deals with the systems where only a part of information is accessible for study, so in this realm reason shares power with intuition.
In the sphere of common sense occasion is viewed as something unimportant which may not be taken into consideration. For dialectical mode of thinking accidental events are not less important than regular ones – a fortuity is a seed of future or a last straw that breaks the existing order and releases the Demon of changes.
The other difference between formal and dialectical mode of thinking is perception of time. Formal logic divides time into fragments that may be studied independently of each other. For common sense Past is that which has already gone, present is something which actually exists while Future is that which has not come yet.
For dialectics which views Being as a chain of negations, an object (event) is the focus of tenses. Past (the remnants of previous forms and traces of earlier events) is embedded in the Present which in its turn contains the embryo of Future. (This synthesis of time is splendidly revealed in Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury that is a brightest example of dialectical mode of thinking in literature.)
For common sense Time is clocks and calendars – it views Time as something abstract and absolute that may be measured with universal etalons. Such “mechanical” approach (pertaining to Newton’s physics and metaphysic of 18-19 c.) is quite applicable to relatively small homogeneous systems consisting of standard elements which movement may be synchronised.
Dialectics views Time as an attribute of matter characterising its movement. This idea was developed and popularized by Marx and Engels, the creators of dialectical materialism; scientific proof of the relative nature of time was made by A. Einstein.
In the sphere of Being where matter is distributed not quite evenly universal etalons are senseless – each object has its own time.
Common sense prompts that the course of Time may follow only one direction (forward). In the realm of dialectics the course of Time depends on how a system uses its energy. If it is replenished with new elements its Time goes forward; if energy simply circulates from one part to another Time moves in a circle; but if he structure loses its energy and constituent parts the spiral of Time unfolds into opposite direction and the system returns to the past.
Although quantitative characteristics of Time are not absolute, this attribute of matter has universal nature and its power stretches everywhere, as the streams of energy that break ties and connections between things and elements causing more or less substantial changes, transpierce the whole Being. They may be slow down or turned into other direction, but they can not be completely stopped, so existence is none other than a perpetual dialogue with Time – different metamorphoses of material structures (regulated by the laws of dialectics) are (in their very essence) more or less adequate and successful answers to the challenges of Time.
As it has been already mentioned formal logic operates with ideal patterns and universal principles – from the point of view of dialectics any truth is relative, the only absolute recognized by dialectical mode of thinking is fruitfulness – the ability to produce results that exceed pains and losses. Dialectics justifies everything that tends to transform energy into a new quality and denies everything that leads to senseless and fruitless wasting of time and energy, as the supreme aim of Being is self-assembly – restoration of the lost integrity (namely: singularity, or if use Hegel’s terminology Absolute Idea ). Energy should be perpetually transmitted from one interim form to another until it finds the form being completely equal to the initial one which could involve in itself the rest of matter and transform it into a single entity containing the embryo of the future Universe...
It should be marked that fruitfulness (efficiency) is the universal criterion of Good. But in the static environment where all things, systems and processes exist/are reproduced in the same immutable form, the effect caused by an object/event is quite definite and predictable, so everything may be supplied with a tag: positive/negative/neutral, etc. Dialectics that deals with changeable and heterogeneous reality, considers nothing as a-priory good or vicious, right or wring, useful or useless, prospective or having no prospects. The actual meaning of everything is determined in the context of concrete circumstances, as the effect caused by something, depends not only its own properties, but also on the properties of the things it interacts with (a blow of hammer makes steel harder, but breaks glass).
An explosion of a supernova may be viewed as a destructive process, but if it leads to formation of a new planetary system serving as a cradle for highly organized biological and social forms, it may be qualified as constructive. A genetic mutation may be qualified as positive, negative or neutral only in relation with natural environment to which a mutated organism should be adapted.
Such social collisions as revolutions or civil wars may have both devastating and clearing effect depending on where and when they take place. For example Civil War of 1861-1865 in the United States (in spite of heavy losses sustained by the defeated side) was a progressive event that formed conditions for rapid economic growth. But numerous civil conflicts in Columbia (so vividly described by Garcia Marques) brought little boon to the country and turned into a chronicle disease gnawing formerly vital social organism.
Democracy with its division of power and wide civic rights and freedoms under certain conditions creates the best conditions for economic, social and cultural development, but the political order that demonstrates so many advantages, may as well be a source of disaster if a state meets with extremely serious challenges. Such situation was in ancient Athens in times of Peloponnesian War and in Western Europe in the period of World War II, when bourgeois democracy proved its inefficiency for resisting such totalitarian power as the Third Reich (Great Britain survived rather due to favourable geographical location).
Before French Revolution (1787-99) Napoleon Bonaparte was a clumsy, acrimonious and not very popular young man with very vague carrier prospects, as he possessed neither aristocratic origin nor good manners and connections necessary for achieving success in the feudal society. But after the Great Revolution had smashed the Order under which dancing skills were more important than intellectual faculties, the former outsider turned into the most powerful person in Europe.
Those who try to solve the problems of human existence (especially the problems of moral) should remember that they are much more complex and multidimensional than the riddles of Nature that is why their comprehension requires greater flexibility of mind.
Yet ancient thinkers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) marked relative and transient sense of moral and political credos as well as frequent divergence between individuals’ initial goals and final results of their deeds.
This problem interested not only philosophers, but also men of letters, and to say the truth the dialectics of human relations was much vividly reflected in the works of arts and literature than in philosophical treatises.
Since the epoch of Renaissance had renewed the progressive movement of society, artists and men of letters prove in their works that in the developing society man’s deeds should not be rigidly submitted to an age-old tradition or an abstract ideal, but must be in harmonious correspondence with the demands of the real life.
This idea runs through the works of Cervantes whose hero Don Quixote possessed by pii desiderii suffers bitter failure and destroys his life and the life of those related to him.
Shakespeare’s great losers – Harry Hotspur, Hamlet, Macbeth, Coriolanus, King Leer, Antonius, and others also illustrate the truth that even an outstanding individuality is doomed to defeat if his qualities and outlook are not in line with the objective circumstances.
Goethe’s Faust throws challenge to commonly accepted moral norms and religious principles but in spite of all is justified and saved (together with his beloved Margaret). While the self-definition of Mephistopheles as a “part of the Power that would always wish Evil, and always works the Good” breaks stereotypical view on the nature of Good and Evil.
Leo Tolstoy a great apologist of man’s seeking and striving for his true predestination, specified in his War and Pease this dialectics of good and evil. The fortunes of his main heroes are perpetual alternations of triumphs and disasters, when easy victory or wishful thinking leads to tremendous catastrophe which in their turn opens wider prospects and helps to change things for better...
History and literature give us numerous evidences of relative nature of commonly accepted principles and stereotypes and absolute significance of all deeds and creatures that serve for immortality of the mankind.
Comprehension of dialectical method is much more difficult than comprehension of formal logic as mastering the dialectical mode of thinking can not be reduced to learning a set of rules and patterns. Mastering dialectics may be compared with learning swimming or riding bicycle. There are certain rules that facilitate acquiring the skill, but even the best trainer or manual can not explain by means of words how to keep balance and what it is. A person should feel this specific state.
Dialectical method in its very essence is the ability to keep the equilibrium of mind in very fluid and shaky reality; to think in terms of dialectics is to be able to merge the stream of consciousness with the stream of Being, to plunge into the whirlpool of events and grasp their deepest sense, to step into the labyrinth of alternatives and catch the only guiding thread that shows the way to Eternity.
The other problem that complicates the comprehension of dialectics is the problem of dialectical contradictions (antinomies). The adepts of dialectics hold that in contrast to formal (metaphysical) logic dialectical analysis operates with contradictions (antinomies), as everything is based on and moved by the unity and struggle of opposites (thesis and antithesis). This approach was sharply criticised by many post-classic philosophers (especially by positivists) and to say the truth, this critic was partially fair, as classic dialectical concepts failed to provide a clear criterions for distinguishing dialectical contradictions from formal ones.
The main reason of such theoretical uncertainty is that dialectics has not completely emancipated from formal logic. Great dialectics (such as Kant, Hegel and Marx) continued to mix the laws of dialectical and formal logic and applied the principles pertaining only to formal logic towards definition of dialectical terms.
It should be marked that Marx made important step forward holding that both formal and dialectical logic are not the logic of mind, but the logic of the objective reality reflected in human mind. So, if proceed from the axiom that the ultimate criterion for everything (including contradictions) is objective reality, then contradictions may be defined as incompatibility of things/aspects/processes (reflected in abstract logical constructions) in the objective reality. And vice versa: the statement reflecting things/aspects/processes that are actually coexist in the real life and this coexistence is experimentally proven can not be qualified as contradictory. That which is usually called “dialectical contradiction” is not contradiction but is complementary characteristic. “Dialectical contradictions” are none other than reflections of different aspects of a single thing made from different points of view, or different reflections of the same thing/aspect produced by two (or more) subjects/objects with different characteristics.
(N. Bohr and A. Einstein understood this idea very clearly; Bohr’s principle of complementarity and Einstein’s relativity principle are vivid examples of dialectical approach towards the problems of physics.)
Let us view the well known Heraclites’ antinomy reading that sea water is the clearest and the dirtiest (for fishes it is clear while for men it is dirty). This statement contains not a single contradiction as in objective reality sea water is used both by fishes and by Homo sapiens; as these organisms belong to different species they have different structure and metabolism, so the reactions of their organisms on sea water will be different. But the assertion that sea water is both salt and sweet will be by any means contradictory as in the real life sea water can not be simultaneously salt and sweet.
The ban on contradictions is valid both for formal and for dialectical logic. What should be remembered is that the final and universal criterion for qualifying any statement or conclusion as right or wrong, contradictory or not contradictory is not the laws of formal logic, but practice (reference to the objective reality).
For better comprehension of the very essence of dialectical method one should refer to etymology of the term. Dialectics comes from dialogue. Dialogues were very popular in Ancient Greece, whose philosophers contributed much to development of dialectics – Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and others widely used the form of dialogue for expression of their ideas. Each participant of the dialogue (contest) presented his point of view while clashes and combinations of different and even opposite opinions produced comprehensive (multidimensional) image of the discussed subject [thesis – antithesis – synthesis].
Hegel extrapolated this scheme (pertaining mainly to the development of thought) to the development of material systems which led to formalization of dialectical method and its divergence with practice. However, polysemantic character of dialectical statements (which seems contradictory for common sense) is not the whim of armchair pundits being fond of intellectual games – it is conditioned by fluid and multidimensional nature of the objective reality.
There are numbers of phenomena and processes that can not be described in terms of formal logic demanding strict choice between two alternatives (either ... or), they require synthetic description including both thesis and antithesis. In such case synthesis is achieved due to introduction of additional elements of thought which eliminate formal contradiction between opposites and turn them into complementary characteristics. For example, if we simply say that sear water is the clearest and the dirtiest it will be a contradiction, but if we specify that for fishes it is clear while for men it is dirty, the contradiction will be eliminated.
Hegel once marked that each kind of logic has its special field of application, to his mind formal logic is applicable to the problems of everyday life (submitted to the principles of common sense) while dialectical method is useful for solving more complex philosophical and scientific problems. This valuable remark was often ignored both by adepts and critics of dialectics who tried to apply dialectical principles to the problems that belong to the realm of formal logics which only discredited dialectical method.
Dialectics and formal logics are two types of logic with specific axioms and sphere of application, in this context they may be compared with and non-Euclid or classic physic and Relativity/quantum mechanic.
In the realm of formal logic (common sense) all objects and systems have constant structure (being immutable during a long period of time) and all processes have cyclical nature. In this sphere each thing has its permanent place and performs strictly definite function. According to formal (metaphysical) approach every thing may have only a single quality (meaning) and each event (process) has single and strictly definite sense. Common sense views all subjects separately and determines their quality through examining their structure and comparing it with the respective etalon. (Formal logic adequately describes the behaviour of such objects as planetary system where all objects have their permanent orbits, technical mechanisms constructed according to a certain scheme, where each detail performs definite function, living cells and organisms that have already finished their evolution and are reproduced in the same form, traditional society with constant socio-economical and political structure, etc.).
In the realm of dialectics all things and systems undergo perpetual metamorphoses and change their places and relations many times, so from the point of view of dialectics a thing as such does not have an immanent quality (predestination) – its quality appears at the intersection of connections with other objects; the same is with the sense of events – an event does not have a single interpretation, its meaning depends on the properties of the reflecting object/subject. That is why dialectical method never views a subject of study separately, but only in the context of its relations with other objects and observes all things and events from different points of view.
The subjects of study that require dialectical approach are the Universe as a whole where objects move with enormous speeds; biosphere, where living organisms undergo mutations and evolve into a new species; the industrial society with great dynamic of socio-economic changes, etc.
Formal logic is the realm of pure reason and verified knowledge – it describes systems where all important parameters may be exactly measured and which future state is quite predictable. Dialectics deals with the systems where only a part of information is accessible for study, so in this realm reason shares power with intuition.
In the sphere of common sense occasion is viewed as something unimportant which may not be taken into consideration. For dialectical mode of thinking accidental events are not less important than regular ones – a fortuity is a seed of future or a last straw that breaks the existing order and releases the Demon of changes.
The other difference between formal and dialectical mode of thinking is perception of time. Formal logic divides time into fragments that may be studied independently of each other. For common sense Past is that which has already gone, present is something which actually exists while Future is that which has not come yet.
For dialectics which views Being as a chain of negations, an object (event) is the focus of tenses. Past (the remnants of previous forms and traces of earlier events) is embedded in the Present which in its turn contains the embryo of Future. (This synthesis of time is splendidly revealed in Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury that is a brightest example of dialectical mode of thinking in literature.)
For common sense Time is clocks and calendars – it views Time as something abstract and absolute that may be measured with universal etalons. Such “mechanical” approach (pertaining to Newton’s physics and metaphysic of 18-19 c.) is quite applicable to relatively small homogeneous systems consisting of standard elements which movement may be synchronised.
Dialectics views Time as an attribute of matter characterising its movement. This idea was developed and popularized by Marx and Engels, the creators of dialectical materialism; scientific proof of the relative nature of time was made by A. Einstein.
In the sphere of Being where matter is distributed not quite evenly universal etalons are senseless – each object has its own time.
Common sense prompts that the course of Time may follow only one direction (forward). In the realm of dialectics the course of Time depends on how a system uses its energy. If it is replenished with new elements its Time goes forward; if energy simply circulates from one part to another Time moves in a circle; but if he structure loses its energy and constituent parts the spiral of Time unfolds into opposite direction and the system returns to the past.
Although quantitative characteristics of Time are not absolute, this attribute of matter has universal nature and its power stretches everywhere, as the streams of energy that break ties and connections between things and elements causing more or less substantial changes, transpierce the whole Being. They may be slow down or turned into other direction, but they can not be completely stopped, so existence is none other than a perpetual dialogue with Time – different metamorphoses of material structures (regulated by the laws of dialectics) are (in their very essence) more or less adequate and successful answers to the challenges of Time.
As it has been already mentioned formal logic operates with ideal patterns and universal principles – from the point of view of dialectics any truth is relative, the only absolute recognized by dialectical mode of thinking is fruitfulness – the ability to produce results that exceed pains and losses. Dialectics justifies everything that tends to transform energy into a new quality and denies everything that leads to senseless and fruitless wasting of time and energy, as the supreme aim of Being is self-assembly – restoration of the lost integrity (namely: singularity, or if use Hegel’s terminology Absolute Idea ). Energy should be perpetually transmitted from one interim form to another until it finds the form being completely equal to the initial one which could involve in itself the rest of matter and transform it into a single entity containing the embryo of the future Universe...
It should be marked that fruitfulness (efficiency) is the universal criterion of Good. But in the static environment where all things, systems and processes exist/are reproduced in the same immutable form, the effect caused by an object/event is quite definite and predictable, so everything may be supplied with a tag: positive/negative/neutral, etc. Dialectics that deals with changeable and heterogeneous reality, considers nothing as a-priory good or vicious, right or wring, useful or useless, prospective or having no prospects. The actual meaning of everything is determined in the context of concrete circumstances, as the effect caused by something, depends not only its own properties, but also on the properties of the things it interacts with (a blow of hammer makes steel harder, but breaks glass).
An explosion of a supernova may be viewed as a destructive process, but if it leads to formation of a new planetary system serving as a cradle for highly organized biological and social forms, it may be qualified as constructive. A genetic mutation may be qualified as positive, negative or neutral only in relation with natural environment to which a mutated organism should be adapted.
Such social collisions as revolutions or civil wars may have both devastating and clearing effect depending on where and when they take place. For example Civil War of 1861-1865 in the United States (in spite of heavy losses sustained by the defeated side) was a progressive event that formed conditions for rapid economic growth. But numerous civil conflicts in Columbia (so vividly described by Garcia Marques) brought little boon to the country and turned into a chronicle disease gnawing formerly vital social organism.
Democracy with its division of power and wide civic rights and freedoms under certain conditions creates the best conditions for economic, social and cultural development, but the political order that demonstrates so many advantages, may as well be a source of disaster if a state meets with extremely serious challenges. Such situation was in ancient Athens in times of Peloponnesian War and in Western Europe in the period of World War II, when bourgeois democracy proved its inefficiency for resisting such totalitarian power as the Third Reich (Great Britain survived rather due to favourable geographical location).
Before French Revolution (1787-99) Napoleon Bonaparte was a clumsy, acrimonious and not very popular young man with very vague carrier prospects, as he possessed neither aristocratic origin nor good manners and connections necessary for achieving success in the feudal society. But after the Great Revolution had smashed the Order under which dancing skills were more important than intellectual faculties, the former outsider turned into the most powerful person in Europe.
Those who try to solve the problems of human existence (especially the problems of moral) should remember that they are much more complex and multidimensional than the riddles of Nature that is why their comprehension requires greater flexibility of mind.
Yet ancient thinkers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) marked relative and transient sense of moral and political credos as well as frequent divergence between individuals’ initial goals and final results of their deeds.
This problem interested not only philosophers, but also men of letters, and to say the truth the dialectics of human relations was much vividly reflected in the works of arts and literature than in philosophical treatises.
Since the epoch of Renaissance had renewed the progressive movement of society, artists and men of letters prove in their works that in the developing society man’s deeds should not be rigidly submitted to an age-old tradition or an abstract ideal, but must be in harmonious correspondence with the demands of the real life.
This idea runs through the works of Cervantes whose hero Don Quixote possessed by pii desiderii suffers bitter failure and destroys his life and the life of those related to him.
Shakespeare’s great losers – Harry Hotspur, Hamlet, Macbeth, Coriolanus, King Leer, Antonius, and others also illustrate the truth that even an outstanding individuality is doomed to defeat if his qualities and outlook are not in line with the objective circumstances.
Goethe’s Faust throws challenge to commonly accepted moral norms and religious principles but in spite of all is justified and saved (together with his beloved Margaret). While the self-definition of Mephistopheles as a “part of the Power that would always wish Evil, and always works the Good” breaks stereotypical view on the nature of Good and Evil.
Leo Tolstoy a great apologist of man’s seeking and striving for his true predestination, specified in his War and Pease this dialectics of good and evil. The fortunes of his main heroes are perpetual alternations of triumphs and disasters, when easy victory or wishful thinking leads to tremendous catastrophe which in their turn opens wider prospects and helps to change things for better...
History and literature give us numerous evidences of relative nature of commonly accepted principles and stereotypes and absolute significance of all deeds and creatures that serve for immortality of the mankind.
Comprehension of dialectical method is much more difficult than comprehension of formal logic as mastering the dialectical mode of thinking can not be reduced to learning a set of rules and patterns. Mastering dialectics may be compared with learning swimming or riding bicycle. There are certain rules that facilitate acquiring the skill, but even the best trainer or manual can not explain by means of words how to keep balance and what it is. A person should feel this specific state.
Dialectical method in its very essence is the ability to keep the equilibrium of mind in very fluid and shaky reality; to think in terms of dialectics is to be able to merge the stream of consciousness with the stream of Being, to plunge into the whirlpool of events and grasp their deepest sense, to step into the labyrinth of alternatives and catch the only guiding thread that shows the way to Eternity.