Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 11:44:57 +0100
Subject: Re: dialectics


Justin writes:

>Least of all can you derive what something that might be dialectics
>is from a half-baked etymology of the Greek, which as
>far as I know, none of us know. Greek that is.

You presume too much. I know enough Greek and philology to tell a
half-baked etymology from one that's valid, and I bet I'm not the only one.
At a guess, Jukka and Peter B have an even better grounding than me, and if
they don't, they should have.

None of the etymologies I've given have been sucked out of my thumb, but
taken from authoratative sources.



>
> Asto whether dialectics is a "logic," it's not on any of the >sensenes
>which the term "logic: has been used, mainly referring to >theories of the
>formal relations between propositions understood from >a purely synatical
>point of view (that is, apart from the meaning of >any of the propositions
>or their constituent terms) in virtue of >which some propositions imply
>others, i.e., the study of valid >arguments as such.

This seems to refer to purely technical logic, with a given set of
premises. There is also logic in the thrashing out of valid premises, this
is the dialectical bit.

Boole's logical algebra and symbolic logic are used to check out
conclusions that can be drawn from given premises, since they can push the
process of argument further. If the conclusions become absurd, it's time to
look at the premises again. And you don't dump logic out of the window just
because you're arguing about axioms, even if the rules aren't the same as
in technical logic.

Read, for starters, Aristotle's 'On interpretation' and Book 1 of his
'Posterior Analytics'

Barkley wrote:

>>      I "second" Jukka Laari's remarks with one further
>> addendum.  The "dia" most definitely refers to "two."
>> A "dialogue" is between exactly two parties (in Plato's
>> dialectical dialogues presenting opposing positions).
>> When one party is speaking it is a "monologue."
>>      If dialectics is not a "two-valued logic" then what
>> is it?  A many valued logic?  A fuzzy valued logic?  A
>> no value logic?  Not a logic?

He's completely wrong. The 'dia' most definitely does *not* refer to 'two'.
This 'two' business is folk etymology at its most classical.

According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, edited by Onions,
'dialectics', 'dialect' and 'dialogue' all originate from the Greek verb
'dialegesthai', to hold discourse, which in turn derives from the
prepositional prefix 'dia-' and the verb 'legein', meaning speak. ('Logos'
is related to 'legein' of course). The prefix 'dia-' is 'used in compound
words with the senses 'through', 'thorough(ly)', 'apart'. (There's also a
sense that doesn't concern us, found in medicine and music, meaning 'made
up of'.) To keep the 'through' thing in mind, think of 'DIArrhoea' -- a
flowing through, and 'DIAbetes' a going or passing through (refers to the
'immoderate discharge of urine containing glucose').

There is perhaps a link with 'two' in the dim and distant past, as the
dictionary says 'dia' is 'apparently an alteration of Indo-European *dis,
in two, apart'. This refers to something being sundered rather than having
any numerical significance.

Cheers,

Hugh




     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---