Let me begin with Aristotles idea the man is social. politik zoon. This means we recognise ourselves through similarities and differences with others and the things around us. We ask questions of ourselves and others to define what is going so as we can act on the world in our interests as they arise mutually or not. We have wide interests sport, literature, art, science etc. Every now and again we ask ourselves -the best way forward, so we analyse things. We look at what has gone before and find way to add to our efforts. We look for movement and patterns elswhere to compare. All the time looking for similarities and differences.
Dialectics gives shape to some of these patterns, how processes have similar patterns in their movement. So it may help us guess the way things might move, or give us some idea of the probabilities involved. When we have choice we look at either/or, we look for what is mutually exclusive or inclusive, we try to see if choosing both is a possibility. The most fundamental process is that of living, being born, coming to a potential then dying. That is the landscape of dialectics, the formal entity can blind us to its process. The static unchanging moment of a being, can hide the process of development. The observations of dialecticians are mostly about the way opposites can relate to specific ways to observe changes depending on what question needs answered.

If the question is about temperature, hot and cold, solid and gas, are merely a couple of the opposites we would naturally find when analysing a subject. We may discover more while we are looking at the phases of self movement of a process

It is fairly simple and not worth coming down with a ton of bricks on. I have always found it very helpful. The either/or thing especially, it is particularly useful in negotiating peace. Opposites sides can be combined for the greater good.

Dialectics is ultimately about corresponding to the needs of the universe as we find them subjectively as we interact with others and the environment, negating that which holds back our development and consciousness of human evolution.

Good post, I think that dialectics is indeed important for people to understand, and its essence is very simple, like you just demonstrated.

You kinda strike in a direction I can understand in parts, but your language is very "mystical".

I've actually noticed this about all your posts, I think it detracts from your arguments, as well as your thought.

No offense, but you come off as a little muddled and confused.

man, he's going to get owned by Rosa.

Mystical, confused? Usual piffle, I am confusing maybe, I am trying to break down bourgeois habits of thinking, which is very much the object of Marx's absorption of Hegelian dialectics. I prefer Marx to Rosa . What is so confusing? Why not start there? Where is the mystery? Where is the supernatural? Honestly what are you talking about? I might have a simple and practical answer for you.

Here is Marx.
"My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of 'the Idea,' he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of 'the Idea.' With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought."

Here the material world reflected ...into forms of thought is indeed the struggle for clarity or cutting edge truth which is built from previous reflections.

This is the simple way things happen. We can go into it more deeply. But to deny this process is anti-thinking and anti-life. In other words it is reactionary. 'Anti-dialectics' as a critique may have some valid criticisms of various forms of thought but it cant in any way undermine the most fundamental form of the dialectical development of human thought, and as such it is a reactionary misnomer.

Rosa can't refute anyone. She just ultra-spams the threads.

I think that the post is pretty simple in some aspects. Perhaps not as descriptive as I am used to, but a start in the right direction.

If you want to talk about dialectics, you should have mentioned Plato too. He's the one who started it.

Ioninan presocratic thinkers had these notions much before Plato.

Wow. Now that is what I call philosophy!

How can you tell what the needs of the universe are and how does Dialectics correspond to them?

Hey! Red eck, Thats what I call a good question.
The Universe is big and we dont need Douglas Adams to tell us that. The point
is that we have a history within the universe, and here we already run into problems with religion, but if we take that as belief or rather faith we can go straight to 'Big Bang' theory, which gives the Universe a beginning, though it has been argued that this does not rule out the idea that the universe constantly expands and implodes. Big bang theory for materialists and atheists suggests a return to a prime mover. So before we go anywhere we are starting to talk about the history of ideas.

Dialectics, takes these ideas and looks at the ways they have developed, not always in a straight line, and puts them in their historical context.

Just as the Universe is in movement, just as parts, or elements, or constituents are in movement, so are our ideas. These movements ideas and real processes are inseperable. All ideas come from something real, even a unicorn is a horse and a horn. God an idea of man to explain the unkown. The unknown is a real entity,especialy if exams are coming up.

The aim of dialectics is to correspond real processes outside our mind, with the patterns we have in our mind so as they can match, as closely as possible.

It is not 100% efficent, the opposition of contingency and accident with necessity
and absolute with relative, actual with potential etc makes us prone to approximation rather than accuracy.

The job of science is to make ever better and useful approximations of the real nature of things and processes so as to develop their use value.

Dialectics, as reinterpretated by Marx, is the movement away from metaphysics,
to scientific method that looks at the historical movement of any given process, looking at all(as much that be acquired) of its history and interconnections with other apparent or really salient ,
data.
It is a little bit like what is needed to complete a PHD these days.

Yes, but it was Plato who made a coherent idea on dialectics which inspired idealists and Christian neoplatonists through the middle ages, to the modern age finding its' way to Hegels absolute idealism.

We find in Hegel's History of Philosophy, the notion that all philosophy is part of the enfolding of gods idea.
If we use Marx's method of turning Hegel on his head we can find the idea that the history of philosophy represents shifts in the material conditions in which philosophies were created. Marx suggests that an epoch will only throw up the questions it can resolve.
That might be called the dialectics of history, but as to the history of dialectics which is conditioned by the dialectics of history, generally sees philosophers throw up ideas that cope with the problems of previous philosophers.

Philosophy which Marx and Engels tried to turn directly into science and was to them the playground of metaphysics and empty contemplation also contained within it the road to science. This is a road Hegel tries to outline in the HOP and gives as spirtiual evolution in the "Phenomonology of the Spirit"

I think the 'Theses on Feuerbach' which was not meant for publication contained an over-simplification,''All previous philosophers have interpreted the world, the point is to change it." Ironically Marx coud never have got to that place without all previous philosophers. Maybe Morgan, and Deitzgen, who Marx said came to his conclusions independently but not Marx who did his doctoral dissertation on Democratus and Epicurus.

In addendum, Plato represented a leap forward in dialectics, partly because he recorded Socrates teachings, which were fundamentally about forming the best questions or the most needed questions.
Lenin, points this out in regards to Aristotle, what is fundamental to dialectics is exactly the framing of questions.

PreSocratic philosphers posed many important questions but Heraclitis is pointed at dialectically, as he obseved that "All matter is in a State of flux"

Were you waiting for Rosa to step out to post this?

Okay, I'll bite: what can be predicted or observed through dialetical materialism that couldn't otherwise be determined through science, logic, and reasoning?

What planet is this ?I dont think Rosa is on the same planet as me. I certainly dont want to argue with unlistening pedant, who is deeply prejudiced in her thinking.
There are other points of view.

I am not fond of the term 'dialectical materialism', if only because idealists have important things to say that are dismissed by materialists.
Hegel, for instance says "you cant learn to swim without jumping into the pool."

The idea of seperating dialectics from science is ultimately ridiculous. Dialectics is not a branch of philosophy, for Marx and Engels it is anti-philosophy, it is science.

All science is based on the negation of the negation, which fundamentally means improving on what has gone before.

Dialectics is that debate, those questions taken to every sphere of thought.

So what can dialectics predict that cant be predicted by "other" scientific means.

Absolutely nothing.

Hi peaccenicked.

Just a few questions.

What use does it have?

What has it predicted?

Nothing could be predicted.

Thats the point I see in peaccenicked's post.

Marxian dialectics represents a continuation in the development in philosophy from religion to science as a world outlook, Weltanschung,

Science tends to be compartmentalised and specialised. Dialectics is a scientific attitude towards everything.

Marxian dialectics has predicted that the most probable result of capitalism is socialism.

Well he also did see counter-revolution as a possibility.

But look, im trying to figure out what use it has - and why anyone would even bother spending time learning it.

If it is scientific, then it must be capable of predicting something in practice.

So what has it predicted? - what can it predict? - what practical use does it have?

Socialism - to me (and many many others) - is still just a theory, and has never existed. So something else along the lines of an actual example where dialectics predicts something scientific is needed.

If it cannot prove to be of any practical use then I dont see the point to it.

So maybe you can fill me in on this?