The Hegelian Dialectic is Proven to be Causally Weak

By Not Hegel

Introduction

The Hegelian dialectic, a core concept in Western philosophy, has significantly influenced our understanding of the world and shaped numerous subsequent philosophical theories. However, this article argues that the dialectic’s causal weaknesses not only undermine its own foundation but also weaken the epistemological basis of many philosophies that have stemmed from it. By addressing the thinking errors that are a common outgrowth in using the Hegelian dialectic, I aim to mitigate unnecessary social issues arising from polarized thinking.

The Hegelian dialectic is a philosophical concept and framework developed by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. It describes a process of arriving at a new idea or synthesis through the resolution of contradictions. The dialectical process typically consists of three stages:

  1. Thesis: This is the initial idea or proposition that represents a certain understanding or belief.
  2. Antithesis: This is the opposing idea or counter-proposition that contradicts or challenges the thesis.
  3. Synthesis: This is the reconciled outcome that arises from the conflict between the thesis and antithesis. It is a new idea that integrates elements from both the thesis and antithesis, thus transcending their initial opposition.

In Hegelian thought, the dialectic process is seen as the driving force behind the development of human history, culture, and knowledge. This approach emphasizes the importance of conflicts and contradictions as catalysts for change and progress. However, critics argue that the Hegelian dialectic oversimplifies complex issues and may inadvertently promote a polarized, binary way of thinking. I will argue about its oversimplification in contrasting elements but also the issue of overusing the contrast heuristic in obtaining information about the world.

When I use the term dialectic here, I am not talking about the dialectic that Socrates uses to gain knowledge through discussion. This type of dialectic is a style of argumentation that is limited as a method of logical inquiry and is very useful in affective style learning. As a metaphysic of reality, Hegel reified this term into a broader philosophical framework than just a method of discussion.

Filtering the Dialectic

Hegel calls the universal structure of all thought and reality, the dialectic. I do agree that interaction with the world can seem like a tug-of-war or that even reality can feel modernist in believing that progress is on the horizon (resulting in synthesis). However, to anchor the structure of reality as a dualist or even a triadic mechanism is not only a big inference but there is no basis for this type of dynamic in reality. I see this as mere pattern recognition of a contrast heuristic of the mind and not an ontology that is sewn into the fabric of reality. I’m not just simply going to reject this as a fantasy of the mind. I will identify what truth he is discovering and trim away the unnecessary and ungrounded aspects:

  1. The mind is a biological machine and, among other things, a prediction machine. So, as a subject, there are events that trigger responses. These responses use prediction for the desire for successful outcomes.
  2. Among the mechanisms of the mind, one is contrast. It’s very useful in discerning one thing from another [look up cognitive psychology]. It s a natural heuristic to contrast something with an opposing thing to glean new insight from it.
  3. The mind synthesizes information (as the mind synthesizes everything to an extent) to recalibrate, adjust, and predict.

This explains the probable mechanisms involved but it doesn’t explain how this may work in societies. These mechanisms also extend to intersubjective (social) discourses since ideas spread communally. So subjective (the self) mechanisms may extend to societies also (which I will write about in a future article).

A Thing Vs. A Non-Thing

Some things we observe might seem like real things but aren’t. This might seem obvious to you, but many people are tricked into believing things that aren’t there. Let’s start with an example that no one disagrees with: When you look in the mirror, you know that it’s not another person in the mirror, it’s just a reflection of you. So you wouldn’t say that the person in the reflection is another you but just a mere reflection (not real, just an image).

Now let’s do one that’s a bit trickier: Light and darkness. Light is a thing. You can point at it and observe it. And darkness seems like a thing because you can point at it and observe it. The difference is that light is real and darkness is not. You can create light but you cannot create darkness. Darkness is just the absence of light. The darkness is more like the mirror in which you can observe it as a contrast to something else (the original person creating the reflection.) Our minds see light and darkness as a contrast. Typically, when we see a contrast we try to use words for each element and make them real and thus reifying them. Unfortunately, many things, in reality, have contrasts that are similar to “the thing” and “not the thing.” The non-thing doesn’t exist and is just a result of our mind making a contrast, which happens to be very useful but not necessarily ontologically accurate.

When Hegel developed the dialectic he used his heuristic of the mind and came to the conclusion that this subjective heuristic is in fact an aspect of reality. This would make perfect sense if you disregard material reality – which is what he did. I don’t know if he rejected material reality to keep logical consistency or it just could have been his foundation. Either way, let’s cover the dialect in more detail.

The thesis is the thing that is observed to be real (I’m using the word observe here because observations aren’t necessarily real.) The antithesis is not necessarily real. It is possible to be real, but as we have seen there are many things that are contrasted that are not. You can often label the antithesis as “not the thing.” Synthesis is when these two things merge into an adjusted form to become the new thesis. Now to be clear, I am not saying this process doesn’t happen, of course it does. But what I am saying is that it is only one process of a plethora of possible dynamic transformations. What if it was a process of three or more? What if it was two different theses and four opposing things with only two that may be real?

My point is that when people believe this is a real ontological reality, they will make false assumptions. Karl Marx used this concept and anchored it to physical reality which we will only introduce in this article.

Hegel’s Effect on Historical Materialism

Historical materialism, developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is an approach to understanding history and social change, emphasizing that economic and material conditions shape society. Historical materialism stresses that class struggle drives social change, and as contradictions between classes intensify, it eventually leads to the overthrow of the existing system and the emergence of a new mode of production.

Marx basically rejected Hegel’s subjective dialectic in the mental world and said that the dialectic worked in physical reality. He believed that when the industrial revolution takes place, the proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. Also that the stages of development are a natural outgrowth of the contradictions inherent in capitalist production. The idea of the oppressor and oppressed dynamic can be used to divide people along class lines and create a sense of conflict or tension between different social groups.

Marx’s theories can be very prescient in the way economics works the problem is when Marx depends on Hegel’s dialectic to predict the outcome of class struggles. When looking at Historical Materialism, the above video explains part of why it seems to work. But, it doesn’t extend to materialism, because these contrasts are of the mind only. Just as we can create our ideas in reality, it doesn’t necessarily make those ideas a material aspect of that reality. Yes, our ideas have an effect on reality but it doesn’t guarantee that the dialectic is a necessary aspect of reality. There are many aspects of systems in reality that are not opposites. We create this false dichotomy by assuming that the opposite is the most appropriate way to contrast it. It’s very comforting to easily look for good vs evil and us vs them. This makes us feel better about ourselves. It just happens to be inaccurate and too simplistic. If you are looking for opposition you will find it. Typically, anything you put your energy into believing, you will validate those ideas in the real world. But that doesn’t make it an accurate assessment of how the world works. If Hegel didn’t exist, Marxism would not have existed in its current state. I’m not saying that Marxist ideas have no merit, I’m just saying that this historical materialism has no philosophical foundation on which to make those ideas. Now, let us take a closer look at class consciousness through the economic variable in the division of labor.

When I think about complex systems that are intersubjective structures like society, it is easier to use the analogy of an engine. Society and engines both have inputs and outputs, a necessary equilibrium to keep them functioning, many variations that are designed with different efficiencies, and will break down when not used correctly. Marx focuses primarily on class struggle as the weakness in the engine. Marx then predicts through the dialectic that it will go through a specific transformation that requires revolution between the two classes. While this may be possible and even feasible, complex systems are not necessarily divided into two primary groups.

It was Marx’s observation in his early industrial society that employees suffered as a result of the profits of business owners. I’m not using the preferred Marx terms because they would be the creation of a false dichotomy that I explained above – they would polarize the information and create bias by creating factions that are not necessarily there. By imagining these factions, he actually reifies his ideas and makes those factions into reality. He is prophetic due to a self-fulfilling prophecy. This pattern of self-fulfilling prophecy is clearly demonstrated in all Neo-Marxist traditions.

There is not just a subjective problem when it comes to the development of historical materialism when put into practice. There is the intersubjective issue of manipulating the societal engine in an unrealistically idealistic way. When Marxism was put into practice, the resulting economies suffered greatly. I would guess that this is due to a misidentification of how money works efficiently in society (this is why communist China changed to economic capitalism to be more efficient and effective). In an engine, every variable affects every other variable. When Marx was analyzing society, he focused on a duality that was not looking at the big picture and therefore misunderstood how that variable affects the other variables. I would not venture to guess at this time how this all works. However, using the premise as a social engine (which is still too simplistic) may be more useful in figuring out how it actually works.

The Dialectic Meets CBT

First, I will introduce CBT then I will show why it is pertinent to this discussion. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a type of psychotherapy that focuses on modifying dysfunctional thoughts, behaviors, and emotions in order to improve mental well-being and overall functioning. CBT is based on the premise that a person’s thoughts, rather than external factors or events, directly influence their feelings and behaviors.

Neo-Marxism stripped much of the ideas of economics and focused on the oppressor and oppressed – the weakest epistemological element in his brilliant analysis. Disaffected people can get easily hijacked by this psychological dynamic for the very reason that Hegel and Marx developed it in the first place. The contrast heuristic is a very satisfying way to partition the world. Unfortunately, when it is overused, it develops psychological problems. Dialectical thinking can be susceptible to some of these cognitive biases. This may seem paranoid to some. But, this dynamic is a psychological one – one that hijacks common thinking errors that can lead to psychosocial issues. Here is a small list of CBT thinking errors that may likely occur with dialectical thinking:

  1. Overgeneralizing – always or never (if they don’t agree they are an oppressor and that they were always an oppressor because of it)
  2. Labeling – self-esteem labels (calling people names that disagree with you which invalidates ideological differences)
  3. Catastrophizing – A revolution needs to happen for anything worthwhile to occur
  4. Fortune-telling – assuming that a revolution is part of the process
  5. Mind-reading – that if someone disagrees they are thinking unethical things
  6. Mental filtering – only analyzing the world under oppressor and oppressed thinking (which ends up being very myopic)
  7. Making demands – that you must be part of the solution or you are part of the problem

I conclude that many thinking errors crop up like weeds in someone’s psyche when someone uses black-and-white thinking of opposites to analyze the world. CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) may seem foreign to some so I will clarify the difference between something psychological to something intersubjective like society.

How does one identify when there is real oppression or real injustice happening? You can’t just reason everything away as not real. So here are a few questions you can ask yourself to parse something internal from external:

  1. Is this oppression rooted in common thinking errors? Life is not black or white.
  2. Is the necessity for change truly external and not the more common answer to inner turmoil? By extension, one should not be showing signs of emotional instability or distress by mere words or infractions.
  3. When reasonable discussion only becomes an array of reactions and not responses.
  4. Is the oppression begging the question? Do you have to explain the problem before anyone can even discover the “suffering”?

Everyone on the planet has mental distortions, it is part of the human condition. Just as there are always real problems in society, there are always real problems in the people making up that society. How can one judge the world when one does not even see clearly? Despite our imperfections, we can still strive for self-awareness, empathy, and understanding in order to make better judgments and decisions.

Counterarguments

The dialectic is a tool for understanding change. I would see this as the most convincing argument for Hegel’s Dialectic. This approach may seem to help reveal the contradictions and conflicts within a system that might otherwise be difficult to identify. My counterargument is that this understanding is too simplistic and needs to be tempered with other concepts of analysis that don’t use contrast.

Just as contrast can reveal the edges of objects, doesn’t mean that the resulting dividing lines are real – it just shows there was a difference between one place and another. When an artist draws cartoons, they use lines to create the shapes. When compared to reality, the lines do not exist but are useful in simplifying the reproduction of objects. An artist then uses many mental tools to complete the reproduction.

When thinking about the difference between actual reality and abstract mental reproductions, I think a math analogy might be useful. When observing objects in the real world, it is easy to compare and contrast one with another. However, when observing complex social structures like classes, economy, and labor, they are not tangible concrete things. They are more like dynamic forces maneuvering in complex systems.

In mathematics, two dynamic forces can be represented as vectors, which have both magnitude and direction. These vectors may be different but they don’t necessarily oppose each other. Instead, they can be combined through vector addition to creating a new vector that represents the net effect of the original two forces.

This mathematical representation highlights that the interaction between dynamic forces is more complex than simple binary opposition. Forces can work together, counteract each other partially, or even be unrelated, depending on their magnitudes and directions. Consequently, the dialectic’s focus on opposition and synthesis may not fully capture the range of possible relationships between dynamic forces in reality. This supports the argument that Hegel’s dialectic, while insightful in some contexts, is not a comprehensive explanation for all aspects of reality.

Summary

To summarize, I emphasized the problems in identifying dialectics as actual causal dynamics in reality. This includes Hegel’s dialectical causality in mental structures and Marx’s dialectical causality in societal structures. I also pointed out the difference between what is real or not real in contrasting elements which in turn shows the weakness in identifying dialectical causality altogether. Then I showed the connection between these ideas influencing the psychological dynamics creating the polarization in thinking and the psychological issues it entails. By studying ideas like this, they have revealed the dangers of utopian idealist philosophy. However, when these ideas land on reality, they validate the necessity to compare and contrast what actually works and what doesn’t. So maybe utopian ideals should stay where they belong: in the clouds.

Limitations of Causality and its Relation to Scale

by Not Hegel

Carl Sagan in Cosmos provided a very logical rejection of horoscopes. He said the doctor helping the mother give birth has a greater gravitational effect on the child than Saturn does. This gravitational effect of the planets is the crux of the study of horoscopes. Therefore, this was a disregard for Scale.

When talking about cause and effect, the scale of what is being analyzed has to be kept in mind. When we say Earth is in the Solar System, we are saying that Earth is within the dynamics and scale of the Solar System and is affected by it. If the Earth was light years away from the Solar System, sure it would still have an effect but it would not be enough to provide any meaningful effect or difference.

What’s being stressed here is that when discerning cause and effect, scale and limits are very important. A discourse limit is when a relation between cause and effect is negligible.

When thinking about the planes of discourse, the scale needs to be kept in mind when it comes to causality. What is the limit of cause and effect of quantum physics creating an atom? We can all agree that everything is made of quanta, but each quanta’s sphere of influence is minuscule. Without adding new rules to the universe, we can safely say quanta has limits in its singular effects.

What I’ve discovered is that these discourses all have limits. This may seem obvious to some, but the problem is similar to horoscopes: we just disregard the scale of their limitations. Because of this, much paradox is created.

Just to point out how the scale of limits can be problematic: which is the primary cause of a sneeze? (1) the quantum particles (2) the atomic particles (3) the chemical reactions (4) the biological mechanisms. According to a physicist, all things are determined. According to a chemist, the chemical is the key. According to a biologist, the sneezing mechanism is primary.

I’m not going to even attempt to answer this question now without a proper philosophical foundation. All I’m trying to point out here is that discourses have limits in their scale. This is much more important than you may think, I will cover this more in Limits and Layered Causality.

Causality of the Atom Bomb Invalidates Epiphenomenalism

by Not Hegel

Epiphenomenalism

This point of view is commonly called epiphenomenalism. I’m aware that Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder does not want to attach an -ism to her understanding that physics is the sole cause (or primary cause) of our actions. I will explain how this is not necessarily true. So, allow me to provide you with the definition of Epiphenomenalism:

Epiphenomenalism

A position on the mind-body problem which holds that physical and biochemical events within the human body are the sole cause of mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition).

With this definition, you can see that Dr. Hossenfelder is referring to a physical event, namely physics, as the sole cause of mental events.

For the longest time, I would hear this very effective argument and have no response. It’s not that I just wanted to disagree with the idea, it’s because intuitively, the idea just didn’t sit right with me – it didn’t feel logically sound. As I was developing the Planes of Discourse, I started to put the pieces in place that would have a proper response to this argument. I have come to understand that the universe is far too complex to structure, or in this case, restructure. I cannot possibly definitively destroy Dr. Hossenfelder’s argument in a few hundred words. However, as I build this model which I call The Planes of Discourse, the collection of arguments will become clear.

I will use the mind experiment “Causality of the Atomic Bomb” which I designed a few years ago. Keep in mind that this is an early post and I have not accumulated a philosophical foundation for this argument, but it will make intuitive sense.

Causality of the Atomic Bomb

In thinking about causes, let’s think about the elements required for an atomic bomb. You will need the following:

  1. A physical universe is required for the bomb and its environment.
  2. Biological life is capable of voluntary movement for its construction (as opposed to happenstance in which effects occur chaotically).
  3. Subjectivity is required to devise the idea of such a weapon.
  4. Intersubjectivity is required to enable the subject to tap into collective learning to be able to devise something so complex.

This is clearly not an exhaustive list of requirements, but without any of the elements, the atom bomb would not be possible (sine qua non – without which not). To be clear, the four above are required for the effect of an atom bomb to exist. It is true that part of Dr. Hossenfelder’s argument is a determinist argument about sole causes. But, I will extend this argument, more sensibly, for primary causes. I will discuss more regarding primary causation and layered causality in future articles.

Counterargument 1:You might think that robots can replace the Biological (2). However, I would argue that the Biological is required in the first place to design the robot since robots do not create themselves (or procreate). Biology is one of the proto-causes of robots.

Counterargument 2: You might argue that Subjectivity (3) is not required. Subjectivity was created by nature to analyze and evaluate the world in order for biology to survive. Without analysis and evaluation, the eyes would not be able to process the complex information it receives for the teleologies of the survival process (this will be explained later in an upcoming post). Therefore analysis and evaluation are necessary to develop an atomic bomb. It isn’t able to construct itself.

You may ask the following questions: Are each of these planes really causes? How can you have multiple causes? Logicians have two words they use that are useful here: necessary and sufficient. A necessary condition is one that must be present in order for another condition to occur, while a sufficient condition is one that produces the said condition. To be clear, the physical is necessary for the biological effect to occur, the biological is necessary for the subjective to occur, and the intersubjective knowledge is necessary for this effect to occur. Therefore, all four discourses are necessary and sufficient for the atomic bomb to occur. If any were missing, it wouldn’t happen.

When we analyze things, we tend to see them from one methodology, one perspective. People in their respective fields stick to their methodologies (like the physicist in the video uses physics). This is actually a good thing when someone doesn’t have a proper framework, switching methodologies (and the perspectives entailed) creates logical inconsistencies. You can lead to a paradox if you’re not careful. Therefore, most experts stick to their discourse.

Moreover, there is the possibility that the Physical is the cause of everything else, and therefore, other discourses are not required. This would be an oversimplification. This would be like saying ‘The galaxy was formed therefore cars exist.’ Things such as creating the atomic bomb require other planes, without which it would not be possible.

There are those that think this leads to epistemological pluralism. In epistemology, pluralism is the position that there are not one consistent means of approaching truths about the world. It is my understanding, pluralism is a way of giving up logical consistency and accepting the fate of paradox. I promise you, the Planes of Discourse is not pluralism, nor will it lead to it. In my opinion, pluralism happens when philosophers have monist ideas that don’t mesh with other sensible ideologies.

In each of the four elements, there are real causes and real effects. In this example, all four are necessary, or the effect would not be possible. A scientist must devise the idea for it to manifest. Without these thoughts, the device wouldn’t exist.

If we break down all complexity to explain it in physics terms (as in epiphenomenalism), we would say that nuclear fission happened because of the combination, forces, and placement of the molecules. In this materialist perspective, the other causes in the example do not make sense. This reminds me of the computer code which at its base are 0s and 1s. At the lowest levels, all these bits do not make sense. It is the structures formed by these bits that make sense. Higher languages like C++, Java, and even BASIC use knowledge to understand and process something useful and meaningful. Think of the biological using genetics to record and process the information of the world in order to apply that knowledge to survival heuristics. The physical universe (eg. quanta and chemistry) doesn’t process with knowledge whereas the Biological, the Subjective, and the Inter-subjective are all data and knowledge-driven discourses that do things for a purpose. Without the volition of purpose (free will from physical reality), all would be chaotic and senseless. There may be order in this type of universe (like the physical/epiphenomenalism universe), however, life wouldn’t be possible since knowledge-based heuristics like survival or reproduction would have no cause or effect. Knowledge-based discourses require saved data and while it is correct that this saved data is composed of molecules, these molecules have a knowledge-based effect on the world. Without these molecules used as data, the heuristic effect would not be possible.

I hope that by this point I have made some sense and begun tearing down the Epiphenominalist wall. In future articles, I will cover other topics such as layered causality – a detail on each discourse and how they work together, free will, consciousness, problems with determinism, and many more. If you are still not convinced, I also wrote a more mathematical analysis regarding causal determinism. This is a long journey, a lifelong race. I am confident however that I can lead you to a more solid foundation from which to understand the universe.

People Cultivate Meaning Through Identity

by Not Hegel

“Man’s Search for Meaning is a 1946 book by Viktor Frankl chronicling his experiences as a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and describing his psychotherapeutic method, which involved identifying a purpose in life to feel positive about, and then immersively imagining that outcome.” – Ref: Wikipedia

When thinking about Frankl’s “Meaning”, I realized that there is an ideological connection. Frankl’s three meanings are meaning in work, meaning in connection with others, and meaning in suffering. The first two make sense immediately, but the meaning through suffering is more challenging.

In my opinion, the expression of persevering in suffering has nothing to do with suffering without witnesses. Instead, it has to do with suffering assiduously displayed to oneself or others, which may include God. It is not necessary for this expression to actually be displayed, but it is believed to be shown. The belief that it has been expressed fulfills meaning in what they are desiring to express. This is an expression of, at its most fundamental level, the identity of a human being. The existential expression of what that person believes a human should be is expressed as intended.

These are from the subjective, ontologically speaking, to the intersubjective. There is no meaning in a vacuum, but it is a subjective relationship to something that exists outside of it, and that makes up its meaning. This satisfaction derived from meaning is a heuristic that drives us to connection. Through ideas about how the being relates to the world, these external relations are formed. This being, grounded in identity, finds meaning in this relationship with a work, a person (or a group), or an expression. Each is a manifestation of something signified in the world and of the being as a signifier; the being is the subjective response to the world intersubjectively.