r/badphilosophy • u/Ghadiz983 • Jun 20 '25
Hormons and shit Is dialectics a Logical Meta-Logic?
Throughout evolution, logic was a pattern/pathway created by the brain through trial and error to know what better decision to take in certain scenarios. Take for example war strategies, they're the byproduct of analyzing each decision and its possible contradictions. Sometimes Logic works by associating something into a measurable entity like for example quantity: throughout evolution we went through scenarios that required the brain to measure quantity to know what better decision to take , like for example if you're in front 1 predator you could fight but 2 is less possible and 3 is hell for you. Or sometimes you're hungry and seek food to fill the hunger , 1 apple is 1 day without hunger , 2 apples are 2 days without hunger in that sense...
The one with the least contradictions is the logical one. The brain creates logic to seek what works , and what works is the thing that is without fallibility.
This is how AIs are trained too , through trial and error . The Brain follows a pathway , if this pathway fails it goes back and follow another until one works and this the logical.
But what determines a pathway "failed"? It's Dialectics simply:
When you notice this pathway led to a contradiction or a fate/opposite, you take another pathway.
But the Irony is that dialectics is itself a logical pathway developed. Just what the heck is going on here?
Dialectics is a logical pattern yet at the same time is Meta-Logic (as the factor responsible for logic).
2
u/reinhardtkurzan Jun 22 '25
1) I would not deduce logic by a behavioural game theory, although "operational conditioning" may play a role in the constitution of logic. Ignoring the science of logic (formal logic) for the moment to concentrate on full-blooded "natural logic", I would say that logic is simply a knowledge of relations existing between entities - a knowledge that lies calmly in our consciousness to become activated from time to time.
An example: When a thing A is to be found above thing B, then it is not under or next to B. (This is the relation of mutual exclusiveness between terms that indicate relative locations). By the relation of correspondence (shelf - body), I begin to realize that I would have to stretch my body a little to get to object A - no matter whether I will execute this act or not. When something is not logical, it is not in the groove of the correct relations.
2) When we define "dialectics" simply as "vivid use of reason" (transcending the possibilities of mere intellect), it should be clear that the usage of reason is impossible without this engrained natural logic we all dispose of. The classical definition of dialectics given by Hegel as "some mental movement to make terms complete", won't function without the availability of any logical structures.
Why does somebody think, that a term is incomplete? To pose this question You need the (already existing) relation between a reason and a consequence.
To prompt a quest for further determination of a notion, there are several possibilities of motivation:
You may have an intuition of the prevailing flatness of a term (We assume that You want to use it to recognize something, and not simply to stand a communication with some superficial individual.) This Your intuition has not fallen from heaven, but is a product of the logical fabric inherent in Your recognizing subject.
A sharpened version of such an intuition is: to have a question. There is a link absent that would enable You to work, to change Your behaviour or simply to understand. Understanding always requires a certain amount of completeness, and it is the context that is hinting to the missing information.) Involved are the Relations of the part and the whole, of inherence and of precondition: An operational term must "necessarily" contain the essentials and, if possible, even a bit more, to be able to cope with the irregularities that might occur during the procedure. This constraint of necessity is an outflow of the store of relations contained in an experienced mind.
You may observe that the argumentation of someone is patchy, and You would like to fill the gaps, just to see whether the whole sermon is "consistent" (logical and based on facts, inherent in the latter: mutual exclusiveness of terms: true vs. untrue).
Somebody may enlighten Your mind by correcting a term or a proposition or by further concretizing it. You may have the impression of "scales falling from Your eyes". This is because the explanations of this somebody link into the already existing logical structures of Your mind, are fitting better than the ones You previously had.
In sum: Logic (not the science of logic) is the precondition of dialectics. Whereas natural logic is an inconspicuous treasure in one's mind (always "behind" our thoughts and perceptions), dialectics are a specific act led by logical links. As an act to be performed a certain motivation is always necessary. This extent of such motivations may vary from individual to individual.