What Is Dialectic ?

studien\seminarTEXT the same; itisthe bywh Themethod ofregularity. general sort whichitis with solution foranyproblem of ideologies. rather successive degreesofimprovement proceedsby and continuous, and slow,steady, ofthoughtwhichis development somelongperiod;butther throughout in themain,thosewhich The inhumanthought. called adevelopment of themethodof trialanderror,seems to ofideologies Thisstruggle its weaknesses. rather thangiveitup[ clinging toitaslongtheycan(ifis seem toreactaproblem inclined e particular especially ofphilosophy,asa in themethodemployed We maydescribe : themorewetry, verylargel success ofthismethoddepends the Itisclearthat intheprocessofadaptation. organisms byliving method used explai wantto we Thus if anourplanet. bylife produced are which andappearances variety offorms discernedin be can motto, bythe suggested Inde andpolitics. technology, engineering philosophy, butthroughoutthe It begeneralized. THE abovemottocan von KarlR.Popper WHAT ISDIALECTIC? 1 *

Apaper read to aphilosophy seminar atCanterbury University College, Christchurch, New Thedogmatic attitude ofsticking to atheory aslong aspossible is ofconsiderable from:R. Karl Popper, Conjecturesand us forfuture events, ofdrawing ourattenti no theory would everbeable to playitsrole of bringing orderinto theof preparing world, theory wehadareal opportunity upbefore of significance. Withoutwe couldtheory-we it neverfindin what give a out should isthe Zealand, in 1937.First published in: 312-335.1963, p. method of trial anderror method oftrial [ 1. DIALECTICEXPLAINED 1 ], or by fighting against such ], orbyfightingagainst *

] n whyhumanthoughttendsto

likely itisthatoneofour a certain theory orsystem a certaintheory realm of human thought and enterprise, to science, toscience, andenterprise, ofhumanthought realm Mind ither by putting forward someither byputtingforward and theory been asserted by one philosopher or another. another. or philosopher one by asserted been not has it that or incredible absurd so isnothing There variant of the trial and error method. Men method.Men trialanderror ofthe variant Refutations, Routledge &Kegan Paul, London, , N.S.,vol. 49,1940. on to events weshould otherwise neverobserve. be characteristic of anything thatmay be ofanything be characteristic erroneous they may even perish with it theymayevenperishwithit erroneous e will be few if any examples of a ofa anyexamples if e willbefew y anthenumber andvarietyof thetrials , which is obviously explicable in terms interms , whichisobviouslyexplicable applies not onlyto appliesnot the developmentofhumanthought,and the than by trial and error and the struggle thestruggle than bytrialanderror ed, thetendencytotryanythingonce, ed, a still wider realm – in the stupendous –inthestupendous astillwiderrealm faced, thenwecanappealtoahighly finding out itsconsequence strength;in and ich a solution is approached is usually usually is approached is ich asolution cases in which it does not occur are, cases inwhichitdoesnotoccur . This, fundamentally, is also the isalsothe . This,fundamentally, a theory,oncetheyhaveseen attempts will besuccessful. attempts will is dogmaticallymaintained try out every conceivable conceivable tryoutevery philosophersand Sommer-Edition 2004 Sommer-Edition

Descartes

studien\seminarTEXT Dialectic (in themodern[ Dialectic (in proceeds an whatismeant bythosewhosaythatthedevelopmentofthought us tounderstand inparticularisaccepte thought scientific featur anthecharacteristic begins totake If themethodof trialanderrorisdevel 4 3 2 will haveitsweakspots.Theoppo worl thingsinthis most because, like becalleda`thesis'.which may Such thesis characterized away thought –developsin the term) isatheorywhic If thisdescription[ fit. secure thesurvivaloffittest theory severetestsshouldbemade. sufficiently thatthetheoriesoffere should beoffered, that three conditions,namely, amethodofelim essentially is and error test showsthatthetheoryiserroneous, outcomeofa tentativelyandtriedout.Ifthe putforward and error.Theoriesare This,ofcourse, aspossible. examination an toassevere points vulnerable theoryproceedsbyexposingthese testing ofthe tobringoutthos sidesinorder different Criticizing andtestinggohandinhand;th nopainstocriticizeandtestthetheoryinquestion. scientists willspare anditismostch ifatall; provisionally, somesortofsolutions tentatively, offers, scientist the problem, withacertain Faced asfollows. bedescribed can briefly which isthethirdstep,called preservethemeritsby tryingto andtoav values and theirrespective goes beyondboththesisandantithesisbyrecognizing and the first, because itisdirectedagainstthe turn may becomethefirst stepof ane Te re expression Greek The more A detailed discussioncanbefound in L.Sc.D. if that, sense method inthe Itisnota Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl appearances' observations,able to theterminology, or,usingthey old are whether theories, whichincludesthe question whether theyto account forempirical areable methodthe ofconstructing explanatorytheories andof the critical discussion ofthese very close what to Ihavedescribed aboveas's Plato it in avariety occurs ofdifferentmeani argumentative usageoflanguage'.meaning This ofthetermback to Plato; goesin but even method innot this exist. sensedoes to is it; that havepractised you can't succeed, , antithesis antithesis 'dialectic' . , and , and goesanuntilsome solutionisr 3 ] ofthedevelopmenthuma lines. synthesis 4 ] sense,i.e.especiallyin 'H

h maintainsthatsomething ē dialektik sufficiently numerous (and ingenious) theories theories (andingenious) numerous sufficiently . First there is some idea or theory or movement ormovement ortheory issomeidea . Firstthere sing ideaormovementiscalledthe synthesis ē d, itwillprobablybe (techn the thesis. The struggle between the thesis thethesis Thestrugglebetween the thesis. you practiceit,will e points which may be vulnerable. Andthe e pointswhichmaybevulnerable. by theelimination of thosewhichareless w dialectictriad,anditwilldosoifthe d as more or less correct, then it may help thenitmay correct, moreorless d as oped moreoped andmore thenit consciously, then it is eliminated; the method of trial themethodthen itiseliminated; oftrial a thesis will often produce opposition, produceopposition, willoften a thesis es of `scientific method'. This'method'[ es of`scientific oid the limitations of both. This solution, solution, This ofboth. thelimitations oid theory. This theory science acceptsonly Thistheoryscience theory. aracteristic ofthescientific methodthat d should be sufficiently varied, and that that varied,and d shouldbesufficiently is againavariantof themethodof trial ination. Its success depends mainlyan Itssuccessdepends ination. In this way we may, if we are lucky, thiswaywemay, wearelucky, if In by what is called the dialectic triad: dialectic bywhatiscalledthe e theoryiscriticiz ngs. One at least of its ancient meanings is of itsancient ngs. Oneatleast cientificmethod'. For it isusedto describe ē say, it is not a definite way to results : a :a to results way is notadefinite it say, . Onceattained,thesynthesisinits )' may be translated '(the art of) the the artof) '(the translated be may eached which, in a certain sense, eached which,inacertainsense, the senseinwhichHegelused n thought in general and of n thoughtingeneraland – more especially, human – moreespecially,human succeed; orifyoudon't of limited value and valueand of limited ed from verymany 'antithesis' 'save the the 'save lectic ? lectic 2 2 ] , studien\seminarTEXT out moreclearlybythosewhodefendth ofthethesisislikelytobebrought element Thisvaluable all andtakenseriously. at beenoffered have itisnotvery likelythatitwould preservation, forotherwise refuted, therewillmostprobablybean orth thatalthoughtheview emphasizes insists that Thedialectician or eliminated. abovewillbecontenttosaythat suggested slightly from thegeneraltr The dialectician's emphasis antithesis. open tocriticism andinthisway'produ If so,thenthedialecticschememayoften bran ofacertain development to theother.Butadmittedlyithappensvery independently ofoneanother, anumb verybeginning fromthe where only onethesisisoffered tostartwith,and slightly widerthanthatinterms of dialec Thus theinterpretationinte offeredfortrial. handandare areat enough theories that thecompetitionof theorieswouldlead between athesisanditsantithesis;orig terminol and itscriticism, or,usingthe error. Ourearlierdescriptionofthetrial exactly thesame asthedevelopment(des thatitisnot beadmitted Butithasto above. discussed wehave error which 'explained' byshowingthatitproceedsin which arebasedanideasortheories.Suchadialecticdevelopmentmaybe especially certaindevelopmentsofideas fairlywellcer dialectic triaddescribes forwhatiscalledthe'dialectic So much attained.[ hasbeen synthesis asecond when dialectic triadwillthusproceedanahigherlevel,anditmay reachathirdlevel can thenbedescribedasanewthesiswhichhasproducedantithesis.The For inthiscaseOppositionwillbearoused outto turns reached particular synthesis 5 elimination of thethesis(or, an ideaanditscriticism orbetweenathesisanditsantithesiswouldleadtothe Rath leadtoasynthesis. antithesis would implyth further development,wedidnot In Hegel's terminology, both the thesis and the antithesis are, by the synthesis, (1) (1) synthesis, the are,by antithesis the and thesis the both terminology, Hegel's In Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl to components(of the synthesis) saved annulled 'lifted up') ofwhoseambiguitymakes Hegelmuch use. are renderingsmain ofthe fourmeanings ofthe one Germanword'aufgehoben' (literally , or , or put away set aside ) and(4) , or , or

ial anderrortheory.Forthe involves stillanotherpoint perhaps,of theantithesis)if put away rms ofthetrialan elevated ch of human thought starts with one single idea only. only. singleidea withone starts ofhumanthought ch andnotonlyinsuchawa and they are thereby(2) theyare and (or ) and, at the same time, (3) time,(3) the same at ) and, lifted to ahigherlevel eory under consideration may eory underconsideration havebeen er we suggested that the struggle between thatthestrugglebetween er wesuggested be one-sided or otherwise unsatisfactory. unsatisfactory. orotherwise be one-sided tic. It is not confined to a situation where tic. Itisnotconfined toasituationwhere and errormethod dealtonlywithanidea inally wemadeno andtheories,ofsocialmovements ogy of dialecticians, with the struggle struggle withthe ogy ofdialecticians, triad'. thatthe hardlybedoubted Itcan at thestrugglebetweenathesisandan at be applicablebecause conformity withthemethodconformity oftrialand tain steps in the history of thought, ofthought, stepsinthehistory tain cribed above)of atheorybytrialand totheadoptionof newtheoriesonlyif 5 an unsatisfactory view will be refuted willberefuted anunsatisfactoryview again,whichmeans so itcaneasilybeappliedtosituations elementinitwhichisworthyof there ismoretobesaidthanthis.He ] ce', asdialecticiansusuallysay,its e thesisagainsttheattacksof their er ofdifferentth frequently, perhap d error method may be said to be be saidto be d errormethodmay where dialecticmay differ itisnotsatisfactory; and y that the one is opposed opposed theoneis y that trial anderrortheoryas ). The italicized expressions italicized ). The cancelled preserved suggestions abouta eses areoffered, s usually,thatthe this thesiswillbe that thesynthesis (or (or negated stored lectic ? lectic reduced , or , or 3 studien\seminarTEXT we havesomereason to accept,oracont theorywhich and another thetheory between contradiction a or theory criticized, consists inpointing out somecontradict –preciselyasimportant history ofthought that contradicti correctly, They observe, contradictions. speakabout in whichdialecticians misunderstandingsBut themostimportant to predict,thefuture that dialecticcanbeusedasatechniqueth dialecticians havestressedthemselves;ne the ideascontainedinathesisandan to developthoughtbyitssuggestionthat itma where even Interpretation, the dialectic the strugglewillbeasynthesi oftheantithesis. opponents, theadherents construction outofmaterialsuppliedbyth as ofphysics thedevelopment Let ustake an interpretationinterm th and satisfactory, bequite may sometimes It must beadmitted suchadialecti that and antithesisarepreserved. development. Inotherwords,thesynthe case, embodysomenewideawhichcannot olderideaswhichit because inadditionto that tosay description ofthesynthesis And evenwhenasynthesishasbeenreac futile strugglesinthehistoryofhumant beproductiveof mindsmust and these 'produces' a which antithesis thesis andits to not tobecareful Similarly, wehave be produced. enoughisthecase–noantithesiswill lacking –whichoften critical attitudewhichproducestheantith itisonlyour itsantithesis.Actually thethesis'produces' dialectical sayingthat dialecticians andunfortunately oftentake ab forinstance, We mustbecareful, toadmittoomuch. not careful tobe Butwehave pointofview. besaidinfavourofthedialectic All thiscan of fields certainlimited even, within can beapplied,eitherif we appear they istosay, that approximations; from bedescribed, usually can formulae whichreplacesthem the, newtheory beenreplacedby which, afterfirsthaving scheme,su dialectic instances whichfitthe thesis andtheantithesis.Thisdescription Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl development of thought. ofthought. development s of trial anderror. donotdemandaveryhi s, i.e.atheoryin application, as perfectly exact formulae. formulae. exact perfectly as application, cal interpretation of the history of thought ofthought cal interpretationofthehistory hought, struggles whichendedinnothing. hought, struggles both. To put it more precisely, the old old the Toputitmore precisely, both. ons are of the greatest importance inthe greatestimportance ons areofthe it 'preserves'thebette n much too seriously. An example is the isthe Anexample tooseriously. n much new ideas:therearemanyinstancesof think thatitisthe`struggle'betweena out a number of metaphors used by used ofmetaphors anumber out radiction between the theory andcertain thetheory radiction between antithesis. Thisis a synthesisshouldbeconstructedoutof will bemisleadingeven sis willusuallybe esis andantithesis.Co at willhelpthem topromote,oratleast ion; either a contradiction within the the within eithera contradiction ion; synthesis. The struggle is one of minds; isoneofminds; synthesis. Thestruggle the wave theory, remains 'preserved' wavetheory,remains in the and muddles arise out of the loose way way ariseoutoftheloose and muddles vertheless, they nearly always assume theynearlyalwaysassume vertheless, the standpoint of the new ones,as new ofthe thestandpoint as iscriticism.Forcriticism invariably as 'preserves', the synthesis will, in every will,in 'preserves', thesynthesis hed, it will usuallybearathercrude hed, itwill an example. Weca anexample. Thus the only satisfactory solution of solution Thus theonlysatisfactory to be very nearly correct, so that they sothat beverynearlycorrect, to at it may add some va some at itmay add esis, andwheresuchanattitudeis ch asthecorpuscula y be applicable, will hardly ever help willhardlyever applicable, y be be reducedtoearlierstagesof the whichthebestpoi gh degree of exactitude, or gh degreeofexactitude,or a pointwhichsome much more thana r partsof boththe n findverymany nsidering allthis, nts ofboththesis r theoryof light whereitistrue, luable detailsto lectic ? lectic 4 studien\seminarTEXT with it all intellectual progress, must come to an end. cometo anend. must intellectual progress, with itall But thismeansthatif weare preparedto us. is,bywelcomingthe contradi that you are!'; by'Andwhynot?'or beanswered would Criticism loseitsforce. would contradictions) inpointingout (which consists Inotherwords,allcriticism them. ustochange induce theories couldnolonger toputupwithcontradic were prepared be productive fertility. Theywouldnolonger of atonceloseanykind must contradictions then contradictions, put upwith to thisattitude,anddecide wechange toostronglythatif It cannotbeemphasized progress. pointing outofcontradictions,inducesus contradiction: itissolelyduetothisdete contradicti any theorywhichinvolves notto determined longasweare only so Progress, andwehaveadmittedthatthisis Dialecticians saythatcontradictionsare arebasedannothingbetter Indeed, they These aretremendous butthey claims, see) theory and(asweshall doctrine: different beavery to this way deve doctrine –atheoryofthehistorical – adialecticallogic.Dialectic They bediscarded. logic must claim thislawoftraditional dialecticians that ofcontradictions, to thefruitfulness berejectedas mustalways statements contradictory oftheconjunctiontwo consisting together, orthatastatement logic, alawwhichasserts (or, morefully,uponthe'law oftheexcl toanattacku amounts Such anassertion beavoided,since cannot contradictions contra is noneedtoavoidthesefertile progress ofthought,dialecticiansconclude ofasynthesis–areextremelyfertil form athesisandan between contradiction thatcont Having thuscorrectlyobserved progress. be nointellectual criticism, therewouldbenorationalmotive intellectualdevelopm ofany force motive or, perhaps,simplycontradictthetheo Criticism canneverdoanythingexcepteitherpointoutsomesuchcontradiction, more theth between facts –or precisely, statement of anantithesis). Butcriticism is Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl a general theory of the world. a generaltheoryoftheworld. that two contradictory statements can never be true betrue never statementscan twocontradictory that , which I have so far presented asamerely sofarpresented historical , whichIhave claimleads thatdialectic false an purely logical grounds. Appealing anpurelylogicalgrounds.Appealing false they occur everywhere in the world. inthe they occureverywhere than a loose andwoollywayofspeaking. aloose than ons; in other words never to accept a a toaccept wordsnever inother ons; ry (i.e.thecriticism putupwithcontradictions, criticism,and tions, pointing out contradictions in our tions, pointingoutcontradictions tithesis, which 'produces' Progress in the the 'produces' in which Progress tithesis, put upwithcontradic it would beatthe itwould lopment of thought – would turn out in turnoutin –would lopment ofthought rmination of oursthat e, and indeed the moving forces of any themovingforcesofany e, andindeed pon the so-called 'law of contradiction' 'law ofcontradiction' pon theso-called radictions – especially, of course, the the –especially,ofcourse, radictions perhaps even by an enthusiastic 'There 'There byanenthusiastic even perhaps usion of contradictions') of traditional oftraditional usion ofcontradictions') to change our theories, and thereby to to to changeourtheories,andthereby are withouttheslightestfoundation. dictions. Andtheyevenassertthat – wrongly as we shall see – that there see–thatthere – wronglyasweshall , inasense,true.Itistrue,however, fruitful, orfertile,productiveof for changing ourtheories:therewould , inaveryimportant sense,themain ctions which have been pointed outto ctions whichhavebeenpointed eory andcertainst ent. Without contradictions, without contradictions, Without ent. of intellectual progress. For if we ifwe progress.For of intellectual in thiswaytoanewlogic same time alogical time same tions, and to change tions, andtochange may besimplythe criticism, i.e.the atements offact. lectic ? lectic 5 studien\seminarTEXT and/or Socrates iswise This isnotalwaysrealized,[ inferred. validly can be suchacompound:the producing istrue components which issoconstructedthatittrue isonekindofcompound stat Now there statements. acompoundstatem king') ofwhichsuch statement suchas'Socrates iswise difficult one,weintroducetheideaof a We shallneedtwosutchrulesof inference. conclusion. true) tothe words, if itunfailingly tran conclusion toafalse leadfromtruepremises and onlyif,itcannever rule ofinferencetowhic tocertain Logical inferenceproceedsaccording of thefewfactsel admitted areadmi if twocontradictorystatements breakdownofscien acomplete mean would thenonewouldhaveto contradictions entirely justified. Foritcaneasilybe for anew point of viewwhic nottoadmitdecision, ourresolution, cont –itispurelyour whichpromotes them development tensionbetween mysterious and theantithesis.Itisnot determination nottoaccept,orputup thedial propels The only'force' which criticism, discussion,andintellect them. Orheispreparedtoacceptthem interested incontradictionsbecauseof Thus wemusttellthedialecticianthathe 6 to andprepared impatient, are nottoo whodislikesuchsymbolsshou even those theuseofsy readers whodonotdislike thinkingman. byevery understood known and See for example H. Jeffreys, 'The Nature ofMathematics', 'The Nature SeeforexampleH.Jeffreys, Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl Jeffreys' reply to me replyin Jeffreys' to 449, who writes:'Whether acontradictionany entails proposition is doubtful.' Seealso 1308), ashasbeenshown byin JanLukasiewicz and L.Sc.D.,note *2to section 23. All this was known, in effect, to DunsScotus (ob. PeterisaKing'. Thetwostatements ; for from a coupleofcontradictory ; forfroma or Peter is a King (but not both)' or perhaps 'Socrates is wise wise is orperhaps'Socrates King(butnotboth)' Peterisa . Theuglyexpression ementary logicwhicharenotquite ementary h itappealsisvalid;and Mind

smits thetruthof thepremises(providedtheyareall 6 h mayenableustoavoidth ] andwillthereforebefully amysteriousfo , 51,1942, p.90,my rejoinder in assertion 'Socrates is wise assertion 'Socratesis ual progresswillbeimpossible. devote a few minutes to this point. point. tothis minutes afew devote and give up any kind of scientific activity: it activity: upanykindofscientific give theirfertility: thenhemustnotaccept with, the contradiction between the thesis betweenthethesis thecontradiction with, : then they will be barren, and rational : thentheywillbebarren,andrational mbols which look like mathematics; but but looklikemathematics; which mbols compound statement if and only ifatleastoneofitstwo if andonly radictions, whichinducesustolookout radictions, cannot have itbothways.Eitherheis cannothave ent is composed are called component ent iscomposedarecalledcomponent shownthatif on PeterisaKing',orperhaps'Either tted, any statement whatevermustbe anystatement tted, ement which interests us herethe one interestsusheretheone ement which ld understand the matter easily if they thematter easilyifthey ld understand ectic developmentis,therefore,our In order to explain the firstandmore Inordertoexplainthe ce. This can be shown by proving that that shownbyproving be can ce. This 'and/or' Erkenntnis It can easily be explained to those Itcaneasilybeexplainedtothose ('Socrates iswise';('Socrates and'Peter isa statements any statement whatever anystatement statements rce insidethese rules ofinference a ruleofinference haspreciselytheeffectof Philosophy of Science , trivial, and deserve to be trivial,anddeservetobe em. Andthisresolutionis 5 , p.124. explained here.Itisone Mind and/or , that is to say, of a , thatistosay,ofa e were to accept e weretoaccept , two ideas,nota 52 . Itisvalidif the PeterisaKing' , 1943, pp. 47 ff., ; or, in other ; or,inother

is validif, , lectic ? lectic 5 , 1938, 6 studien\seminarTEXT (2) 'From the two premises nonp,andp twopremises the (2) 'From inwords: which maybeput negation ofpby' wedenotethe first. If The secondruleof inference whichIam theprem which mayberead:'from stateourfi We canalso accordance which showsthatwearguedin Iwasbettingmust statement whosetruth an upatthefirst headsturned my betif is1/2. probability (but notboth)', whose the Statement'Headsturnupatfirsttoss equals 3/4(accordingtousualcalculations); the first toss of tomy anthetruth tantamount betting penny twice,bettingthath used,for premise. Butitissometimes much the than theconclusioncontains lessInformation life,since everyday p pistrue, if istrue.Accordingly, components ' That thisrulemustbeva 'p (1) From apremise p (for example, 'Socra formulated inthisway: We arenowinapositiontoformulate our least of itstwocomponen we like.Wecanthensaythat `p' 'vel')lettersas anystatement pronounced and`q'torepresent andtousesuch logictoreplaceth It iscustomaryin true; anditwillbefalse ifan is onewhichwillbetrueif andonlyif used to such things as strange. And it is thingsasstrange.Andit such used to In spiteof itsvalidity,ourfirst ruleof is valid. leadfrom atruepremiserule cannever ∨ '. Thissymbolmakes acompoundis which ∨ Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl q' example, 'Socratesiswise (for ∨ headsturnupatthesecondtoss'. rst ruleinthisway ts, p and q, is true. q,istrue. ts, pand lid canbeseenatonceif eads willturnupatleast d onlyif bothofitscomp a statement oftheform'p ise pweobtaintheconclusion p non-p e expression `and/or' e expression p ∨ ∨ p ∨ q one orbothof itscomponent statements are Peter is a King') may be validly deduced. validlydeduced. isaKing')may be Peter non p', then it can be stated in this way inthis stated be non p', itcan then q toss – in other words, that thecompound that words, –inother toss inference often strikes those who are not not oftenstrikesthosewhoare inference thecompoundstatemen q ∨ to afalseconclusion,whichmeansthatit Now everybody will say that I have won thatIhave willsay Noweverybody example, in betting. I may, say, toss a tossa may,say, example, inbetting.I q, we obtain the conclusion q.' the conclusion q,weobtain goingtouseismorefamiliar thanthe withourfirst ru tes iswise') anyconclusionof theform indeed a rule which indeedarule it is thus different, for example, for from itisthusdifferent, be true if its first component was true; true; firstcomponentwas be trueifits or true whenever at least one of the atleastoneofthe truewhenever first ruleofinference.Itmay be heads turn up at the second toss turnupatthesecondtoss heads The probability of this statement Theprobabilityofthisstatement ∨ q must also be true. Thus our alsobetrue.Thusour qmust we remember the meaning of of themeaning remember we onent statementsarefalse. once. This,obviously,is ∨ bythesymbol' q'willbetrueifoneat le ofinference. t 'Heads turn upat t 'Headsturn is rarelyusedin ∨ q.' ∨ lectic ? lectic ' (to be ' (tobe 7 studien\seminarTEXT true together. Thus if itweremytask true together.Thusif with one of them – say p; or schematically, –say p;orschematically, with oneofthem pandq,wema premises, two (3) Fromany first. shall discuss theory of thesyllogism,wi oftheclassical and tobeused,formrule (1),therulesnowtobeexamined, part some otherrulesof inference whichleadto ofthelogical In viewoftheimportance useless information atall.Atheory usno cangive of thisinformation thenegation itassertsalso which information indeed,not everything, andtherefore, ifatheoryc We seefrom thisthat we maynotlike. wanted to infer; for example, 'Caesar was sameIt isclearthatbythe rule (2) weca aspremises, and(c) Taking now(b) conclusion: From thefirstpremise be inferred, asfollows. 'Caesarwasatraitor' –forexample, can anystatement twopremises From these –say contradictory premises wecanindeedshowthis.Forassume two tworules wehavethe Using our welike anyconclusion premises contradictory thatusingvalid trying toshow weshouldhavetobemore contradiction, ofthe'law ofcontradiction' may besaid, In reasoningthat,if nonpistrue,must true. are premises thetwo whenever q mustbetrue ofthesecond are true,thesecondcomponent firstcomponentofthesecond true, thenthe which istrueif andonlyif The validityof thisrulecanbeestablished 5' and '2 + 2 5' '2+ and Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl (d) Caesarwasatraitor. now sunisshining (c) The shiningnow sunisnot (b) The now sunisshining (a) The as atheory ≠ 5' statementwe –notonlyevery . (a) we can infer, in accordance (a) wecaninfer,in method we might have inferred any other Statement we we anyotherStatement wemighthaveinferred method pisfalse. Accordingly,if th the exception of the fo ofthe theexception th whichinvolvesacontradictionistherefore entirely ∨ Caesarwasatraitor. rules ofinference,wecaninferfromacouple ontains a contradiction, then it entails acontradiction,thenitentails ontains whichassertsthat hing. A theory which addstoevery which hing. Atheory cautious.Butatthismoment, Iam only situation analysed, I shall now present nowpresent situationanalysed,Ishall not atraitor'.We may at this moment to argue in favour of thismomentof toargueinfavour at n ultimately deduce, y derive a conclusion which is identical aconclusionwhichisidentical y derive be false, we have ma have be false,we if we consider that non-p is a statement weconsiderthatnon-pisastatement if thesameresult.Incontradistinctionto premise is false; thus if both premises ifbothpremises false;thus premise is . premise must be true; that is to say, say, musttrue;thatisto be premise like, butalsoits withrule(1), the first premise non-p, is non-p,is thefirstpremise llowing rule (3)whichwe llowing rule non p and p cannot be non pandcannotbe in accordancewith de implicituse,it thus infer '2 + 2 = thus infer'2 +2= negation, which negation,which thefollowing lectic ? lectic 8 studien\seminarTEXT bevalid must the following then itmustalsobevalidincasechappens (5) isvalidforanystatemen (4) If reductionsays: Now theruleofindirect suchas syllogism avalid have we Assume figure). 'perfect' implicitly usedfor theindir it isthisverytrivialitywhichmakesth premisesaretrue conclusion wheneverthe foritmustleadtoatrue infallibly valid; thisruleisundoubtedly accepted it, In spiteofitsunfamiliarity, andof thefact thatsomephilosophers[ 7 n from tellsus that negationwhich double withthelawof forexample, from rule(4)together Rule (5)maybeobtained, the of indirectreduction'(becauseinthecl Butred unfamiliar. and therefore (5) If wearegoingtouse The rule alsobevalid. must findthat we and (b), owingtothevalidityof For example, In additiontothisrule(3)weshallneed Notably G.E.Moore. Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl (non-b) Some Athenians are non-men arenon-men (non-b) SomeAthenians arenon-mortal (non-c) SomeAthenians (a) Allmenaremortal o b non b a c a c isavalidinference, then − isavalidinference, then

(c) AllAtheniansaremortal. (b) AllAtheniansaremen (a) Allmenaremortal ect reductionofthe'imperfect t a, b, c, which we choose choose whichwe a,b,c, t as a slightvariantofthe as a undancy does not mean invalidity. invalidity. undancy doesnotmean o c non b a o c non − p q p e rule,inordinary another rulewhichIha b a . This is obvious, and indeed trivial; and trivial; obvious,andindeed . Thisis on-non-b wemay dedu is a valid inference too. isavalidinference − assical theoryof inference of (c) from the premises(a) of(c)fromthe inference to be identical with a; that is to say, to beidenticalwitha;thatissay, isavalidinference too.

one juststated;itisthis (and onlythenisitvalid) ' figures tothefirst or discourse, redundant, discourse, redundant, the syllogismitis ve called'the rule ce b. Now if rule ce b.Nowifrule 7 ] have not not ] have lectic ? lectic 9 studien\seminarTEXT q' withp,wecaninfe together not eventhe be anextremelyweaksystem suchasystemcanbecons isthat answer intothisquestion,andthe Ihavegone everystatement. donotentail statements contradictory logic, orwhetherwecanconstructasystem oflogicinwhich raisedwhetherthis maybe The question contradictory premises, But (7)statesexactlywhatwewanted (6) If 8 everywhe as here mustlead contradictions specially interestedintheconstr itmayperhaps although drawing inferences (7) together yield thatnon-bisinde But weknowfrom(3) looseness ofthedialectician' One seesherethedangeroflooseand the collapseofscience. is abadone, because theory,thenwedoso for abetter forabettertheory; ussearch will make weseri discussed:if dangers previously theory. Allthisisquitetrue;butsucha from obtainingthefalse conclusionswhic themethods Theory, ofavoidi in Quantum develop wemay and ultimately, giverise itmay contradictory; secondly, first,thistheory contradictory theory: ofa notestablish the uselessness followsdoes anythingwewish statements couple ofcontradictory froma thefactthat saidthat It hassometimes been The system alluded to is the 'dual-intuitioni the to is alluded The system Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl o a non clearly cannotpossibility deducethe all statements. of may beanimpossible statement). Similarly, from'p is possible' and'non-p is possible' we and '"if pthen q"is possible', wecannot indeed statementsmay betakentomodal statements developed system the in some detail.have a I 182, and4.2 anp.322, and5.32 5.42,a Deduction IandII', o b non b a − a a − is a valid inference, whatever inference,whatever isavalid modus ponens isavalidinference, then owing tothe Proc. of the RoyalDutch Academy any whichsaysthatfrom astatem

conclusion may be deduced. bededuced. may conclusion s assertion thatcontradic s assertion . Very few of the ordinary rules of inference are left, areleft, oftheordinaryrulesinference few . Very r q. In my opinion, such asystem[ r q.Inmyopinion,such uction of formal systems as such. assuch. systems uction offormal a method, even if it is an itis if method, even a

contradictions involved contradictions o a non ously intendtoputupwithitthennothing tructed. The system turns out, however, to to out,however, turns tructed. Thesystem may be interesting in itself even though though even initself beinteresting may and also the other way round: if we look we if wayround: alsotheother and the statements a and b may assert. bmayassert. aand the statements h admittedly arelogi makeshift theory give theory makeshift to correctionswhich b a ed a valid inference. Thus (6) and (3) and(3) Thus(6) avalidinference. ed ng the divergencies),which prevents us prevents ng thedivergencies),which situation holds good in any system of situation holdsgoodinanysystem − toshow–thatfrom acoupleof we think the theory we have described we thinkthetheoryhavedescribed re to the end of criticism, and thus to re totheendofcriticism, andthus st calculus'; see mypaper'On the Theory of nd note 15.DrJosephKalmanCohen has metaphorical ways of speaking.The simple interpretation of this calculus. All the the All calculus. this of interpretation simple have some interest for those who are forthosewhoare someinterest have isavalidinference too. asserting possibility. From'p is possible' derive 'q derive is possible' (forif pis false, q , 51 tions are not avoidable and and notavoidable tions are , Nos. 2 and3, 1948, 3.82 anp. ent of theform ad hoc . The acceptance of . Theacceptanceof cally entailedbythe make it consistent; itconsistent; make s rise to the grave tothegrave s rise 8 method (such as, method(such ] is of no use for for ] isofnouse 'If p then pthen 'If lectic ? lectic 10 studien\seminarTEXT 'opposing tendency' or`opposinginterest', 'opposing tendency' And theyliketousetheterm of'antithesis'thesis)' instead and'negatio thedialectic dialecticians oftendescribe terminology wehaveusedinspeaking insteadofthe Forinstance, formulations. isbettertoavoidcertain it Therefore nicetiesofme upcertain means giving intheartofexpressingthings himself it andenlightenment truth wants topromote and of criticism, i.e.of cannotbeavoided, perhaps eventhatthey or beavoided, tosaythatthecontradictionsneednot because is dangerous, put upwiththem accords (anattitudewhich see aswehave is, of thecontradictions Itismisleading misleading. dangerously is sofertile avoidthem becausetheyare that itisnotevendesirableto a way which dangerously increases itsva dangerously increases a waywhich such anapplicationexpands thealreadyto modernized logic.Thedeeperreasonforsu areformed, dialectic tobeapart–thebetteroflogic,orsomething like ofthe occursinthediscussions often tothe considerably contributed terms has fromthedialectic logical meanings,different 'contradic term the similarly, negation' (and ifthete donoharm would terminology antithesis, andalltheseedswh plant wh athesis,the seed ofcornwith di a forinstance, We find, things. different force adialecticinterpretationanallso to makes itonlytooeasy dangers.It ofdialecticisanother of its The vagueness to logic. dialectic interpretations–andlikesuchth theories, dialecticisnotapplicable and onlyafterwards,inathirdstage, maintains thatopinionsarehe theory which development, thenremainc increa organisms mostliving maintains that empirical descriptivetheory,comparable certain historicalprocesses,occurinace precisely, thetheoryof thedialectictria clear meaning tothedialectictriad–can To sumup:What dialecticis– thatdialectic tobelieve have noreason presentpur butwellenoughforour perhaps, –roughly, tologic.Forlogiccanbedescribed dialectic hasanysortofsimilarity saythatouranalys At presentIshallonly Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl rationality. This should emphasize that for anyone who thatforanyone Thisshouldemphasize rationality. onstant, andfinally decrease 'contradiction' whereterms ich developfromthis taphor and clever double meanings. doublemeanings. taphor andclever without exceptions–unlessweforce the has anything to do with deduction. todowithdeduction. hasanything n, merelytheresultofourdecisionnotto clearly and unambiguously – even if this –evenif andunambiguously clearly d, maintainsthatcertaindevelopments,or triad byusingtheterm `negation(ofthe confusion of logic and dialectic which so which dialectic oflogicand confusion because what may be called the fertility may thefertility what becalled because rts of developments and even an quite ofdevelopments andevenanquite rts dialecticians. Frequently they consider theyconsider dialecticians. Frequently n of the negation' instead of'synthesis'.n ofthenegation'instead o vague meaning ofthedialectictriadin o vaguemeaning mustleadtothe , for instance, with the theory which theorywhich , forinstance,withthe gueness is obvious; it leads to a point toapoint gueness isobvious;it leads scientific, i.e.critical,spirit.Likesuch in the sense in which we can attach a in thesensewhichwecanattach eories, dialectichasnospecialaffinity bedescribedthus.Dialectic,ormore alectic interpretation which identifies a a interpretationwhichidentifies alectic ich develops fromth ich develops is does not lead to the conclusionthat leadtothe not does is etc.,wouldbeless se their size during some stage oftheir duringsomestage se theirsize rtain typical way' It is, therefore, an way'Itis,therefore, rtain typical is a necessity and even a duty to train isanecessityandevendutyto ld first dogmatically, thensceptically, tion') hadnotclearandfairly definite of thesis, antithesis,andsynthesis, ch anattitudewillbediscussedlater. rms 'negation' and'negation of the with thelawofcont poses – as atheoryofdeduction.We poses –as al usage.Infact plantwiththe until theydie;orwiththe like 'conflict' orperhaps breakdown of science, breakdown ofscience, the misusethe ofthese misleading. Their misleading. radiction). And it radiction). Andit is seed with the synthesis. That lectic ? lectic 11 studien\seminarTEXT to itbyHecker,[ are evenworse.Toquotea others, not fundamentally important, butso important, fundamentally others, not dialectic waspresentedasaway of de intelligible, anditwasmy aim nottobe nume ofbeing (Certainly notinthesense mathematics. Thenegative(-a) The standardexamplespresentedbydialect reason why Engels saidof thisexam ahigherlevel–isobviously new startan bythepl ofnewseeds production ofalot seed becausetheceasestoexistwhen this development bysaying that itisadevelopmentinstages–which asdial development bydescribinga where 9 triedtooutlin So farIhave the negationhasaccomplisheda the theoryofallsorts inferences, itis 'fundame logicmaybecalled like A theory applied. dialectic are 1/4) Theexampleshowstheextreme arbitr and -aitsantithesisornega development of theories wh development oftheories nomisunderstanding ispossibl only where methodoftria ofthe clearer terminology useitatall–wecanalwaysthe 'dialectic'. Itwouldbebest,perhaps,notto term usingthe From carefulin allthisIthinkitisclearthatoneshouldbevery logic. as theory such andafundamental developments certain typical that couldmake itappear criticized above have whichwe ofspeaking way ambiguous metaphorical and Only theloose else asopposedtologic,itwouldbeso toregarddi inappropriate as therefore about application of itisnotafundamental bu say thatdialecticinthesensewhich original thesisitself.Inotherwords,w is -(-a),i.e.a,whichwouldnotbea'h would yield -a yield would antithesis (whichwouldyield0)?Orby multiplying theantithesiswith Hecker, Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl Moscow Dialogues 2 ratherthana 9 ] 'The law of the higher synthesis ... is commonly used in used commonly ...is synthesis ] 'Thelawofthehigher 2. HEGELIANDIALECTIC

tion, onemightexpectthat famous example usedbyEnge example famous ich doesinfactproceed e the idea of dialectic in e theideaofdialectic , London,1936, p. 99. The example isfromthe that germination of the plan ofthe germination that 2 itself? Why not,for exampl )? and in what sense is a )? andinwhatsenseis multiplied byitself becomesa new synthesis.' But evenas new synthesis.' But ple that any child can understand it?) it?) understand can thatanychild ple hy shouldthesynthesis scribing developments; asoneway among used all the time by usedallthetime we found that we could make a sensible wecouldmakeasensible foundthat we rically greater,sinceif a=1/2then is not saying very much. But to interpret interpret notsayingverymuch.Butto is multiplying thesis and antithesis (which multiplying thesisandantithesis(which l and error. Exceptions should be made made be should Exceptions l anderror. dialectic can be both a theory describing describing atheory canbeboth dialectic igher' synthesis, but identical with the with igher' synthesis,butidentical ectic we convey no more than by saying thanbysaying conveynomore we ectic to regard, say, the theory of evolution. ofevolution. thetheory regard,say, to a mere playing with words. (Is this the withwords.(Isthis a mereplaying unjust aboutitsmerits.Inthisoutline ant is the negation of the negation – a isthenegationof–a ant ntal', thereby indicating that, since itis that,since indicating ntal', thereby the plant begins to grow, and that the theplantbeginstogrow,andthat metimes quitesuitabl ariness withwhichthevagueideasof t merely adescriptivetheory.Itis alectic as part and parcel of logic, or or oflogic, alectic aspartandparcel icians from thefi e, andwherewearefacedwitha along thelinesofatriad. a way which I hope makes it it makes Ihope a waywhich the negationof thenegation ls inthebrief form given t isthenegationof the 2 'higher'thanaor-a? e, byaddingthesisand suming beathesis ato 2 all sciences.Wecan , i.e. thenegationof , i.e. eld ofmathematics be obtainedjustby e. Asopposedto Anti-Dühring lectic ? lectic 2 , = 12 studien\seminarTEXT theory made use of Kant's. use ofKant's. theory made tried togofurther.In order toundersta InbothcasesHegelwas and hisdialectic. aspectsofHegel'sphilosophy There aretwo idealists, culminated inHegel. whichdeveloped,us criticism. Theschool hoping system, ofKant's certain features new metaphysicalsystems ba rejection from beingconvincedbyKant's and,far philosophersrecovered philosophers; yetGerman nearly allcontinental whatever. Thiscriticism of purereasonwas nojustification –has to buildupametaphysical outofpure reason system thatspeculativ possible experience,and thatthescopeof Pure Reasonheasserted this, atheoryof dialectichasbeenput empiricism. Hismaininterestwastore itssignificance, exaggerates school, which of the two opposing views, twoopposingviews, of the (but offerwhatadialectician who triedto byKant, wasthoroughlydiscussed theearlierrationalistsandempiricists between beta methodwhichcan of scientific inamodest andm other, althoughperhaps be safely Itcan observation andexperiment. empiricism,canne according to reasoningalone, Pure theory. ofascientific decide uponthetruthorfalsity Opposed tothistheory,empiricism mainta 'Thatwhich words: the Hegel) in of aformulation can besummedup(using called'rationaphilosophy has description of thefacts. Th reasonable proposition(i.e.onerecommending by any referencetoexperience,just th construct thatwecan Cartesian viewis lucidity, bytheirclarityanddistinctness, thoserare hehasonlytoaccept find truth avoid carefully the realphilosophershould mind, th hadin absurdities. WhatDescartes useful solution –butratherasahostilecr tryever mindhasto the human of use made whichIhave school, intheway motto forthispaperwasnotintendedby (mainly British) antheother.Thesentence antheonehand,andempiricism (mainly continental) Cartesian rationalism A major issueinthehistoryofmode ofphilosophy–in history chapter inthe In ordertomakeHegel's dial Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl is, inbrief outline,isthe ectic intelligibleitmay beus but whatwas,moreprecis but lism'. (A better name would be `intellectualism'.) It wouldbe`intellectualism'.)It bettername (A lism'. ything in order toarriveat ything inorder sed an'intellectualintuition'. Theytriedtouse ver establishfactualtruth; is reasonablemust bereal.' e reasoning beyond this field – the attempt –theattempt thisfield e reasoningbeyond nd Hegel we must therefore show how his nd Hegelwemusttherefore showhowhis my opinion not ave myopinionnot ken seriously in our day. The struggle inourday.Thestruggle ken seriously forward,forexampl ject pure rationalism. In his Critique of of hisCritique In purerationalism. ject e explanatory theories of science without theoriesofsciencewithout e explanatory rn philosophyisthestrugglebetween making useofourreason;forevery making iticism of thosewhoda ourknowledgeislim not Kant) might describe as a synthesis asasynthesis describe notKant)might its author, the founder of the rationalist oftherationalist founder its author,the and which is dangerously misleading. dangerously whichis and influenced by some of Kant's ideas, but but ideas, bysome ofKant's influenced thereby toevadethemainforce of his ideas which appeal to reason by their reasonbytheir ideaswhichappealto which are,inshort,'self-evident'. The odified form, is the only interpretation istheonlyinterpretation form, odified ually called the school of the German theschoolofGerman ually called e main idea behind his sentence, is that main that e ideabehindhissentence,is ins thatonlyexperienceenablesusto from DescarteswhichIhaveusedasa which we have to discuss his idealism hisidealism whichwehavetodiscuss of metaphysics, hastened to buildup hastened of metaphysics, felt asaterribleblowtothehopesof said thatempiricism, insomeform or absurd andfoolishideas.Inorderto a much later period, namely that of that period,namely later a much it. It was not intended as a hint that that ahint intendedas it.Itwasnot itself by its lucidity) must be a true lucidity)mustbeatrue itself byits theory which the history of theory whichthehistoryof ely, a modified formof modified ely, a something – i.e. at some some at something–i.e. eful torefer briefly toa we have to make use of we havetomakeuseof ry creditableone. e by Hegel and his andhis e byHegel ited tothefield of re totryoutsuch lectic ? lectic 13 studien\seminarTEXT the world as it appears to us, because this tous,because asitappears the world wassomewhat His reasoning the world?'(We mightcallthisques of human mindsabletogainknowledge thequestion,'H is, hewantedtoanswer factthatscienceexis Kant startedfrom the 10 Anditis itismind-like. mind –because the world,asitappearstous of realism andsomesortof pointsout, himself idealistic. Itis,asKant intend todiscussitindetail.ButIwant andIdonot epistemology Kantian toargueherefororagainstthis I donotintend ofmind. character ofthe has something mind-like' isanidealisticargument;forwhat 'Themindcangrasptheworld The answer, assimilated bythemind,itismind-like. world is alreadyaworlddigested, What wecall'nature' –theworldinwhich –theforms orlawsofourthought. orlaws anititsownintrinsicforms impresses that materialwhichentersitbythesenses themind knowledge, ofgraspingtheworld, short, his'philosophyof id 'philosophy ofth so-called This isHegel's reason areidentical'. 'Because thereason in anotherformulation, relying andwhoareusedto philosophers proceed toHegel,Imustbegthose but abstract So muchforKantsrather mind. its idealistelement isthea bridge – namely Fichte's answer, answer, Fichte's bridge –namely philosophy ofidentity,'Because epistemological answers,'Becauseth the mind thanKa But histheorywasmoreradical theotheridealists,heansw With world?' que withtheepistemological concerned in As Ihavesaid,Hegel will probablyappearto the sentencewhichIchoseasamottofor This answerwasnot evenoriginal, becauseKant hadconsidered it previously; but heof Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl course rejectedit. digests or or forms them –inmyopinion the world'.'Because the Hesaid,

his idealism went further than Kant. Hegel, too, was was Hegel,too, thanKant. further his idealism went entity'. Itmay benotedin ssertion thatitissome sort idealism –itsrealistelementbeingtheassertionthat , is some sort ofmaterial , issome sort as follows. The mind can grasp the world, or rather world,orrather graspthe Themind can as follows. themindisworld', 'Because the mind createstheworld'.['Because the tion theepistemologicalproblem.) certainly ingenious epistemology. Before I BeforeI certainly ingeniousepistemology. e mind forms the world', and Hegels and Hegels theworld', e mindforms readers (Ilikethem best)whoarenot formed, byourminds.formed, Andbeingthus the world', or,'How canourminds grasp nt's. He did not say, like Kant, 'Because Kant,'Because Hedidnotsay,like nt's. . It is forming, moul isforming, . It stion, 'Howcanourmindsgraspthe stion, ered: 'Because ismind-like.' theworld so, because in the process of obtaining ofobtaining intheprocess because so, an theircommonsens an e identity of reason and reality', or, for reality', or,for and e identityofreason this paper;for whattheywillhearnow worldisnotutterl point outthatitcertainlyisnotentirely ow is science possible?' or, 'How are or,'Howare ow issciencepossible?' we live,theworldasitappearstous– ts. He wanted toexpl Hewanted ts. because theworldasitappearstousis a mixture ofsomesort orasynthesis, is, so to speak, actively digesting all all digesting is,sotospeak,actively idealism assertsisjustthattheworld able isthereal;becauserealityand quite rightly–absurd. formed byourmind,whilst formed passing thatbetweenKant's of material formed by our ofmaterialformed byour themindisworld'; or there was, historically, a there was,historically, ding thismaterial;it y different from the y differentfromthe e tobearinmind ain thisfact;that 10 ] lectic ? lectic 14 studien\seminarTEXT tr andthus evolution, motion,development, isonlysucharationalistic system accountof to 'dialectic', asdoesnottake Forwhat butnotrationalism. metaphysics, liveinaworldof we –that developing reality, isnotso philosophy ofidentity) thatthought, that take accountofthefact in the show thought andreason.Theyonly ju donotmatter.They that contradictions refutation How didHegelovercomeKant's claims ofcompetingtheories. are contrarytotheobservedfacts –then whichal those –namely certain theories orobservations we cannotmakeexperiments ofopposite even theories, and apparentreasonablene withsimilar to argue, tooneandonly not leadunambiguously showed thatthemetaphysical principle ownviewof fromKant's Kant, deviating togivesomesortofmodern If Iwere experience. contradi to itselfand against bound toargue will appeartobeequally,or asimilaarguments willcarrywiththem argument easily constructitsopposite anexactantithesis;andforanyargu defend suchametaphysical In otherwords,given withthehelpofanalogous always argue, butwe –thenwecandoso; experience) (a world inwhichweliveisinfinite Dialectic' heshowed headed 'Transcendental isnotjustifie field reasoning beyondthis our knowledgeislimited Imentionedaboveth rejecting rationalism. must bea true theoryof th theoryoftheworldoutpur construct a attempt tore-establishrationalismanane andr reason thus, real isreasonable; ofidentity,'That whichis philosophy Hegel's 11 reason–fo outofpure system a theoretical to beimpossible.Hegel,th although no doubt it inspiredHegel.[ although nodoubtit ofcategories, table constructionofKant's triadic the notdiscuss detail, Ishall wehavetogo hisdialectic, To understand Hedidthis against metaphysics. MacTaggart has made MacTaggarthas this point of the centre Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl e realworld. Thus itallowed

erefore, wasboundtotry erefore, almostequally,reasonable to the field of possible experience and that pure andthat experience fieldofpossible to the theories. Thusifwegetno with thehelpofhisdialectic. n idea which obviously goes beyond possible goesbeyondpossible n ideawhichobviously 11 ized reconstruction, or reinterpretation, of of reconstruction,orreinterpretation, ized eality are identical', was undoubtedly an undoubtedly was areidentical', eality ] But Ihavetorefer ] But r force and conviction – both arguments –botharguments forceandconviction r arguments, to the opposite effect as well. well. effectas theopposite to arguments, of reasonableness or self-evidence does does orself-evidence of reasonableness though they may seem quite reasonable, reasonable, quite may seem they though what he had done, I should say that Kant Kant what hehaddone,Ishouldsaythat in favour oftheantithesis.Andboth in favour d. In a section of the Critique which he Critiquewhichhe ofthe section d. Ina is reason, and with it (according to the withit(according tothe reason,and is evolution. Kant, so says Hegel, refuted Hegel, Kant,sosays evolution. mething fixed once and for all, but is forall,butis onceand mething fixed w basis.Itpermitted thephilosopherto wehavenohope st havetooccurinthedevelopmentof thesis, we could always construct and construct thesis,wecouldalways back to Kant again.Toavoidtoomuchback toKant of rationalism? Very easily, by holding easily,byholding Very of rationalism? sufficiency of a theory which does not doesnot which ofatheory sufficiency ment which supports the thesis, we can ment whichsupportsthethesis,wecan Hegelcalls'metaphysics', asopposed ies toconceiveof realityassomething his interesting Studies in Hegelian Dialectic. shall find to our dismay that wecan that toourdismay shall find e reasoningandtomaintainthatthis ct itself, if used to go beyond possible usedtogobeyondpossible itself,if ct at Kant maintained that the scope of at Kantmaintainedthatthescopeof r instance,ifwetrytoarguethatthe ss, in favour of a number of different ofdifferent number ss, infavourofa result ortheory.Itisalwayspossible this asfollows. If reasonable is real, and that which is isreal,andthatwhich reasonable which at least tell us to eliminate whichatleasttellustoeliminate . Thus,Kantsaid,reasonis exactly what Kant hadsaid refute Kant's arguments Kant'sarguments refute help from experience, if if help fromexperience, to Kant's method of of eversettlingthe we trytoconstruct lectic ? lectic 15 studien\seminarTEXT clearly wasagraveobstacle totheacceptanceofdialectic.Here wehavethe to This madeitnecessary logical theory. animpor alter logicsoastomake dialectic when re description ofouractualprocedure isthetrue believingthatdialectic Hegel, that therefore quiteunderstandable the fundamental lawsof lo or asthetheory ofreasoning and defined even –and time inHegel's that remember to wehave asuccess, withsuch thedanger connected In ordertounderstand dialecticmethod applying his theories, anditistherefore notsurprising study appliedthaninthe successfully anywhere hardly reasoning. Andindeed developmentof of the thoughtwhenhespeaks ofphilosophical development isthehighestexpression that philosophy th oftheories, sense, todenoteallsorts subjective sense,todenoteacertainment Hegelusestheword'reason' ifweremember that becomes clear notonlyinthe element inHegel'sphilosophywhich, (b) Thedescriptionofthe dogmatic systemsaswell.) that similar reinforced dogmatisms help may liketocallita'reinforced(It beremarked dogmatism'. Ishould sense, sothat against anysortofcriticism orattacka effective,butunfortunately therefore, is Isaid facts,as andsome the theory pointing outsome ofcontradiction,eith sort attack, anycriticismwhatso ofanytheory nolongerbe kind –adogmatism whichneed is clearthatthisargument establishe contradict which ispreparedtoputupwith It fromcontradictions. as trytobefree onlysu itrefutes the lawofcontradiction: Iadmit that.Butitisclear contradictions. something like this: 'Kant whichmu venture dangerous an extremely afraid of contradictions.In whichtakesaccountofthedeve rationalism, metaphysical inhismorewhich are narrowsense,butnotfordialectical metaphysics. Thisrefutationisconsid refutatio evadeKant's to (a) Anattempt followingthree the wefind Thus in dialectictriads. orreasonisadi ofthought development the develop,andsince worldmust the develops, sincereason infers that of free stable, unmovedand Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl evadingKant's cr contradictions. Hegel, with Hegel, contradictions. gic wereusuallycalledthe refuted rationalism bysayi development of reasoninte was his History of Philosophy. ofPhilosophy. hisHistory was elements in Hegel's dialectic. dialectic. inHegel's elements above. Hegel's method of superseding Kant, Kant, ofsuperseding method above. Hegel's s adogmatism of an oughts, ideas and so on. Hegel, whoholds andsoon.Hegel, oughts, ideas ered by Hegel to hold only for systems toholdonlyforsystems byHegel ered is not dangerous for a system likemine system a notdangerousfor is nd thusitisdogmaticinaverypeculiar too effective. It makes his system secure Itmakes secure system too effective. his much later – logic was usually described usuallydescribed was later–logic much alectic one, the world must also develop one,theworldmustalsodevelop alectic had agooddealof the theory of thinking, and accordingly andaccordingly ofthinking, theory the discard the 'law discard the ofcontradiction', which of reasoning, has in mind mainly the hasinmindmainlythe ofreasoning, n of what Kant called 'dogmatism' in in 'dogmatism' Kantcalled n ofwhat ch systemsasacceptth that Hegel's most successful attempt at most Hegel's attemptat that successful of the development of philosophical ofphilosophical of thedevelopment that this argument draws its force from that thisargument drawsitsforcefrom ions – that is, for a dialectic system.' It It system.' foradialectic –thatis, ions asoning and thinking, held that he must thinking,heldthat hemust and asoning to support the structures of other tosupportthestructuresofother ever, must be based an the method of of bebasedanthemethod ever, must tant, if not the most important, partof tant, ifnotthemostimportant, al capacity, but also in the objective al capacity,butalsointheobjective canthedialectictriadbemore lopment of reason and is therefore not not lopment ofreasonandistherefore er within the theory itself or between orbetween theoryitself er withinthe iticism inthisway,Hegelembarksan st lead to disaster, for he argues argues st leadtodisaster,forhe afraid ofanysort hisphilosophyofidentity, ng thatitmust leadto 'laws of thought'. Itis rms of dialecticisan extremely dangerous dangerous extremely of attack.For any plausibility. This is law,i.e.such lectic ? lectic 16 studien\seminarTEXT exception an the level of Engel's examples thelevelofEngel's exception an (Themanyinstan science. reasoning in not hecertainlywould then contradiction, bydialecticreasoningHegelmeansBut if isalsothesoul Dialectic isatwork.It there islife,whereveranythingcarri natureofDialectic rightlythe understand 81,(1)):'Itofth (Logic, Section is rational philosophy,isalwaysbasedanth insc andwhether before orafterHegel, th wanttorepeat andIonly of dialectic, with logic,thatitisanimprovement upon origin of theviewthatdialecticis`fund structure whichcould perhaps bedescribedw dialecticians juststate thattheworldin then these so-calledcontradictory facts, littlecloserinto looka we later),if something say Ishall which identity (about But apartfrom whatappears hastobeabandoned. law ofcontradiction factsdevelopthrough contradi other andthat thatfactscancontradict it isasserted philos Butanthebasisof each other. worldof innature,i.e.the never occur words, Inother correspond tothefacts. thatis,can canbetrue, propositions, ofcontradictory proposition, ornopair thatno self-contradictory lawsays hastobediscarded.Forthis contradiction that thelawof usfrom angle whichshows another world isfullofcontradictions the bydialecticlogic.Itisthisveryfactthat arepermitted same contradictionsas beencalled'pentagram has (This standpoint too.Theworldmustdevelop dialectically be ofphilo bythedevelopment exemplified reason andrealityareidentical (c) Athirdelement inHegeliandialecticis ofview). thedialecticpoint from (namely which theyhavefoundinso dialectic,theywouldseethatthecontradictions dialectic; iftheywouldonlyuse anlogi itisbased is mistakenbecause asalastre inlogicaldifficulties, when Forwe dogmatically. toargue helps people The main dangerofsuchaco trialanderrormethod. workingofthe the remember leavi explainedwithout itcanbe because of acceptance the justify this factcannot of with somesuccessbedescribedinterms develo dialectic; itisonlythehistoryand = a Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl 2 –orevenworse.)Itisnotscientif me argumentsofthedialec to me to be the utterab to mebethe nfusion ofdialecticandlogicis,asIsaid,thatit nfusion of allknowledgewhichistrulyscientific.' sort tell their opponents that theircriticism sort telltheiropponentsthat each other since ideas can contradict each each othersinceideascancontradict which weliveshows, sometimes, acertain we find that all the examples proffered by proffered theexamples all we findthat ophy of the identity ofreasonandreality, ophy oftheidentity e highest importance toascertainand e highestimportance ed intoeffect intheactualworld,there itcancompete thesensethat amental' in ces quotedbydialecticiansarewithout at any sort oflogi at anysort . Wherever there ismovement, wherever . Whereverthere the law implies that a contradiction can that acontradiction lawimplies the ience orinmathematics orinanytruly facts, and that facts can never contradict facts, andthatfactscannevercontradict e law of contradiction. But Hegel writes writes lawofcontradiction.ButHegel e logic. Ihavealreadycriticizedthisview c of theordinarytypeinsteadof an the dialectic method. As we have seen, seen, method. Aswehave thedialectic referred toabove–thegrainand(-a) referred ic reasoningitself whichisbasedan pment of scientific based an his philosophy of identity. If If philosophyofidentity. basedanhis ng the realm of ordinary logic if we if logic ofordinary realm ng the dialectic as something fundamental, fundamental, dialecticassomething a reasoning which discards thelawof reasoningwhichdiscards a '.) Thus, we must find in the world the theworld in find wemust Thus, '.) find only too often that dialecticians, dialecticians, findonlytoooftenthat developsdialectically(asissowell be abletogiveanyinstanceofsuch sophical thought)thenrealitymustsophical ruled by the laws of dialectical logic. ruledbythelawsofdialecticallogic. ith thehelpof the ctions, just as ideas do; so that the do;sothat ctions, justasideas surdity of the philosophy of of philosophy surdity ofthe ticians arequitelegitimate cal reasoning, whether whether cal reasoning, theories which can word 'polarity'. An lectic ? lectic 17 2

studien\seminarTEXT the 1 be ofatruecontradictionwould example electrici instance, thatpositiveandnegative electricity. Itisonlyametaphorical instance of thatstructurewouldbe description – with a particularly rich language. particularlyrichlanguage. description –witha andthatmathemworld andnothingelse, the mathematical descriptionoftheworld by totheoneadvanced really isanalogous world? –'Becausetheworld the theEnglishlanguagedescribe 'Howcan than: andnosounder linguistic', –itis world?' –'Because theworldislanguage-like language describethe argument isobviouslyno ideal). This –thattheworld isamathematical thought(andtherefore nature ofmathematics ismathema Because theworld alonglineslikethese:'How own time, againandagain. formulated sortofargument Althoughthis face-like.' analogous argument,like:'Howcanthis We shallseeclearlythatitisnotar namely, 'Becausetheworldismind-like', philosophers idealist varied bydifferent to me beatallclearlyformulat notto question,'How invented toanswer–the ofseriousargu sort withoutany offered mottoforthispaper.It asthe have chosen incredible philosophictheoriestowhichDe philosophy of identity.Ithinkitrepresentstheworstof allthoseabsurdand Hege opinionabout to expressmypersonal thefate tooutline dialectic. BeforeIproceed pointss identity. Thesethree an dialectic to'theworld',based whole like'reason','laws ofthou of expressions dogmatism; (b)theincorporationof dialectic and consequentlythere-establishmentof So therearethreepoints:(a)thedialecticoppositiontoKant's anti-rationalism, gov rules is,anthe logic,that based an factsis ofsuch non-existence exist.(A donot facts such contradictory and doesnotattractcertainnegativelychar both positivelyandnotpositivel contradictory factwouldbethethat beacontradictionbetwee This would positively charged. the analogous sentenceabout Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl st of November, 1938,betw We find it formulated byJ finditformulated We eem tomebethemain not a law which is akin to laws of physics, but is is but ofphysics, tolaws whichisakin notalaw same body, saying that it was at the same time not not time same thatitwasatthe body,saying same tics-like.' Heargues is intrinsically British.' That this latter argument is intrinsicallyBritish.'Thatthislatterargument y charged,andthusatthe een 9and10a.m.,positiv ed. Andtheidealistan erning the use of scientific language.) erning theuseofscientific Hegel's panlogism andhisphilosophyof Hegel's ment; even the problem which it has been whichithas problem eventhe ment; and loose way of speaking to say, for for say, to and loosewayofspeaking the existenceof positiveandnegative canourminds grasptheworld?' –seems n two sentences and the corresponding corresponding andthe n twosentences a body is, as a whole, at the same time thesame time at awhole, as abodyis, is obviously utterly unsound, it has been been ithas utterlyunsound, obviously is is not only that philosophy of identity is is ofidentity thatphilosophy notonly is sounder thanthefo eal answer if we only consider some weonlyconsidersome eal answerif but remains fundamentally the same, same, the fundamentally butremains rationalism supported by a reinforced byareinforced supported rationalism two sentences: 'This body here was, an 'This bodyherewas,an sentences: two Jeans is easily seen if we recognize that werecognize seenif iseasily Jeans myfa mirror reflect ght', and so on; (c) the application of of application on;(c)the so ght', and deeperanalysismi can mathematics theworld?' – grasp has onlytheappearanceofananswer. abouthis philosophy,andespecially l's is justacertainwayof describingthe atics supplies us with the means of atics suppliesuswiththemeansof ged bodies. But we need not say that that Butweneednotsay ged bodies. ty are contradictory to eachother.An to ty arecontradictory scartes refersinthesentencewhichI of dialectic after ofdialectic in logic, grounded an the ambiguity theambiguity inlogic,groundedan thus thatrealityisofthevery elementswithinHegelian eans, for instance, in our our instance,in eans, for same time bothattracts swer, which has been whichhas swer, ely charged', andan Hegel, Ishouldlike llowing: 'Howcan ce?' 'Becauseitis ght showthatthe lectic ? lectic 18 studien\seminarTEXT dialectic loses everything which made it plausible and understandable; we have to wehave and understandable; madeitplausible dialectic loseseverything which modified bylinkswithdialectic. Butin This materialism canberegarded asare themental andthephysical between pheno amaterial orphysical mind isalso and bysayingthatitisiden reality isinfact ofmaterial orphysical akindof materia tobecome round soas ph of reason.Butclearlysuchadialectical here.) whichweareconcerned with idealism itisca as ofinduction, way theproblem speculative anticipationwhichpreparesthe appli tohaveitsempirical later proves asapurespeculation,mere originally that atheoryputforward possibility, ata thisisnotastonishing inductivists, not world.Butforthosewhoare proves tobeapplicablethephysical ina bypuremathematicians, formulated astonishing itobviouslyis such aposition experience bysomemoreorlesssimple proc is,he that an'inductivist'; should call Apparently theworld. to formulae apply their originallyinventedbypuremathem formulae factthatou the about uneasy Jeans was described withthehelpof toopr arecer degree ofcomplexity,sothatthere todesc want ifwe language mathematical can inferaboutthenatureofworld whichl language thana richer is simply languagewhichcont described otherwise;a be more whichcouldnot order todescribecertain relationships complicated sy than B.Inotherwords,mathematical and5more Ahas9sheep thanB,butitcannotsaythat andmore many sheep, 'three','four', the numericalexpressions ca which groupsofobjects, certain between some complicatedlanguage isunabletodescribe relationships ofthemore ideas withthehelpofexpressionsforone whichdonotemploy primitive languages Perhaps onecanshowthismost as (absolute) idealism, because it statesth idealism,becauseit as (absolute) Hegel's philosophyof theidentityof reason Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl 3. DIALECTIC AFTER HEGEL tical with reason, or mind, one would imply that the the that wouldimply mind,one withreason,or tical easilywiththehelpof imitive instruments ofdescription. other appearsto meas the veryparadigm ofthoughtlessness. each contradict mutually might events or facts that thought The cannot be of great importance. cannotbeofgreatimportance. character, astheordi ll. Theyknowthatit acks theappropriatesy cations. Theyknowthatoften itisthis lism. Its adherents w Itsadherents lism. thought that theories are obtained from obtained are theories thought that mbols are introduced into a language in alanguage into mbols areintroduced vival of certain asp ofcertain vival at reality is mind-like or of the character character at realityismind-likeorofthe 'five', and so on. It can say that A has 'five', andsoon.ItcansaythatAhas ilosophy of identity can easily be turned caneasilybeturned ilosophy ofidentity , two, and many. It is clear that such a thatsucha many.Itisclear and , two, discarding itsoriginal idealisticbasis, r world happens to suit mathematical tosuitmathematical r worldhappens tain relationshipsinitwhichcannotbe lled, has a bearing an the problem of lled, hasabearingantheproblem menon – or if not, that the difference menon –orifnot,thatthedifference purely speculative manner, afterwards manner,afterwards purely speculative ribe it is that the world has a certain certain hasa itisthattheworld ribe andrealityissometimes characterized way fortheempirical (Inthis theories. numbers but try to express numerical numbers buttrytoexpressnumerical ains the arithmetic of natural numbers ains thearithmetic ofnaturalnumbers n easily be described with the help of of describedwiththehelp n easilybe to find that a theory which has been been has thatatheorywhich to find from the fact that we have touse wehave factthat from the edure of inference. If one starts from onestarts If edure ofinference. aticians whodidnotintendatallto heoriginallystartedoff aswhatI a trivialexample. Thereare nary manthinksitis; ects of Cartesianism, ects ofCartesianism, ould then argue that thenarguethat ould happens quite often happens quiteoften mbols. Allthatwe David Hilbert Hilbert David lectic ? lectic 19 studien\seminarTEXT origin oftheir mentioning theconditions may atreatment treated (althoughsuch is evenofideascannotbefullyunderstoodifthehistory development influe andlasting significance be ofreal This viewwasundoubtedlys material goods foodandother need for extremely dogmaticassertion realitydevelopsdialectically–an statementthatphysical blanklywiththe faced the development ofthought,especially infavour arguments thatthebest remember 12 reason. Inoppositiontheystress theanalysisof sociology hastobebasedonanidealistorspiritualistbasis, theory which,referring totherationalor say thatoneof theirchief interestsin materialism isthusinagreementwhichpo criticism is describedwhereby have already dialecticians areforcedtomake avery too obvious.[ within thefield of thenaturalscienceswa and eventofurther, thesocialsciences, fact thatHegelwithhisidea wasofte assumption Suchan Hegelianism. sciencesneedanidealistbackgroundliketheoneoffered by the social canproceed natural sciences as Icanseethemain pointisthis:there insuchawaythatnoseriou reformulated materialism thatappearsto (whichhappilyIam not).It to choose Ipersonallyshouldprobab which materialism, asamaterialis describemyself should not thisopinion,Iwa Inexpressing features. th (c)considerably,althoughI alters point Marx. Thematerialistic element inthis These remarksapplyparticularlytothe At least it should beobvious to everybody whoconsiders, asaninstance,the following Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl Society Philosophy of Nature would have mademuchdifference the to di (No doubtought it'of through to havebeen and retain, astheir condition, having not yet grown into independence ofand through them.' superficial processby which the differences desert the form which, however, they still more the rather but itself, form the of however, dissolution, the yet it-not by determined emergence,or the actuality just emerging, from the proximity ofthe form,andstill that isjust about to overcome its ownindifference; for,electricity is immediate the form the is it itself, emancipates it which from form the of purpose the is ... 'Electricity even to the extent to oftrying render essence of surprising analysisofthe , note 4 to, note ch.12. 12 ] Ithinkitisafair Interpretationof . See also the passages an Sound andan mytheHeat, in. Seealsopassagesan Sound quoted me to be even worse worse tobeeven me

list theory of the Stateappear list theoryofthe ound; andIholdMarx'scont anthebasisofcomm with solittlescientific su ed the material sideofhu ed thematerial itmore understandableHegel's than original: electricity emphasizing materialism was to dismiss any todismiss was materialism emphasizing –anditsimporta extensive use of the dangerous method we extensive useofthedangerous nce. Everyonelearned ofphilosophicalthought.Nowweare is only the combination ofdialecticand is onlythecombination while thefutility of viewswhichheheld s objections to it could be made. As far toitcouldbemade.Asfar s objections s –atleastfor naturalscientists–only 'Dialectical Materialism'developedby spiritual natureof ints (a) and (b) discussed above, but it butit above, (b)discussed ints (a)and is noreasontoassumethatwhilstthe theory could becomparativelyeasily theory could t, my criticism is not directed against directedagainst isnot t, mycriticism nt to stress the point that although I nt tostressthepointthatalthoughI rejected as non-dialectical. Dialectical Dialectical asnon-dialectical. rejected and thesituationof theiroriginators, often have its great merits) without itsgreatmerits)without often have ink with no advantage to its dialectic dialectic ink withnoadvantagetoits n made in Marx's of dialectic layinitsapplicabilityto whichIhavetranslated aswellas Icould, fferences.) Thepassage is from Hegel's ly prefer to idealism if I were forced forced Iwere toidealismif ly prefer it than dialecticidealism. '; but I do not wish to suggest that this this that suggest to wish not Ido but '; the ideas of Marx and Engels to andEngels ofMarx theideas nce forsociology. on man'srealisticoutlook man nature – such as our –suchasour man nature ributions anthispointto ed stronglytoinfluence, pport thatmaterialistic man, maintains that time, owingtothe from Marxthatthe lectic ? lectic Open 20 studien\seminarTEXT of a law of Nature, its own negation. ofNature, itsownnegation. of alaw negation...Butca production ...isthefirst ( endofcapitalism impending negation, furnishe negationofthe motion, the ofmodern ofmotion law bare theeconomic to preface inthe or, ashesays and dialectic forcesareworkinginhistory, In Marx's viewitisthe history, andinphilosophy.' andplantkingd holds goodintheanimal of Natu general .lawofdevelopment of theNegation'): 'Whattherefore isth Similarly, Engelswrites(An itself'. deem secureandstableitmay irresistible powerbeforewhichnothingcanstay,however his show verycloselyindeed,asmaybe Hegel and'negationsofnegations'. `negations', forcesofhistoricaldevelopm the dynamic doctrinethat Hegel's butretained idealism Marxdropped ofideas. was thehistory that thisdevelopmenthastobeexplaine of becometheories haveto well ashistory that Hegel notonlytheview of Historicism have triedtocriticizethismethod thebeliefinth but over-rated; much ofthehistor thatthesignificance recognized deve hasslowly showing howmankind believed thatonecould,for example, describing adevelopmenthistoricallyone the historicalmethod, ofthesc afounder toremember firstpoint,wehave As forthe dialectic. ofMarx's tendency anti-dogmatic Ihaveca sociology, atendencywhich Ma Oneis important. tome points seem economism astoseewhat toanalyseMarx's materialism purposeitisnotsoimportant and For ourpresent ideas. without understandingthede economicdevelopments tounderstand leastasimpossible background, itisat fully tounderstandmentaldevelopmen thatitisimpossible granted Besides, economicforces. supersede and outweigh can ofideas(perhapssupportedbypropaganda) circumstances theinfluence e Ithinkthatsocial fact untenable. ofanyso background astheultimate basis personally thinkthatMarx's economi among whichconditionstheeconomic aspectishighlysignificant. NeverthelessI Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl Encyclopaedia ). Here I merely want to stress that Marx's sociology adopted from ). HereImerelywanttostressthatMarx's sociologyadopted (Part I ch. VI p. 81) described Dialectic as 'the universal and as'theuniversal Dialectic Ich.VIp.81)described (Part main task of sociological main ofsociological task has become of the dialectic has becomeofthe its method has to be histori tobe its methodhas Capital velopment of,for instance, Capital elsewhere (especially inmybook (especially elsewhere It is the negation of the negation.' negation ofthenegation.' the It is , 1, ch. XXIV, p.7):'The capitalistmode of , 1,ch.XXIV, xperience clearly shows that under certain undercertain xperience clearlyshowsthat is method has by no means disappeared. I I disappeared. bynomeans is methodhas , 'It istheultimateai e negation of the negation? An extremely Anextremely e negationofthenegation? ts withoutunderstandingtheireconomic re, history and thought; a lawwhich . re, historyandthought;a sm –hisemphasis In this respect Marx and Engels followed followed MarxandEngels respect In this d indialecticalterms. ToHegelhistory ti-Dühring, Part i, 'Dialectics: Negation Negation Parti,'Dialectics: ti-Dühring, has causally explained it. This school it.Thisschool explained hascausally explain certainsocialinstitutionsby n by the following quotations. Hegel in n bythefollowingquotations.Hegelin rx's emphasis an historical method in methodrx's in anhistorical emphasis rt of development – is mistaken and in in ofdevelopment and –ismistaken rt socialdevelopment, ent are the dialectical 'contradictions', ent arethedialectical'contradictions', that Hegel was one of the inventors of of oftheinventors one Hegelwas that hool of thinkers whobelievedthatin hool ofthinkers thus to prophesy the course of history; toprophesythecourseofhistory; thus lled 'historicism'. Theotheristhe pitalism begets,withtheinexorability loped them. Nowadaysitisoften loped them. ical method for social theory has been ical method theoryhas forsocial om, ingeology,mathematics, in s the basis of Marx's prophecy of the ofthe ofMarx'sprophecy s thebasis society'.Andthisdialecticlawof science toshowhowthese cal, and that sociology as sociology cal, andthat within his system. Two system. his within scientific orreligious m of thisworktolay an the economic antheeconomic butalsotheview The Poverty lectic ? lectic 21 studien\seminarTEXT byMarx isused anddialectic Marxism, anti-dogmatic attitudeexistsonl attitude towards th same adopted the TheMarxists superseded. notbe development andcould stageofthis and highest yet develops; Hegel thoughtthatphilosophy Marxists. But criticismof Marxism, of dialecticalma activities. Progressive,anti-dogmaticscienceiscritical–criticismitsverylife. appliedbyorthodox neverbeen science has thatMarx's ofrealmoment is, however, theory. ButIam preparedtoadmit thatth ambitious way,asforexam andambiguous unless itisforced, andthatitisbetterto that thedialecticaldescriptionofscientif tobeSaidagai There isnotverymuch Marx,dialectically. according to theydevelop, develop; and systems fortruth.Scientific upthesearch not togive isnotthemanThe scientist whoknowsalo knowledge, orof'eternal truth', butra andwell-established bodyoffinal asa notbeinterpreted science should Ma attitudeshouldbediscussed. anti-dogmatic dialecticplaysin role the Apart from forecasts –whichismistaken.But development –theideathatscientific so is,rath approach,it just thedialectical byfutureexperience.[ refutation afraid ofany development whateverwillfit thedialectic Situation whichitpredictedandwhic explain thisunforeseen situationjustas has notbeenforeseen. Butdialecticisva situationwillarisewhich a true andsomewillnot.Inthelattercase,obviously, based Thusifforecasts were successful.) non-resisting bourgeoisie'.FewMarxistsw and tothe'irresolute byreferring amplified thisforecast and inafootnotehe violent,and incomparably less'protracted, said thatthetransitionfrom capitalism to outofmany:InCapital,immedi example true,'us Marxists havecome predictions sc asoundbasisfor cannot beacceptedas astronomical eventsshow.ButHegeliandi beunscientifi not need Prophecy certainly 13 In Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl metaphysical. is it unscientific: is dialectic that say wecan standard this By metaphysical. is it content, scientific no has zero-it is content scientific its risks, such no takes it If experience. the theory conveys, the moremore it the risks, it isexposedto refutation by future L.Sc.D. I have tried to show that the scientific content of a theory is the greater the more more the greater the is theory a of content scientific the that show to tried Ihave

y inthetheoryandnot this does not concern ushere. this doesnotconcern ther as something developing, progressive. progressive. developing, ther assomething nst this point–althoughpersonallyIthink nst this ually answer. They have not. To quote one ually answer.Theyhavenot.Toquoteone wellasitinterpretedandexplainedthe gue andelasticenoughtointerpret ately after the last passage quoted, Marx afterthelastpassagequoted,Marx ately progressive and anti-dogmatic view of andanti-dogmaticviewof progressive describe scientific developmentinaless ic developmentisnotalwaysapplicable is criticism isnotof greatimportance.It socialism wouldnatu ists, following the example of Engels' ofEngels' example followingthe ists, er, theideaof atheoryof historical h happenednottocomeAny true. an dialecticaremade, some come will scheme;thedialecticianneedneverbe e Marxismsystem. Hence,Marx'se difficult' thantheindustrialrevolution, c, as predictions of eclipses and other andother ofeclipses c, aspredictions ill saynowadaysthatthesepredictions ciology aims at large-scale historical ciology aims atlarge-scalehistorical Marxistswithinth t butrathertheman whoisdetermined Marx's historicalmethod,Marx's terialism, hasneverbeentoleratedby his own system was to remain the last thelast remain his ownsystem wasto alectic, oritsmaterialistic version, ple, in terms of the trialanderror interms ofthe ple, ientific forecasts. ('ButallMarx's forecasts. ientific rx andEngelsstro 13 ] As mentioned before, it is not itis ] Asmentionedbefore, thepracticeof orthodox e field of their own own e fieldoftheir rally beaprocess ngly insisted that that ngly insisted lectic ? lectic 22 studien\seminarTEXT must notbemade sortof abasisforany thatphilosophy Itshouldremind us inherent inphilosophical system-building. shou developmentofdialectic The whole engineering. worse thanrecommendingArchimedes' ev and ofprescientific buttypical obsolete ofHegel's scientific methodology,thereading officially today how orthodoxMarxism arguments aswereoriginallyusedbyits repeat decades keptitsdogmaticattitude, scientific developmentofwh Marxism'. Andithelpedto became it But master. famous ofhis undeservedly inthespeculations aweakness young studentrevealing beconsideredtomoreand canhardly thantheclever hasnow,together byHegel, era dominated fascina undeniably This discovery,although upwards. isastep step new every that byemphasizing progress –atheoryforecasting alsooptimistic but benotonlyrevolutionary, which should apologetic one.Besidesthis,itwasexcellen favour of arevolutionarypoliticaltheo against beturned philosophy couldeasily understand opinions. Wecan political temperament,neededaphilosoph 'Totalitarianism'). Marx,whoadmired hi theideaofth reasonable –andtodefend identity ofreasonandrealitytosupportth r ofPrussian representative a had been of theinfluence under came evolutionarya man whowasprogressive, havetocons We develop suchatheory. of thisunfortunaterolewillbeeasierif philosophy, butalsointhedevelopment averyunfortuna hasplayed Thus dialectic without thought scientific competitionin Engels;andingeneraltherecannotbefree byMarxand supported of –thisistheessence of thought dogmatism. Therecanbenoscientific Yet therecanbenoworseob becomewhat Ithasthus further attack. whichiselasticenough,byus dogmatism anti-dogmatic attitudehasdisappeared,andMarxismestablisheditselfasa todialecticthe orforbeingtraitors.Thanks dialectic, orproletarianscience, rulecriticsarede against criticism. Asa Anti-Dühring Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl , mainly for the purposes ofapologe , mainlyforthepurposes freedom for all thought. allthought. for freedom turn Marxismintoadogma Hegel,themostfamous ich it might have been capable. So Marxism has for hasfor SoMarxism capable. might been ich it have thetheoreticalbasisof his elation at discovering that Hegel's dialectical dialectical thatHegel's discovering his elationat stacle tothegrowthof the anti-dogmatic attitudeoncesostrongly anti-dogmatic the I have calledare Ihave we trytoSeehowMarx development without the free competition thefreecompetition without development eaction. He had used his principle of the Hehadusedhisprincipleofthe eaction. nounced for their failure to understand the the understand nounced fortheirfailureto e Absolute State (an idea nowadays called e AbsoluteState(anideanowadayscalled founders. Itissad recommends, as a basis for the study of study forthe asabasis recommends, ider the whole situation. Marx, a young ider thewholesituation.Marx,ayoung of political theory. A full understanding of politicaltheory.Afull scientific system andthatphilosophers ry, ratherthanof aconservativeand ing against itsopponentsjusttheSame ing against m, butwhowasof ing itsdialecticmethod, any toevade nd even revolutionary in his thought, inhisthought, nd evenrevolutionary with Hegelianism, lost all significance, with Hegelianism,lostallsignificance, e existing powers – for what exists, is existingpowers–forwhatexists, e te role not only in the development of development te rolenotonlyinthe its own master –thatdialecticwasin ownmaster its y anwhichtobasehisownpolitical ld be a warning against the dangers thedangers against warning ld bea en pre-logical ways of thinking. It is Itis ofthinking. en pre-logicalways mechanics as a basis for modern mechanics asabasisformodern ting for a discipleofHegelandinan ting fora tly adapted to his need for a theory tohisneedforatheory tly adapted tics-to defendtheMarxistsystem Logic tic system by preventing the the bypreventing tic system German philosopher. Hegel German philosopher.Hegel inforced dogmatism. tour deforce science than a reinforced science thanareinforced – which is not merely isnotmerely –which what iscalled'Scientific but illuminatingtoSee originallycameto a verydifferent of abrilliant lectic ? lectic 23 studien\seminarTEXT usefully isthestudyof the moreshould bemuch modestintheirclai The was text originally edited andrendered into PDF file for the e-journal Karl R. Popper What isDia What Popper R. Karl This material may be freely copied and reused, provided the author and sources are cited are sources and author the provided reused, and copied maybe freely material This a printable versionmay be obtained [email protected] critical methods ofscience. Copyright 2004 vordenker.de 2004 Copyright ms. One task which they can fulfil quite canfulfil ms. Onetaskwhichthey by E. von Goldammer

ISSN 1619-9324 1619-9324 ISSN lectic ? lectic .

24