dialectic essay

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser to improve your experience.

How to Write an Exclusive Dialectic Essay: Assignment and Sample

Last updated: July 2019

Oh no, not again!

image source: Unsplash

Essay types are numerous, and students have to know them all, as well as understand the difference between them. What to do if a professor assigns a dialectic essay to you?

The assignment : write a dialectic essay on the topic of your choice, it should be about 2 double-spaced typed pages (600 words maximum). Follow the structure and clearly label each section of your essay.

Here goes the definition of a dialectic essay for you again:

Dialectic essay is a sort of argumentative dialogue or debate, where a writer should make a thesis and use different arguments and counterarguments to prove this thesis’ verity.

Unlike critical précis , a dialectic essay is not about taking a single stand on the issue. Here you should represent all arguments, even if you don’t agree with some of them. A professor might ask to share your opinion in conclusion, but this essay type is more about a rational discussion of all sides.

It is like a conversation among several people:

• One introduces and proves an argument.
• Another one objects it, providing a counterargument and, therefore, starting a debate.
• Finally, a third one responds to the objection with arguments, different from those in the first paragraph.

Why do they ask you to write a dialectic essay?

Nope, that’s not because your professors hate you.

By assigning dialectic essays, they want to check your ability to clarify thoughts on a particular subject. This essay type is perfect for presenting the subject from different points of view, considering its both positive and negative aspects, and making a conclusion accordingly.

Writing a dialectic essay, you learn to see all values and vices of the thesis, as well as explore the subject in depth.

What is the structure of a dialectic essay?

It reminds a standard 5-paragraph essay, which consists of an introduction, where you present your argumentative thesis , a body of three parts, and a conclusion.

How to organize a dialectic essay?

Introduction (a thesis itself)

First of all, the introduction of your dialectic essay should represent a thesis . To introduce a debate in the paper, make sure to choose a topic and thesis that have at least two interpretations.

Make your thesis controversial to have an opportunity of representing opposite views in your essay. And yet, don’t make the introduction too long. This part of your dialectic paper consists of one paragraph.

Paragraph 1 of a dialectic essay presents one argument with facts to support and prove it to the audience. It (argument) supports your thesis.

The second paragraph of a dialectic essay responds to the argument of Paragraph 1, providing the objection to it.

NB! This paragraph objects the argument, not the thesis. Give reasons why it’s not the ultimate truth, and support your objecting with proofs. In this way, you make an essay a kind of a debate between two people with opposite views.

Paragraph 3 of a dialectic essay is your response to the objecting. However, don’t refer to the same arguments you used in Paragraph 1. This part of your essay responds to the objection from Paragraph 2.

There is no need to provide new arguments for the thesis because your task here is to criticize Paragraph 2.

As a rule, the only right argument of your debate is that from Paragraph 1. The rest two serve to demonstrate your professor that you understand the thesis in depth and see its all interpretations.

The aim of a final paragraph is to support the initial thesis of your dialectic essay or represent a new one, which would combine both arguments and counterarguments.

NB! Don’t change the thesis! It may be a kind of modification supported by more proofs but not a complete reversal.

This sample of a dialectic essay will help to understand the sense of such a writing assignment better.

Three Opposing Viewpoints on Abortion by Amy Geiger

From: tc.umn.edu

Dialectic Essay Topics

Dialectic Essay Tips

First, you must recognize that dialectic writing is one of the rarest types of papers that do not occur too often. Because of this, learning how to write them well can be a big challenge because there will be little practice. This type of writing generally involves a reasoned dialog between the writer and the arguments for and against.

Here are some essential writing guidelines:

• First, you should read all the teacher’s requirements, because they can differ. In the future, this will help you to make a minimum number of mistakes.
• After that, try to choose a topic you already have experience with. Thanks to this, you can develop a writing plan and not make mistakes in facts.
• Be sure to research the topic to find out all sides and positions of the participants. You need to prove and disprove your arguments at the same time.
• Write an outline of your essay and specify everything down to the smallest detail. This will help you not to get confused in your argumentation.
• After writing, read your essay to your friends and acquaintances. This will help you find weaknesses and correct them.

In general, you need to pay the most attention to your sources of information. Ensure that all the cited studies are written correctly and do not contradict each other.

So, now what?

Once your professor assigns a dialectic essay, follow this checklist to make sure you don’t miss anything:

• Choose a debatable topic (except as noted).
• Come up with a thesis and represent it in the introduction of your dialectic essay.
• Think about all the possible pros and cons of the thesis.
• Organize all ideas to determine both arguments and counterarguments.
• Write three paragraphs of your essay, with each objecting and responding to a previous one.
• Make sure that your counterarguments don’t object the thesis but arguments from previous paragraphs of a dialectic essay.
• Finish your dialectic essay with a conclusion that would support the thesis and initial argument.
• Proofread and edit your essay .

Related posts

• Harvard Referencing Style: A Comprehensive Guide
• Tone in Writing: Types and Examples
• How to Write a Problem Statement for a Research Paper

Our Writing Guides

Home ➔ How to Write an Essay ➔ Dialectic Essay

Dialectic Essay Guide

In our ceaseless quest for knowledge, we often find ourselves engaging in profound debates and discourses. This intellectual journey invariably leads us to one of the most powerful forms of argumentative communication: the dialectic essay. Derived from the ancient art of dialectics, this form of essay writing invites the writer and reader alike to delve into an ocean of alternating perspectives, reconcile apparent contradictions, and generate fresh insights.

A dialectic essay is a form of discourse that weaves together a series of interconnected arguments and counterarguments. The purpose of this dance between contrasting points of view is not to simply win an argument but rather to engage in a rigorous process of intellectual exploration and synthesis. Writing a compelling dialectic essay requires a careful balance between respecting opposing perspectives and crafting a thoughtful, informed argument that navigates the intricate pathways between these divergent viewpoints.

Its focus on balance and synthesis sets the dialectic essay apart from other forms of argumentative writing. While other types of essays often champion a particular viewpoint, the dialectic essay embraces the complexities inherent in most intellectual pursuits. By engaging with opposing perspectives, a dialectic essay offers a rich, nuanced analysis that goes beyond surface-level arguments.

Remember, the strength of a dialectic essay lies not only in the force of your argument but also in the respect you show for alternate perspectives. It’s a delicate dance that requires careful consideration, deep intellectual curiosity, and rigorous analysis. In the following sections of this guide, we will elaborate on the structure of dialectic essays, pre-writing strategies, writing process, and revision techniques. We invite you to join me on this enlightening journey and explore the exciting world of dialectic essays.

Understanding the Structure of Dialectic Essays

A dialectic essay serves as a dialogue between two or more contradicting viewpoints, an intellectual journey that demands a meticulous understanding of its unique structure. In essence, a dialectic essay operates on the triadic structure of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis , a framework rooted in the philosophy of Hegel.

Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis

• Thesis: This is the starting point of your essay, the original argument, or proposition. It functions as the basis for the conversation. As such, the thesis should be formulated thoughtfully, being as explicit and direct as possible. You need to delineate your viewpoint lucidly, maintaining a level of depth that prompts intellectual engagement.
• Antithesis: This counter-argument poses a conflict with your original thesis. As an advocate of fair and unbiased discourse, you should engage with this counter-argument thoroughly, recognizing its potential validity. This is not an attempt to dismantle your initial viewpoint, but an exploration of an alternative perspective that is both valid and compelling.
• Synthesis : The last and arguably most crucial part is the synthesis. This is where the magic of the dialectic essay truly unfolds, where the threads of argument and counterargument are woven together. The synthesis takes the salient points of both thesis and antithesis and merges them to create a resolution, a new understanding that transcends the initial binary opposition.

The “thesis” in a dialectic essay and the “ thesis statement ” in other types of essays both refer to an argument or position that the writer is taking. But, while both terms refer to an argument or position, the “thesis” in a dialectic essay is part of a three-part structure of argument, counter-argument, and resolution, whereas a “thesis statement” in other essays is a standalone statement that guides the argument of the entire essay.

The Flow of Arguments in a Dialectic Essay

A dialectic essay should possess a fluid, dynamic progression of ideas. The thesis is presented first, providing a comprehensive understanding of your argument. Following this, the antithesis offers a counterpoint, bringing in contrasting ideas to engage in a constructive conversation with the thesis. The essay then culminates in the synthesis, a reconciliation that draws upon the strongest points of the thesis and antithesis to craft a harmonious resolution.

Comparisons to Other Types of Essays

It’s essential to distinguish a dialectic essay from other forms of argumentative writing. While a persuasive essay might lean heavily on one side, and an argumentative essay tends to debate two viewpoints, a dialectic essay transcends this dichotomy. It acknowledges and deeply engages with both sides of the argument before transcending the debate with a synthesis. The dialectic essay, thus, is a unique combination of analysis, critique, and synthesis.

This triadic structure forms the core of the dialectic essay, a potent framework for intellectual discourse. By mastering this structure, we can effectively navigate the complexity of dialectic essays, generating nuanced, insightful discourses that broaden our understanding of the topic.

Pre-writing Strategies for Dialectic Essays

Choosing the Right Topic

Selecting the appropriate topic is the basis for your dialectic essay. As the author, you should seek a topic that is intriguing and has substantial scope for argument and counterargument. Look for issues that elicit differing viewpoints and lend themselves to comprehensively exploring the thesis-antithesis-synthesis structure.

Conducting Thorough Research

Equipping oneself with a strong knowledge base is essential in writing a compelling dialectic essay. Rigorous research provides the raw material from which your thesis, antithesis, and synthesis will take shape.

• Importance of Credible Sources: Ensure that you consult reliable, authoritative sources . This lends credibility to your arguments and reflects the depth of your research. From academic journals to reputable online resources, cast a wide net but maintain discernment in evaluating the quality of your sources.
• Balancing Bias: It’s crucial to approach your research from a balanced standpoint. Engage with sources that support your thesis, but also actively seek out material that informs your antithesis. This unbiased approach to research will allow for a more authentic, well-rounded exploration of your topic.

Formulating the Thesis and Antithesis

With your research at hand, start distilling your thesis and antithesis. Your thesis should represent a position you can argue convincingly, using your research data to substantiate your claims. Similarly, your antithesis should provide a compelling counter to your thesis, again supported by your research.

Planning the Synthesis: Strategies for Reconciliation of Arguments

The synthesis is where your dialectic essay comes into its own. Here, you reconcile your thesis and antithesis to arrive at a more nuanced understanding. Consider how the arguments of your thesis and antithesis can come together. Are there common points? Can one argument be seen as an extension or critique of the other? Contemplating these questions during your pre-writing phase can simplify the writing process.

Remember, the key to a successful dialectic essay lies in meticulous preparation. By investing time in choosing the right topic, conducting thorough research, and carefully formulating your thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, you lay a solid foundation for your essay. This careful pre-writing process will allow your dialectic essay to truly shine.

Writing a Dialectic Essay

Writing the introduction.

The introduction serves as the gateway to your essay, drawing the reader into the intellectual journey you’re about to embark upon. Begin with a hook—an intriguing statement, a compelling question, or an interesting fact—that immediately captures the reader’s interest. Provide sufficient background information on your topic and conclude with a clear articulation of your thesis.

• Engaging Readers: Crafting an attention-grabbing hook is essential. This first impression sets the tone for your essay and should immediately engage the reader’s intellectual curiosity.
• Background Information and Thesis: Providing context helps orient your reader to the topic at hand. Following this with your clearly articulated thesis ensures your reader understands the initial standpoint from which your argument will develop.

Developing the Thesis

With your reader’s attention captured, delve into your argument. Present your thesis with conviction, providing a comprehensive understanding of your position. Support your thesis with evidence and examples drawn from your research.

• Establishing the Argument: Present your argument in a clear, direct manner. Explain your position and its reasoning, providing an in-depth understanding of your perspective.
• Supporting the Argument: Back up your argument with evidence from your research. Cite specific examples, data, or expert opinions that substantiate your claims, reinforcing the credibility of your thesis.

Developing the Antithesis

The antithesis serves as a counterpoint to your thesis, introducing an alternate perspective. Present this counter-argument as thoroughly as your thesis, highlighting its potential validity.

• Introducing Counterarguments: Present the antithesis as an alternative viewpoint that challenges your thesis. Acknowledge the merits of this perspective, showing respect for its arguments.
• Supporting the Counterarguments: Support your antithesis with research. Provide evidence and examples that strengthen this counter-perspective, further demonstrating its validity.

Creating the Synthesis

The synthesis represents the culmination of your dialectic essay, the point where thesis and antithesis come together to form a new understanding. It should highlight the commonalities between your thesis and antithesis, drawing upon their strongest points to create a harmonious resolution.

• Resolving the Conflict of Arguments: Synthesize your arguments, highlighting areas of agreement, shared insights, or common goals between your thesis and antithesis.
• Drawing Conclusions: This is your opportunity to present a more comprehensive understanding of the topic, one that acknowledges the validity of both your thesis and antithesis but also transcends them.

Writing the Conclusion

Wrap up your essay by recapping your thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Discuss the implications of your arguments and their broader significance. End on a note that leaves a lasting impression, bringing your intellectual journey to a satisfying close.

• Recapping the Thesis, Antithesis, and Synthesis: Briefly restate your main arguments, reminding your reader of the intellectual journey they’ve taken.
• Implications and Broader Significance: Reflect on what your arguments mean for your topic and for related issues. Consider the broader significance of your synthesis, emphasizing its value to the ongoing discourse on your topic.

The journey through a dialectic essay— writing the introduction , crafting the thesis, developing the antithesis, creating the synthesis, and writing the conclusion—is a meticulous process. Each step is critical to presenting a well-structured, compelling essay. By following this guide, you are well on your way to mastering the art of dialectic essay writing.

Common Challenges in Writing Dialectic Essays and Their Solutions

Difficulty in Establishing a Clear Thesis and Antithesis

One of the most common challenges writers face when crafting a dialectic essay is formulating a clear thesis and antithesis. This issue arises when the writer lacks a thorough understanding of the topic or fails to find strong supporting evidence for both arguments.

• Deepen Your Understanding: Take the time to learn about your chosen topic deeply. The more familiar you are with the subject, the easier it will be to establish clear, confident positions for your thesis and antithesis.
• Thorough Research: Conduct exhaustive research to gather supporting evidence for your thesis and antithesis. The stronger your evidence, the more solid your arguments will be.

Challenges in Balancing or Reconciling Opposing Views

Another common challenge is striking a balance between the thesis and antithesis, and then bringing them together in a meaningful synthesis. This task becomes difficult when the writer leans too heavily toward one perspective or struggles to find common ground.

• Equally Valid Perspectives: Approach both your thesis and antithesis as equally valid perspectives. This mindset encourages a balanced exploration of both arguments.
• Finding Common Ground: Look for areas where your thesis and antithesis overlap or inform each other. These commonalities will form the basis of your synthesis and can guide your reconciliation of the two arguments.

Troubles with Organizing Thoughts and Arguments

Organizing thoughts and arguments in a logical and compelling manner is another hurdle that writers often face. This can result from a lack of clear understanding of the essay’s structure or an inability to connect ideas in a coherent manner.

• Understand the Structure: Familiarize yourself with the dialectic essay’s structure—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Understanding this structure can guide the organization of your arguments and thoughts.
• Logical Flow: Ensure that each argument or point flows logically into the next. Your essay should guide readers through your thought process, making the journey from thesis to antithesis to synthesis a natural progression.

Remember, writing a dialectic essay is a journey that involves understanding the topic, conducting comprehensive research, and crafting compelling arguments. While you might encounter these challenges, having strategies to overcome them can ensure that your essay is clear, engaging, and thought-provoking.

Bottom Line

The act of writing dialectic essays does more than merely fulfill an academic requirement. It sharpens critical thinking skills, encourages balanced argumentation, and enhances our ability to reconcile differing perspectives into a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter.

The process requires us to dive deep into the nuances of our chosen topic and examine it from multiple angles, thus enriching our understanding and knowledge. It enhances our research capabilities, hones our writing skills , and teaches us to construct complex, nuanced arguments with clarity and precision.

The path to mastery in writing dialectic essays is paved with continuous practice and learning. With each essay, you become more adept at identifying compelling theses and antitheses, crafting insightful syntheses, and communicating your ideas with clarity and eloquence.

Embrace each challenge as an opportunity to grow and learn. Remember that every hurdle you encounter and overcome strengthens your skills and deepens your understanding. So, continue writing, continue exploring, and continue refining your craft. The intellectual rewards are well worth the effort.

As Aristotle famously said, “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.” Writing dialectic essays is not merely an academic exercise but a path toward intellectual excellence. Embrace the journey, and you will reap its bountiful rewards.

Was this article helpful?

• Customer Reviews
• Extended Essays
• IB Internal Assessment
• Theory of Knowledge
• Literature Review
• Dissertations
• Essay Writing
• Research Writing
• Assignment Help
• Capstone Projects
• College Application
• Online Class

Dialectic Essay: What It Is, Format, And How to Write It

by  Antony W

June 26, 2024

This is the complete guide on how to write a dialectic essay, step-by-step. We’ll look at what it is, what makes it unique, the right structure to use, and even give you tips you can use to write a comprehensive essay that scores high grades. In short, if you’re looking for a complete guide on a dialectic essay, you’ve come to the right place.

What is a Dialectic Essay?

A dialectic essay is an argumentative debate in which a writer introduces a thesis statement and then uses both arguments and counterarguments to prove their claim.

You can base the discussion on a topic of your choosing, provided your instructor doesn’t give you one in the brief. Your document should be double-spaced, and the length of the essay should be 600 words maximum.

This type of essay is different from an argumentative essay in that instead of taking a position on an issue, you look at both arguments and present them to your audience, even if you don’t agree with those positions. Of course, your instructor might ask you to share your thoughts in the conclusion section of the essay. However, the core principle is that you have to establish a rational discussion of all sides.

The aim of a dialectic essay is to teach students the essence of participation in meaningful discourse on general and controversial topics in various disciplines. In other words, your instructor wants you to write this type of essay because they want to test your ability to clarify thoughts on a given subject. 

Dialectic Essay Format

The first most important point in writing a dialectic essay is to make sure you understand the format. Your instructor will obviously look at the outline first to see if you’ve structured your essay the right way.

This assignment is no any different from a 5-pargarph essay as far as the outline is concerned. It needs to have an introduction, three body paragraphs, and a conclusion.

Check out the image below for structural clarity:

As you can see, the organization is very clear and easy to follow, so writing this essay should be easy.

How to Write a Dialectic Essay

Now that you have a clear structure of the dialectic essay, it’s time to look at what or how you should write the introduction, body, and conclusion section.

Introduction

In a dialectic essay, your introduction has to be the thesis itself. This is the central message that you wish to discuss and pass across.

Remember, the essay looks at both side of an issue regardless of what you consider to be the most suitable position to hold. As such, you should choose a topic and therefore write a thesis that has more than one interpretation.

We suggest that you introduce some form of controversy in the introduction. Doing so gives you the opportunity to examine and represent the opposing point of views in the essay with ease. Remember also that this section is only one paragraph, so it’s best to make it as precise as possible – and short.

Body Paragraphs

There are three paragraphs in the body section of a dialectic essay. The first focuses on an argument, the second describes an objection, and the third gives a response. Let’s look at these even further to give you more clarity.

1. The Argument

There can only be one argument in a dialectic essay. Also, you have to present it with facts. The introduction of the argument accompanied by factual evidence makes it easy for you to support and prove your thesis to your audience. 

2. The Objection

It’s in this paragraph that you respond to the argument you presented on the first paragraph. To make this a dialectic essay, you do have to object the argument, in which case you give sufficient, objective reasons why your argument cannot be the ultimate truth.

It doesn’t end there.

You need to have enough proof to support the objection against your own argument. Doing so turns your essay into a strong debate, as there are already two opposing views here.

3. The Response

It’s in this section that you give a response to the objection in the second paragraph of the body section. You should not introduce a new argument for the thesis in this section, or anywhere else for that matter, as doing so can confuse your reader.  Remember, your aim is to criticize what you’ve already written in the objection section.

Ultimately, the agenda is to show your instructor or professor that you understand your thesis to a great depth and can present all the interpretations the right way.

Ending a dialectic essay isn’t difficult. You just need to know what to include in the section and what to leave out. Here, you support your thesis, although some guides suggest that you can even represent a new one provided you combine it with the argument and counterargument discussed in the essay.

To be clear, it’s completely wrong to change the thesis of this assignment, and can as easily lead to failing to score the grades that you deserve. Some writers choose to modify the thesis a little, in which case it’s never a complete reversal that’s not supported by proof.

Final Thoughts

As you can see, writing a dialectic essay isn’t difficult. From what we’ve looked at, this should be by far the shortest essay you’ll ever write, and there are often no instructions that suggest that you can make the essay longer.

It’s best to think about the strengths and weaknesses of your thesis before you begin to write. This will help you to organize your ideas in a way that gives your essay a good flow from the introduction all the way to the conclusion.

Another important step to complete is to check for plagiarism . Professors don’t appreciate sitting through hours of reading only to learn that students have submitted unoriginal work. Don’t be the student that submits copied assignment late as this could cost you heavily.

About the author 

Antony W is a professional writer and coach at Help for Assessment. He spends countless hours every day researching and writing great content filled with expert advice on how to write engaging essays, research papers, and assignments.

How to write a Dialectic/Dialogic Essay

So, your instructor or professor has finally assigned you a dialogic or dialectic essay, and you are wondering how to go about it. Where do you begin? How do you write one that gets you an A+ grade? What goes where? What is the structure? What steps do you take? Worry not anymore because in this comprehensive guide: you will learn how to write a dialectic essay, some topics you could choose, and many tips that will help you ace this essay.

First, you need to acknowledge that a dialogic or dialectic essay is a rare type that many people would not wish to write casually. It requires research, reasoning, and a special kind of keenness. As a result, it proves more difficult when finding important information on how to write a dialectic essay. On the other hand, this type of essay enables you (the writer) to indulge in meaningful discussions on crucial topics in their respective disciplines.

Below we will discuss the procedure of curving out a perfect dialogic essay like a pro.

Let's find out more about this special assignment.

What is dialectic, debate, or Dialogic essay?

A dialectic essay is an argumentative debate or dialogue where the writer composes a thesis statement and provides arguments and counterarguments that tests it before coming to a conclusion that supports the thesis.

When writing, the writer introduces a thesis statement in the introduction paragraph then argues the information out. After using arguments and counterarguments to prove or disagree with the thesis, then the writer gives an objective conclusion to prove the thesis.

The process of arguing out a thesis statement is divided into three principal parts: pointing out the root argument to support your thesis statement, providing a substantial, weighty counterargument, and then weighing your counterargument.

Arguing out the thesis statement requires the writer to research extensively on the topic of the day to bring out a conclusion that validates the thesis statement. The validation statement does not primarily give any position on the point of discussion. It instead points out the most viable view inside the context and attributes of the evidence in the body of your dialogic essay. A conclusion, in most instances, anchors the thesis statement.

One of our top-rated essay writers noted that a dialogic essay or dialectic essay is not the same as a critical precis that takes a single stand. Instead, you present all the arguments, even when you strongly do not agree with some of them.

In some instances, a professor might ask you to share your personal opinion in the conclusion. Still, all you always have to do when writing this assignment is to discuss all sides rationally.

My professor assigned me a dialectic essay. What's the essence?

A dialogic essay is like a conversation among several people. The first one introduces an argument, then the second person objects to it with a counterargument, sparking a debate. A third person then responds to the objection from the second person with arguments that are different from the first person. And the chain continues.

When assigned this assignment, your professor is not out on a mission to frustrate or torture you. Instead, you are given dialogic essays to assess how you've mastered the art of writing essays.

Equally, a dialectic essay tests your ability to elucidate thoughts on a given issue or subject, especially controversial debatable topics. It is a different point of view essay where you present the subject or issue from different perspectives, all of which matter. You are also assessed whether you can rationally, without bias, consider the pros and cons of a problem, and make a conclusion.

This way, writing a dialectic essay helps you discuss specific topics from different perspectives by accounting for positive and negative aspects.

In sum, writing a dialectic essay equips you with the skill to consider the positives and negatives of a thesis and explore an issue deeper.

How to write a Dialogic Essay and Score an A+

Before writing a dialogic essay, you should begin by choosing a topic. You should then brainstorm around the topic and develop ideas, in the process considering all sides of the argument. Since you must provide factual information to support your opinions/arguments, it is necessary to also research. Finally, when presenting the ideas on paper, you have to consider their audience or the people you are addressing : in most cases, the professor/instructor.

An audience is mostly several people who already know the subjects and encourage their opinion on that. The audience may agree or disagree on the point of discussion. The audience's knowledge infers that you should improve the discussions on the subject to a higher and new level.  A dialectic essay is always unbiased and gives an array of options; the unbiased opinions give a dialogic piece a philosophical flavor.

11 simple steps to write a dialectic essay

We already covered the comprehensive essay writing process , which you have to go through when writing a dialogic essay. However, in a nutshell, here is what you should do:

• Read the assignment instructions to understand what your professor wants
• Choose an appropriate topic based on the range of topics provided, or choose one for approval by your instructor. You can use a concept map when brainstorming for points and developing ideas for your outline .
• Do general research on the topic to familiarize yourself with it
• Develop your thesis statement, which is the central argument of your dialectic essay
• Conduct in-depth research on the scholarly sources that can help you develop ideas in your paper
• Organize the research so that each that supports a given viewpoint is recorded appropriately
• Create an outline for your dialectic essay based on the different perspectives and your thesis statement
• Systematically write your essay without being a perfectionist
• Make your title and reference pages
• Proofread, edit, and polish the first draft into the final dialogic essay
• Name your essay file appropriately and submit it on time

Dialectic Essay Topics

There are so many dialogic topics that you may write about daily or once in a while. However, if it is a free choice essay, it is vital to choose a passionate subject. It may be an assignment in some cases, but you should strive to provide information to the fullest. There are so many channels where you can seek such information. You can research on the internet, books, novels, magazines, or newspapers. As you do so, focus on debatable or argumentative essay topics.

You may sometimes get caught in arguing situations on topics you probably do not believe or hate. That does not mean that you should do it half-heartedly. On the contrary, your work should reflect your intellectual ability. There are many topics you can write a dialogic essay about: technology, ethics, science, sports, politics, education, or arts.

If you are having a hard time finding topics to write on, then have a look at the list below:

• Should video games be used in education systems?
• Should social media profiles be considered in the hiring process?
• Should students be taught typing in place of writing?
• Should children be encouraged to join social media platforms?
• Should there be a legal implication on hate speech witnessed on social media platforms?
• Should the state be granted access to your social media profiles?
• Are we too dependent on computers?
• Do social media influencers affect how people live?
• Can social media fame be translated to real-life success?
• Is online dating effective?
• Are cellphones dangerous?
• Should people pay to use the internet?
• Should content on the internet be censored?
• Can technology be used to manage elections?
• Are online classes better than in-person classes?
• Does the belief in God change a person?
• Does science complement religion?
• Does the level of educations affect one's moral values?
• Should abortion be legalized?
• Should developing countries be blocked on international funds?
• Should loans on struggling countries be regulated?
• Are CCTVs a breach of privacy in public places?
• Is controlling screentime for a teenager fair?
• Should people use animal-tested cosmetics and drugs?
• Should torture be accepted?
• Should the rich people help the poor?
• Is killing a rapist immoral?
• Is killing a murderer ethical?
• Do paparazzi infringe the privacy of celebrities?
• Does cloning improve one's lifespan?
• Should there be a limit on the number of children be regulated on a person?
• Do GMOs have a long time on a person?
• Does cloning animals improve breeding?
• Should COVID-19 vaccines are compelled on people?
• Does COVID-19 affect one's lifespan?
• Is cheerleading a sport?
• Is VAR effective?
• Should the Olympics be held biannually?
• Does the World Cup unite the world?
• Should alcohol and tobacco advertisements be shown in stadiums?
• Does match-fixing affect the fans?
• Should the prime minister be appointed or elected?
• Should voting be online?
• Should prisoners be allowed to vote?
• Should the voting age be raised to twenty-five years?
• Should the chief justice be a state appointee?
• Should Africa have one president like the United States of America?
• Should the campaign budgets of presidents be taxed?
• Should the presidential campaign budgets be capped?
• Should the university be free?
• Does school break benefit the students?
• Does school uniform affect student's performance and discipline?
• Should graffiti be allowed on the walls of the school?
• Should tribal, racial societies be allowed in school?
• Should programming be offered as a subject in high school?

General Dialogic essay topics

• Are teenagers capable of loving intensely?
• Does abortion have moral grounds?
• Can making tobacco production illegal stop smoking?
• Is the death penalty effective?
• Are gun laws effective in gun control?
• Is competition a good thing?
• Are boys too loving in relationships?
• Are girls mean in their friendship?
• Is buying a lottery ticket a good idea?
• Should working moms and dads have special treatment?
• Are assignments punishments to students?
• Is fashion important?
• Should staying on-campus be made mandatory for first-year students?
• Is breakfast the most important meal of the day?
• Does quitting sugar help improve health?
• Is human cloning ethical?
• Is identity theft punishable?
• Should we sleep 8 hours a day?
• Should citizenship by birth be canceled?
• Should we remove the boundaries around the world?
• Can wars be ended?
• Do we need to spend on homeland security?
• Why does government invest in security and not so much in food sustainability?
• Does success in school mean successful life?
• Should advertising to children be prohibited?
• Can social media destroy real-life communication?
• Can same-sex marriage affect the mentality of a child?

Related: Argumentative essay topics.

Dialectic/Dialogic essay structure

Writing a dialogic essay is easier than you thought, but how to fine-tune it to perfection is always hard for most writers. This essay follows the traditional structure of five well-fed paragraphs. An ideal dialectic easy is divided into three main parts: introduction, body, and conclusion.

Introduction

First of all, a dialogic essay should have an introduction. In this part of the paper, you begin by using an attention grabber to lure your readers into reading the essay. It should be a fascinating statement that makes the reader glued and hungry to go through your work. Make sure that your statement is controversial to help you note down both sides of the story.

You should also provide a short and precise definition of the essay topic through the background. This essay topic should have at least two interpretations.

However, make sure you do not give away a lot of details in this introduction part. In most cases your thesis statement can be a one-line statement at most. Two sentences are also acceptable.

The body is the most significant part of your dialogic essay. It comprises mainly three paragraphs, which require the writer to organize it point-by-point structure. The structure starts from small argument statements, provides a counterargument, and then provides contradicting information. This marvelous structure keeps your readers glued to your work as you provide detail by detailed arguments.

In the first paragraph, state your argument and support your statement with credible facts and pieces of evidence you collected from your comprehensive research. Technically, this means that without researching widely, you will not feed this category with enough flesh. Feed this paragraph with all the valuable evidence to support your thesis statement in this paragraph.

In the second paragraph, provide statements that contrast your earlier point of view: offer an objection . These statements should contradict your earlier argument and not the main theses to help your essay be debatable. Feed this section with information and pieces of evidence that support your counterargument to avoid confusing your readers.

The third paragraph of a dialectic essay is anchored on facts that criticize your previous paragraph: offer a response . You should watch out not to repeat statements from the first paragraph when responding to the second paragraph. Instead, provide new evidence that diminishes the second paragraph. This paragraph mainly states scientific or widely known shreds of evidence that object to your earlier section.

The last two paragraphs are aimed at demonstrating your understanding of the thesis.

In this last paragraph, the opening statement should reflect the core claim. Still, it should be written using different words and a different sentence structure. You may opt to rewrite your thesis statement or provide an updated view. In the first option, you are to reiterate that you have proven with all your research that your thesis statement is true or exists depending on the topic of study.

For the second alternative, bring out a new thesis statement. This thesis statement should not be completely different from your earlier statement. It is updated depending on the evidence you have put forth in your writing.

Finally, the writer shows their standing on the topic of discussion by giving a justifier anchored on the thesis statement or arguments in an objective structure.

Outline of a Dialogic/Dialectic essay

As indicated before, a dialectic essay is structured in the five-paragraph format . Let us now break it down.

I. Introduction

• An introductory statement, mostly a hook statement .
• Background information.
• The controversial thesis statement .

A. Paragraph one ( presentation of the argument)

• The minor argument that supports the thesis statement.
•  Evidence and facts supported the ideas on a thesis statement.
• Analysis and explanation of your facts and pieces of evidence.
• A closing remark that points out the correlation between the thesis statement and your arguments in paragraph one

B. Paragraph two ( Presentation of the counterargument/objection )

• An opening statement that criticizes the minor argument in the first paragraph
• Evidence and facts sustaining this paragraph's arguments.
• Explanation of your above facts and shreds of evidence.
• A concluding remark showing the correlation between the thesis statement and your second paragraphs claims

C. Paragraph three ( Response )

• An opening statement that gives a critique of your arguments in paragraph two.
• Facts and evidence that anchor the above claims.
• Insightful explanation of your facts and pieces of evidence.
• A closing remark that points out the relationship between your claims in paragraph three and your arguments in paragraph

III. Conclusion

• Restatement of the thesis statement with new words and sentence structure
• Brief remarks on the thesis statement, arguments, claims on the thesis statement, and counterargument
• Closing statements that echo the prevailing shreds of evidence of the thesis statements over the counterarguments above 

Dialectic or Dialogic Essay Tips

When assigned to write a dialectic essay assignment, here are some tips for using to ensure that you capture everything:

• Begin by reading the essay prompt carefully to understand what the assignment requires
• Choose an excellent debatable topic that interests you, unless one is already provided, or you can choose among many.
• Research online to get ideas and familiarize yourself with your topic
• Craft a thesis for your essay
• Research further and organize your sources
• Write a dialectic essay outline where you determine the structure, paragraphing and placement of ideas and counterarguments
• Think of the advantages and disadvantages of the thesis and construct your arguments and counterarguments
• Remember to use paragraph organization strategies such as the PEEL format when developing ideas in a paragraph.
• Use the right tone when writing. For example, in a dialogic or dialectic essay, you are writing a dialogue that addresses a disputable aspect of a current matter of public controversy. It entails three characters, each with their perspectives reflected in each of the three body paragraphs. You should ensure that the opinions are not only strong but also unique. You should use an objective and persuasive tone but never be offensive, condescending, or aggressive, even if you disagree with the arguments.
• In the body of your essay, make sure that the paragraphs object and respond to the previous one
• Your counterarguments should only object to arguments from the previous paragraphs and not the thesis
• Wind up your dialogic essay with a solid conclusion that supports the thesis and initial argument
• When you give reasons, ensure that they are clear, concise, and factual. Do not present any subjective or dubious claims to avoid misunderstanding between those in support and those opposed to your thesis.

Parting Shot

As we live in a multicultural world with diverse people, discussing and seeing multiple points of view enables us to consider a greater variety of problems and solutions. Doing so also helps us to evaluate cross-cultural and global issues.

A dialogic (otherwise dialectic) essay is based on a debate between two or more opposing or diverging positions of a given issue. Thus, a dialogic essay is a fair and balanced look at the differing or opposing points of view.

A dialogic essay requires you to argue two or more positions or opinions and offer a final perspective that is a compromise or a higher resolution of the previous positions. You don't even have to believe in all the opinions, whether you agree or oppose each. However, you must honestly and fairly understand and rationally discuss all the viewpoints.

Related Read: Important persuasive speech topics .

In the final compromise or the synthesis, however, you may offer your own opinion. Expressing your opinion must show that you have rationally integrated the previously presented arguments and counterarguments and provided strong evidence of convincing the particular perspective.

Structurally, it is a five-paragraph essay with an introduction, first perspective, second perspective (opposed to the first), third perspective (weighing in on the first two), and the conclusion or the synthesis.

If you find this guide useful but need someone to write a customized essay for you, you can trust our custom writing service for the best help online.

Gradecrest is a professional writing service that provides original model papers. We offer personalized services along with research materials for assistance purposes only. All the materials from our website should be used with proper references. See our Terms of Use Page for proper details.

Dialectic Essay: Student Guidelines for A+ Paper

• Icon Calendar 19 August 2024
• Icon Page 3348 words
• Icon Clock 16 min read

Dialectic essays enable students to participate in meaningful discourse on controversial topics in their respective disciplines. Basically, this writing manual discusses a procedure for creating an excellent dialectic essay. Moreover, guidelines commence with an exhaustive definition of a dialectic essay and highlight its distinct characteristics and format. After a detailed introduction to dialectic essay writing, a presented manual provides sample topics and explains their distinguishable traits. Further on, basic steps of how to write a dialectic essay expound on its structure. In turn, a given manual concludes with an outline, template, and dialectic essay example with key recommendations on what people can include in their papers and what they must avoid in writing.

General Aspects

A dialectic essay is a type of essay that requires authors to test a thesis statement exhaustively and reach an objective conclusion. Basically, an entire process of testing a thesis statement has three main stages: identification of a core argument supporting a thesis statement, provision of a viable counterargument, and an evaluation of a counterargument. As a result, authors conduct a comprehensive exploration of a topic of interest to yield a conclusion they validate and write about. A testing process does not necessarily provide a correct position on a debatable topic. Instead, it identifies the most reasonable view within a particular context of the evidence and arguments that are present in a paper’s body. In most cases, a conclusion of a whole discourse supports a dialectic essay’s thesis statement.

What Is a Dialectic Essay and Its Purpose

According to its definition, a dialectic essay is a type and form of argumentative writing that explores a topic from multiple perspectives, seeking to find a synthesis or resolution between them. For example, rooted in the ancient Greek tradition of dialectics, this argumentative style encourages critical thinking and intellectual exploration (McComiskey, 2015). In writing, a paper typically begins with a thesis statement, which is a person’s initial argument or stance on a specific topic. Further on, this claim is followed by an antithesis statement, where an opposing viewpoint is presented, challenging an original argument (Babin et al., 2020). Finally, such a composition concludes with a synthesis, which reconciles conflicting arguments, often proposing a new understanding or a more complex position. As such, the main purpose of writing a dialectic essay is to engage readers in a balanced discussion and allow them to see an entire complexity of a chosen issue rather than a one-sided perspective (Martinich, 2024). By balancing and integrating different viewpoints, a dialectic essay helps to develop a more thoughtful and informed conclusion. In terms of pages and words, the length of a dialectic essay depends on academic levels, specific course requirements, and topic complexities, while general writing guidelines are:

High School

• Length: 1-2 pages
• Word Count: 250-500 words
• Comment: A central focus is often on developing critical thinking and understanding different perspectives.

College (Undergraduate)

• Length: 2-4 pages
• Word Count: 500-1,000 words
• Comment: Students are expected to demonstrate deeper analysis and more complex arguments.

University (Advanced Undergraduate/Graduate)

• Length: 3-6 pages
• Word Count: 750-1,500 words
• Comment: Essays at this level require more thorough research, nuanced analysis, and integration of multiple perspectives for writing.

Master’s

• Length: 4-8 pages
• Word Count: 1,000-2,000 words
• Comment: These compositions involve advanced argumentation, comprehensive research, and in-depth synthesis of opposing views.
• Length: 6-12 pages (or more, depending on a topic’s complexity)
• Word Count: 1,500-3,000+ words
• Comment: Ph.D.-level essays or papers are highly specialized, involving significant original research and detailed, sophisticated arguments to write about.

A critique of both a main argument and a counterargument is a distinct characteristic of a dialectic essay. For example, a standard essay simply presents minor arguments in body paragraphs that support a central claim a person provides in a thesis statement (Babin et al., 2020). However, a dialectic essay goes beyond a simple writing presentation of minor arguments. Firstly, a dialectic essay discusses counterarguments to minor arguments to establish main opposing views. Secondly, such a paper evaluates an overall validity and relative weight of a counterargument in a discussion.

Note: Some writing sections of a dialectic essay can be added, deleted, or combined with each other, depending on specific requirements of assignments and institutions. For example, a standard dialectic essay format involves presenting a thesis, followed by an antithesis that challenges a main claim, and concluding with a synthesis that reconciles the two opposing views (Martinich, 2024). Basically, an example of a dialectical argument is debating whether technology enhances human communication (thesis) or hinders it by reducing face-to-face interactions (antithesis) and then synthesizing a main argument by acknowledging that technology can both enhance and detract from communication, depending on its use. In turn, a dialectic method of writing involves exploring a debatable topic by presenting opposing viewpoints (thesis and antithesis) and then reconciling them through synthesis to reach a balanced conclusion (Ahlqvist, 2022). Finally, to start a dialectic essay, people begin by introducing a controversial topic, providing relevant background information, and clearly stating their thesis, which presents their initial position on a chosen issue.

Engineering and Technology:

• Impacts of Social Media on Society: Progress or Peril?
• Space Exploration: Necessity or Extravagance?
• An Impact of Social Media on Relationship Formation
• Quality of Education in a Technological Age
• A Principal Role of Artificial Intelligence in Human Creativity: Enhancement or Replacement?
• Digital Privacy in a Modern World: Individual Rights Versus National Security

Medicine and Health:

• Examination of Mental Health Disparities Within the LGBTQ+ Community
• Mandatory Vaccinations: A Public Health Necessity or Personal Liberty Infringement?
• A Cause of a Painkiller ‘Pandemic’
• Modern-Day Suicide: Do Not Resuscitate Order
• Genetic Engineering in Humans: Ethical Advancements or Dangerous Precedents?
• An Overall Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Versus Punishment in Criminal Justice Systems

Political Science:

• Universal Basic Income: A Solution or a Trap?
• The Influence of Climate Change on Global Politics
• Effects of Stringent Immigration Law
• A Dominant Political Ideology in America
• Balancing Freedom of Speech and Social Responsibility in a Current Age of Social Media
• A Possible Impact of Universal Basic Income on Work Motivation and Economic Growth
• Climate Change Predictions: Alarmist Propaganda or Scientific Reality?
• Cultural Factors Influencing Eating Disorders
• Welcoming Transgenderism Into Society
• Children’s Experience in Dual-Career Families
• Cultural Appropriation Versus Cultural Appreciation: Navigating a Fine Line
• A New Future of Education: Traditional Classrooms Versus Online Learning Platforms

Psychology:

• Roles of Parental Attachment in Child Development
• Importance of Dream Analysis in Understanding Subconscious Thoughts
• Parental Pressure and Body Image in Teens
• Trading Drug Addictions and Non-Drug Addictions
• A Direct Influence of Consumerism on Environmental Sustainability: A Necessary Evil?
• Globalization’s Influence on Cultural Identity: Homogenization or Enrichment?

Identifying a Dialectic Essay Topic

Students can readily recognize a dialectic essay topic because of its controversial nature. At first sight, learners may categorize a topic as a dialectic essay topic if they realize there are no less than two reasonable perspectives that they can use to create a convincing argument to write about (Martinich, 2024). Upon close examination of an existing body of knowledge on a chosen topic, a student can ascertain that a theme is a dialectic essay topic if he or she finds viable rebuttals to counterarguments, which offer more clarity on contested issues and lead to a logical conclusion in writing.

Steps on How to Write a Dialectic Essay

To write a dialectic essay, people present a thesis, introduce a counterargument, and then reconcile both views in a synthesis that leads to a well-reasoned conclusion. In turn, basic steps include:

• Choose a Topic: Select a controversial topic that has clear opposing viewpoints for a balanced exploration and writing.
• Conduct Research: Gather information and evidence to understand both sides of arguments.
• Develop a Thesis: Formulate your main argument or position on a chosen topic.
• Outline an Essay: Plan a structure of your dialectic paper, including an introduction, thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and conclusion.
• Write an Introduction: Introduce an assigned topic, provide background, and state your thesis clearly.
• Present a Thesis: Elaborate on your thesis with supporting evidence, examples, and reasoning.
• Introduce an Antithesis: Present a counterargument, providing evidence and discussing its strengths and weaknesses.
• Craft a Synthesis: Reconcile a thesis and an antithesis by finding common ground or integrating both viewpoints into a new understanding.
• Write a Conclusion: Summarize key points, restate a synthesized argument, and reflect on broader implications.
• Revise and Edit: Review your dialectic essay for clarity, coherence, and logical flow, making any necessary writing revisions.

Introduction

An introductory paragraph consists of a hook, adequate background information, and a thesis statement. Basically, a primary role of a hook in an opening paragraph is to capture an attention of a reader and trigger interest to read an entire dialectic essay (Babin et al., 2020). Then, a background information element lays a groundwork for authors to announce a central claim of a dialectic paper. In writing, a strong thesis statement for a dialectic essay should be debatable (Cole, 2020). Notably, a standard writing length of an introduction varies with a paper’s word count because a good opening paragraph does not take up more than 10% of a dialectic essay. In turn, some examples of sentence starters for beginning a dialectic essay are:

• In today’s complex world, a hot debate surrounding [topic] has sparked considerable discussion among scholars and the public alike.
• A current issue of [topic] presents a challenging dilemma, as it involves multiple perspectives that often conflict with one another.
• As society continues to evolve, a key question of [topic] remains a contentious and deeply divisive one.
• Exploring a popular topic of [topic] reveals a fascinating clash of ideas, where both sides offer compelling arguments.
• An ongoing debate over [topic] raises important questions about [related concept], making it a subject worthy of critical examination.
• At the heart of a current discussion on [topic] lies a fundamental tension between [viewpoint A] and [viewpoint B].
• A controversy surrounding [topic] highlights a real complexity of balancing [related issues or values].
• Understanding a complex nature of [topic] requires a careful analysis of both its proponents and opponents.
• In considering various arguments for and against [topic], it becomes clear that a presented issue is far from straightforward.
• A crucial debate on [topic] forces people to examine [related concept], where differing perspectives must be reconciled.

Organization

A complexity of a dialectic essay requires students to use a point-by-point organization structure. Basically, this organizational style necessitates a clustering of paragraphs that contain a minor argument, counterargument, and critique of a counterargument under a shared heading to ensure readers distinguish between independent instances of dialectics (Martinich, 2024). In turn, this writing arrangement prevents an intended audience from losing track of a logical link that exists between three paragraphs that form a dialectic instance. Moreover, to construct a Hegelian dialectic, people start with a central thesis, introduce its opposite side (antithesis), and then reconcile two stances through a synthesis that resolves their conflict into a higher understanding. For example, Hegel’s triadic stance follows a logic structure of ‘yes, not, and not not’ to address all the challenges and topics that formalizing dialectics faces (Ficara & Priest, 2023). In writing, a whole arrangement of clusters has an impact on an overall efficacy of a dialectic essay.

Paragraph Structure

All body paragraphs must adhere to a ‘sandwich’ rule. Basically, this writing rule defines a fixed arrangement of components of a paragraph. For example, a topic sentence is a first element of a body paragraph, and it contains a minor argument people discuss within a paragraph (Babin et al., 2020). After a topic sentence, they introduce a specific piece of evidence, which supports a minor argument. Then, learners provide an interpretation of the evidence and point out an actual significance of the evidence to a minor argument. Lastly, they write a concluding sentence that links a minor argument, evidence, interpretation, cluster theme, and thesis statement.

An opening sentence of a conclusion paragraph should be an iteration of a central claim, but students must use different words and sentence structures. For example, learners must write a concise summary of an argument that supports the thesis statement, counterargument, and argument that criticizes this counterargument (Babin et al., 2020). Finally, they reveal a ‘true’ position on a controversial topic by providing a justification that reflects on an argument, counterargument, and critique in an objective writing manner.

Outline and Template

Topic: Unique Title

I. Introduction

A. Hook. B. Background information. C. A debatable thesis statement.

A. First paragraph

• A minor argument that supports a thesis statement.
• Evidence supporting this paragraph’s claim.
• Interpretation and analysis of the evidence.
• A concluding statement that shows a direct relationship between a first paragraph’s claim and a thesis statement.

B. Second body paragraph

• A counterargument to a minor argument of a first paragraph.
• A concluding statement that shows a direct relationship between a second paragraph’s counterargument and a thesis statement.

C. Third body paragraph

• An idea that provides a critique of a counterargument.
• A concluding statement that shows a direct relationship between a third paragraph’s claim and a counterargument of a second paragraph.

III. Conclusion

A. Restatement of a thesis statement. B. Summary of a main supporting argument, counterargument, and critique of this counterargument. C. Closing remarks emphasizing a particular dominance of a central claim over a counterargument.

Dialectic Essay Example

Topic: Divorce and Its Effects on the Family

Marriages in the 21 st century are disintegrating at an early stage. Basically, children are bystanders in divorce, but the breaking of the family affects them to a large extent. In turn, divorce improves the quality of parenting and sustains a healthy home environment.

Body Paragraphs

Main Argument

There is no significant difference in the children’s level of happiness. According to the American Family Organization (2020), the disparity in the happiness index of children from a nuclear family and children of divorced parents is decreasing steadily, with an all-time low of 0.001 in the 2019 national family survey. Moreover, the children of divorced families feel loved and safe despite living in a home with only one parent at a time. Hence, divorce is not a determining factor in creating an ideal home environment.

Counterargument

Divorce affects the ability of parents to play their roles in childrearing effectively. For example, Jones (2020) found that the probability of divorced parents to fulfill traditional parenting roles is 0.65. Based on this finding, it is apparent that divorced parents cannot engage in effective parenting at all times when compared to the parents in a traditional nuclear family setup. Accordingly, divorce places additional strain on parenting and the home environment.

Critique of a Counterargument

The maintenance of a broken marriage shows no inherent value to parenting. For instance, Potter’s (2020) study provides evidence that resentment build-up in unhappy marriages and the transference of these feelings to children impairs parenting. Moreover, resentment hurts both parents and children. In turn, the opportunity cost associated with the protection of the nuclear family structure is too high.

The nuclear family structure cannot survive the stress caused by unhappy partners. Moreover, there is no need for parents to force a marriage if the marriage is unsalvageable. Thus, divorce is the right choice because it offers the most protection for the children’s interests.

What to Include

Common Mistakes

• Ignoring a Counterargument: Failing to address an opposing viewpoint in writing weakens an overall dialectic essay’s credibility and balance.
• Presenting a Biased Argument: Overemphasizing one side without fair consideration of the other undermines a dialectical approach.
• Weak Thesis Statement: Writing an unclear or overly broad thesis can make it difficult to develop a focused and coherent argument.
• Insufficient Evidence: Relying on opinions rather than solid evidence weakens both a thesis and an antithesis.
• Overcomplicating a Synthesis: Making a synthesis too complex or vague can confuse readers and dilute a paper’s conclusion.
• Neglecting Logical Flow: Poor organization of ideas can disrupt a dialectic essay’s writing structure, making it hard for readers to follow a main argument.
• Overlooking Revisions: Skipping a revision process leaves behind errors in reasoning, writing, grammar, or clarity.
• Failing to Engage a Reader: An overly technical introduction can fail to capture a reader’s interest from the start.
• Overloading With Information: Including too much information without clear relevance can overwhelm readers and obscure main points.
• Ignoring Formatting and Citation Guidelines: Incorrect formatting or lack of proper citations can lead to academic penalties and reduce a dialectic essay’s professionalism and writing.

A dialectic essay involves writing a thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, allowing for a comprehensive examination of a controversial topic. In writing, a dialectic essay structure begins with an introduction that includes a central thesis statement, followed by body paragraphs organized around a minor argument, counterargument, and critique. Further on, writing a concluding paragraph reiterates a thesis, summarizes key points, and presents a reasoned conclusion. As a result, this type of composition promotes critical thinking by evaluating different perspectives and integrating them into a coherent argument, with examples and outlines provided to guide a writing process. Hence, key takeaways to remember are:

• Students should select a topic that is debatable to create a persuasive dialectic essay.
• Authors must locate evidence from reliable sources and offer appropriate documentation.
• Proper organization of a dialectic essay is critical to an overall clarity of such a paper and its writing.

Ahlqvist, T. (2022). An outline of future-oriented dialectics: Conceptualising dialectical positions, trajectories and processes in the context of futures research. Futures , 143 , 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2022.103037

Babin, M., Burnell, C., Pesznecker, S. M., Rosevear, N., & Wood, J. R. (2020). The word on college reading and writing . Open Oregon Educational Resources.

Cole, A. (2020). The dialectic of space. South Atlantic Quarterly , 119 (4), 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1215/00382876-8663723

Ficara, E., & Priest, G. (2023). Introduction: The formalization of dialectics. History and Philosophy of Logic , 44 (2), 115–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2023.2182598

Martinich, A. P. (2024). Philosophical writing: An introduction (5th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

McComiskey, B. (2015). Dialectical rhetoric . University Press of Colorado.

To Learn More, Read Relevant Articles

576 Good Compare and Contrast Essay Topics

• Icon Calendar 14 September 2020
• Icon Page 6854 words

Main 5 Parts of an Essay: Easy Guidelines for Writers

• Icon Calendar 12 September 2020
• Icon Page 2872 words

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Hegel’s Dialectics

“Dialectics” is a term used to describe a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides. In what is perhaps the most classic version of “dialectics”, the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato (see entry on Plato ), for instance, presented his philosophical argument as a back-and-forth dialogue or debate, generally between the character of Socrates, on one side, and some person or group of people to whom Socrates was talking (his interlocutors), on the other. In the course of the dialogues, Socrates’ interlocutors propose definitions of philosophical concepts or express views that Socrates challenges or opposes. The back-and-forth debate between opposing sides produces a kind of linear progression or evolution in philosophical views or positions: as the dialogues go along, Socrates’ interlocutors change or refine their views in response to Socrates’ challenges and come to adopt more sophisticated views. The back-and-forth dialectic between Socrates and his interlocutors thus becomes Plato’s way of arguing against the earlier, less sophisticated views or positions and for the more sophisticated ones later.

“Hegel’s dialectics” refers to the particular dialectical method of argument employed by the 19th Century German philosopher, G.W.F. Hegel (see entry on Hegel ), which, like other “dialectical” methods, relies on a contradictory process between opposing sides. Whereas Plato’s “opposing sides” were people (Socrates and his interlocutors), however, what the “opposing sides” are in Hegel’s work depends on the subject matter he discusses. In his work on logic, for instance, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of logical concepts that are opposed to one another. In the Phenomenology of Spirit , which presents Hegel’s epistemology or philosophy of knowledge, the “opposing sides” are different definitions of consciousness and of the object that consciousness is aware of or claims to know. As in Plato’s dialogues, a contradictory process between “opposing sides” in Hegel’s dialectics leads to a linear evolution or development from less sophisticated definitions or views to more sophisticated ones later. The dialectical process thus constitutes Hegel’s method for arguing against the earlier, less sophisticated definitions or views and for the more sophisticated ones later. Hegel regarded this dialectical method or “speculative mode of cognition” (PR §10) as the hallmark of his philosophy and used the same method in the Phenomenology of Spirit [PhG], as well as in all of the mature works he published later—the entire Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences (including, as its first part, the “Lesser Logic” or the Encyclopaedia Logic [EL]), the Science of Logic [SL], and the Philosophy of Right [PR].

Note that, although Hegel acknowledged that his dialectical method was part of a philosophical tradition stretching back to Plato, he criticized Plato’s version of dialectics. He argued that Plato’s dialectics deals only with limited philosophical claims and is unable to get beyond skepticism or nothingness (SL-M 55–6; SL-dG 34–5; PR, Remark to §31). According to the logic of a traditional reductio ad absurdum argument, if the premises of an argument lead to a contradiction, we must conclude that the premises are false—which leaves us with no premises or with nothing. We must then wait around for new premises to spring up arbitrarily from somewhere else, and then see whether those new premises put us back into nothingness or emptiness once again, if they, too, lead to a contradiction. Because Hegel believed that reason necessarily generates contradictions, as we will see, he thought new premises will indeed produce further contradictions. As he puts the argument, then,

the scepticism that ends up with the bare abstraction of nothingness or emptiness cannot get any further from there, but must wait to see whether something new comes along and what it is, in order to throw it too into the same empty abyss. (PhG-M §79)

Hegel argues that, because Plato’s dialectics cannot get beyond arbitrariness and skepticism, it generates only approximate truths, and falls short of being a genuine science (SL-M 55–6; SL-dG 34–5; PR, Remark to §31; cf. EL Remark to §81). The following sections examine Hegel’s dialectics as well as these issues in more detail.

1. Hegel’s description of his dialectical method

2. applying hegel’s dialectical method to his arguments, 3. why does hegel use dialectics, 4. is hegel’s dialectical method logical, 5. syntactic patterns and special terminology in hegel’s dialectics, english translations of key texts by hegel, english translations of other primary sources, secondary literature, other internet resources, related entries.

Hegel provides the most extensive, general account of his dialectical method in Part I of his Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences , which is often called the Encyclopaedia Logic [EL]. The form or presentation of logic, he says, has three sides or moments (EL §79). These sides are not parts of logic, but, rather, moments of “every concept”, as well as “of everything true in general” (EL Remark to §79; we will see why Hegel thought dialectics is in everything in section 3 ). The first moment—the moment of the understanding—is the moment of fixity, in which concepts or forms have a seemingly stable definition or determination (EL §80).

The second moment—the “ dialectical ” (EL §§79, 81) or “ negatively rational ” (EL §79) moment—is the moment of instability. In this moment, a one-sidedness or restrictedness (EL Remark to §81) in the determination from the moment of understanding comes to the fore, and the determination that was fixed in the first moment passes into its opposite (EL §81). Hegel describes this process as a process of “self-sublation” (EL §81). The English verb “to sublate” translates Hegel’s technical use of the German verb aufheben , which is a crucial concept in his dialectical method. Hegel says that aufheben has a doubled meaning: it means both to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time (PhG §113; SL-M 107; SL-dG 81–2; cf. EL the Addition to §95). The moment of understanding sublates itself because its own character or nature—its one-sidedness or restrictedness—destabilizes its definition and leads it to pass into its opposite. The dialectical moment thus involves a process of self -sublation, or a process in which the determination from the moment of understanding sublates itself , or both cancels and preserves itself , as it pushes on to or passes into its opposite.

The third moment—the “ speculative ” or “ positively rational ” (EL §§79, 82) moment—grasps the unity of the opposition between the first two determinations, or is the positive result of the dissolution or transition of those determinations (EL §82 and Remark to §82). Here, Hegel rejects the traditional, reductio ad absurdum argument, which says that when the premises of an argument lead to a contradiction, then the premises must be discarded altogether, leaving nothing. As Hegel suggests in the Phenomenology , such an argument

is just the skepticism which only ever sees pure nothingness in its result and abstracts from the fact that this nothingness is specifically the nothingness of that from which it results . (PhG-M §79)

Although the speculative moment negates the contradiction, it is a determinate or defined nothingness because it is the result of a specific process. There is something particular about the determination in the moment of understanding—a specific weakness, or some specific aspect that was ignored in its one-sidedness or restrictedness—that leads it to fall apart in the dialectical moment. The speculative moment has a definition, determination or content because it grows out of and unifies the particular character of those earlier determinations, or is “a unity of distinct determinations ” (EL Remark to §82). The speculative moment is thus “truly not empty, abstract nothing , but the negation of certain determinations ” (EL-GSH §82). When the result “is taken as the result of that from which it emerges”, Hegel says, then it is “in fact, the true result; in that case it is itself a determinate nothingness, one which has a content” (PhG-M §79). As he also puts it, “the result is conceived as it is in truth, namely, as a determinate negation [ bestimmte Negation]; a new form has thereby immediately arisen” (PhG-M §79). Or, as he says, “[b]ecause the result, the negation, is a determinate negation [bestimmte Negation ], it has a content ” (SL-dG 33; cf. SL-M 54). Hegel’s claim in both the Phenomenology and the Science of Logic that his philosophy relies on a process of “ determinate negation [ bestimmte Negation]” has sometimes led scholars to describe his dialectics as a method or doctrine of “determinate negation” (see entry on Hegel, section on Science of Logic ; cf. Rosen 1982: 30; Stewart 1996, 2000: 41–3; Winfield 1990: 56).

There are several features of this account that Hegel thinks raise his dialectical method above the arbitrariness of Plato’s dialectics to the level of a genuine science. First, because the determinations in the moment of understanding sublate themselves , Hegel’s dialectics does not require some new idea to show up arbitrarily. Instead, the movement to new determinations is driven by the nature of the earlier determinations and so “comes about on its own accord” (PhG-P §79). Indeed, for Hegel, the movement is driven by necessity (see, e.g., EL Remarks to §§12, 42, 81, 87, 88; PhG §79). The natures of the determinations themselves drive or force them to pass into their opposites. This sense of necessity —the idea that the method involves being forced from earlier moments to later ones—leads Hegel to regard his dialectics as a kind of logic . As he says in the Phenomenology , the method’s “proper exposition belongs to logic” (PhG-M §48). Necessity—the sense of being driven or forced to conclusions—is the hallmark of “logic” in Western philosophy.

Second, because the form or determination that arises is the result of the self-sublation of the determination from the moment of understanding, there is no need for some new idea to show up from the outside. Instead, the transition to the new determination or form is necessitated by earlier moments and hence grows out of the process itself. Unlike in Plato’s arbitrary dialectics, then—which must wait around until some other idea comes in from the outside—in Hegel’s dialectics “nothing extraneous is introduced”, as he says (SL-M 54; cf. SL-dG 33). His dialectics is driven by the nature, immanence or “inwardness” of its own content (SL-M 54; cf. SL-dG 33; cf. PR §31). As he puts it, dialectics is “the principle through which alone immanent coherence and necessity enter into the content of science” (EL-GSH Remark to §81).

Third, because later determinations “sublate” earlier determinations, the earlier determinations are not completely cancelled or negated. On the contrary, the earlier determinations are preserved in the sense that they remain in effect within the later determinations. When Being-for-itself, for instance, is introduced in the logic as the first concept of ideality or universality and is defined by embracing a set of “something-others”, Being-for-itself replaces the something-others as the new concept, but those something-others remain active within the definition of the concept of Being-for-itself. The something-others must continue to do the work of picking out individual somethings before the concept of Being-for-itself can have its own definition as the concept that gathers them up. Being-for-itself replaces the something-others, but it also preserves them, because its definition still requires them to do their work of picking out individual somethings (EL §§95–6).

The concept of “apple”, for example, as a Being-for-itself, would be defined by gathering up individual “somethings” that are the same as one another (as apples). Each individual apple can be what it is (as an apple) only in relation to an “other” that is the same “something” that it is (i.e., an apple). That is the one-sidedness or restrictedness that leads each “something” to pass into its “other” or opposite. The “somethings” are thus both “something-others”. Moreover, their defining processes lead to an endless process of passing back and forth into one another: one “something” can be what it is (as an apple) only in relation to another “something” that is the same as it is, which, in turn, can be what it is (an apple) only in relation to the other “something” that is the same as it is, and so on, back and forth, endlessly (cf. EL §95). The concept of “apple”, as a Being-for-itself, stops that endless, passing-over process by embracing or including the individual something-others (the apples) in its content. It grasps or captures their character or quality as apples . But the “something-others” must do their work of picking out and separating those individual items (the apples) before the concept of “apple”—as the Being-for-itself—can gather them up for its own definition. We can picture the concept of Being-for-itself like this:

Later concepts thus replace, but also preserve, earlier concepts.

Fourth, later concepts both determine and also surpass the limits or finitude of earlier concepts. Earlier determinations sublate themselves —they pass into their others because of some weakness, one-sidedness or restrictedness in their own definitions. There are thus limitations in each of the determinations that lead them to pass into their opposites. As Hegel says, “that is what everything finite is: its own sublation” (EL-GSH Remark to §81). Later determinations define the finiteness of the earlier determinations. From the point of view of the concept of Being-for-itself, for instance, the concept of a “something-other” is limited or finite: although the something-others are supposed to be the same as one another, the character of their sameness (e.g., as apples) is captured only from above, by the higher-level, more universal concept of Being-for-itself. Being-for-itself reveals the limitations of the concept of a “something-other”. It also rises above those limitations, since it can do something that the concept of a something-other cannot do. Dialectics thus allows us to get beyond the finite to the universal. As Hegel puts it, “all genuine, nonexternal elevation above the finite is to be found in this principle [of dialectics]” (EL-GSH Remark to §81).

Fifth, because the determination in the speculative moment grasps the unity of the first two moments, Hegel’s dialectical method leads to concepts or forms that are increasingly comprehensive and universal. As Hegel puts it, the result of the dialectical process

is a new concept but one higher and richer than the preceding—richer because it negates or opposes the preceding and therefore contains it, and it contains even more than that, for it is the unity of itself and its opposite. (SL-dG 33; cf. SL-M 54)

Like Being-for-itself, later concepts are more universal because they unify or are built out of earlier determinations, and include those earlier determinations as part of their definitions. Indeed, many other concepts or determinations can also be depicted as literally surrounding earlier ones (cf. Maybee 2009: 73, 100, 112, 156, 193, 214, 221, 235, 458).

Finally, because the dialectical process leads to increasing comprehensiveness and universality, it ultimately produces a complete series, or drives “to completion” (SL-dG 33; cf. SL-M 54; PhG §79). Dialectics drives to the “Absolute”, to use Hegel’s term, which is the last, final, and completely all-encompassing or unconditioned concept or form in the relevant subject matter under discussion (logic, phenomenology, ethics/politics and so on). The “Absolute” concept or form is unconditioned because its definition or determination contains all the other concepts or forms that were developed earlier in the dialectical process for that subject matter. Moreover, because the process develops necessarily and comprehensively through each concept, form or determination, there are no determinations that are left out of the process. There are therefore no left-over concepts or forms—concepts or forms outside of the “Absolute”—that might “condition” or define it. The “Absolute” is thus unconditioned because it contains all of the conditions in its content, and is not conditioned by anything else outside of it. This Absolute is the highest concept or form of universality for that subject matter. It is the thought or concept of the whole conceptual system for the relevant subject matter. We can picture the Absolute Idea (EL §236), for instance—which is the “Absolute” for logic—as an oval that is filled up with and surrounds numerous, embedded rings of smaller ovals and circles, which represent all of the earlier and less universal determinations from the logical development (cf. Maybee 2009: 30, 600):

Since the “Absolute” concepts for each subject matter lead into one another, when they are taken together, they constitute Hegel’s entire philosophical system, which, as Hegel says, “presents itself therefore as a circle of circles” (EL-GSH §15). We can picture the entire system like this (cf. Maybee 2009: 29):

Together, Hegel believes, these characteristics make his dialectical method genuinely scientific. As he says, “the dialectical constitutes the moving soul of scientific progression” (EL-GSH Remark to §81). He acknowledges that a description of the method can be more or less complete and detailed, but because the method or progression is driven only by the subject matter itself, this dialectical method is the “only true method” (SL-M 54; SL-dG 33).

So far, we have seen how Hegel describes his dialectical method, but we have yet to see how we might read this method into the arguments he offers in his works. Scholars often use the first three stages of the logic as the “textbook example” (Forster 1993: 133) to illustrate how Hegel’s dialectical method should be applied to his arguments. The logic begins with the simple and immediate concept of pure Being, which is said to illustrate the moment of the understanding. We can think of Being here as a concept of pure presence. It is not mediated by any other concept—or is not defined in relation to any other concept—and so is undetermined or has no further determination (EL §86; SL-M 82; SL-dG 59). It asserts bare presence, but what that presence is like has no further determination. Because the thought of pure Being is undetermined and so is a pure abstraction, however, it is really no different from the assertion of pure negation or the absolutely negative (EL §87). It is therefore equally a Nothing (SL-M 82; SL-dG 59). Being’s lack of determination thus leads it to sublate itself and pass into the concept of Nothing (EL §87; SL-M 82; SL-dG 59), which illustrates the dialectical moment.

But if we focus for a moment on the definitions of Being and Nothing themselves, their definitions have the same content. Indeed, both are undetermined, so they have the same kind of undefined content. The only difference between them is “something merely meant ” (EL-GSH Remark to §87), namely, that Being is an undefined content, taken as or meant to be presence, while Nothing is an undefined content, taken as or meant to be absence. The third concept of the logic—which is used to illustrate the speculative moment—unifies the first two moments by capturing the positive result of—or the conclusion that we can draw from—the opposition between the first two moments. The concept of Becoming is the thought of an undefined content, taken as presence (Being) and then taken as absence (Nothing), or taken as absence (Nothing) and then taken as presence (Being). To Become is to go from Being to Nothing or from Nothing to Being, or is, as Hegel puts it, “the immediate vanishing of the one in the other” (SL-M 83; cf. SL-dG 60). The contradiction between Being and Nothing thus is not a reductio ad absurdum , or does not lead to the rejection of both concepts and hence to nothingness—as Hegel had said Plato’s dialectics does (SL-M 55–6; SL-dG 34–5)—but leads to a positive result, namely, to the introduction of a new concept—the synthesis—which unifies the two, earlier, opposed concepts.

We can also use the textbook Being-Nothing-Becoming example to illustrate Hegel’s concept of aufheben (to sublate), which, as we saw, means to cancel (or negate) and to preserve at the same time. Hegel says that the concept of Becoming sublates the concepts of Being and Nothing (SL-M 105; SL-dG 80). Becoming cancels or negates Being and Nothing because it is a new concept that replaces the earlier concepts; but it also preserves Being and Nothing because it relies on those earlier concepts for its own definition. Indeed, it is the first concrete concept in the logic. Unlike Being and Nothing, which had no definition or determination as concepts themselves and so were merely abstract (SL-M 82–3; SL-dG 59–60; cf. EL Addition to §88), Becoming is a “ determinate unity in which there is both Being and Nothing” (SL-M 105; cf. SL-dG 80). Becoming succeeds in having a definition or determination because it is defined by, or piggy-backs on, the concepts of Being and Nothing.

This “textbook” Being-Nothing-Becoming example is closely connected to the traditional idea that Hegel’s dialectics follows a thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, which, when applied to the logic, means that one concept is introduced as a “thesis” or positive concept, which then develops into a second concept that negates or is opposed to the first or is its “antithesis”, which in turn leads to a third concept, the “synthesis”, that unifies the first two (see, e.g., McTaggert 1964 [1910]: 3–4; Mure 1950: 302; Stace, 1955 [1924]: 90–3, 125–6; Kosek 1972: 243; E. Harris 1983: 93–7; Singer 1983: 77–79). Versions of this interpretation of Hegel’s dialectics continue to have currency (e.g., Forster 1993: 131; Stewart 2000: 39, 55; Fritzman 2014: 3–5). On this reading, Being is the positive moment or thesis, Nothing is the negative moment or antithesis, and Becoming is the moment of aufheben or synthesis—the concept that cancels and preserves, or unifies and combines, Being and Nothing.

We must be careful, however, not to apply this textbook example too dogmatically to the rest of Hegel’s logic or to his dialectical method more generally (for a classic criticism of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis reading of Hegel’s dialectics, see Mueller 1958). There are other places where this general pattern might describe some of the transitions from stage to stage, but there are many more places where the development does not seem to fit this pattern very well. One place where the pattern seems to hold, for instance, is where the Measure (EL §107)—as the combination of Quality and Quantity—transitions into the Measureless (EL §107), which is opposed to it, which then in turn transitions into Essence, which is the unity or combination of the two earlier sides (EL §111). This series of transitions could be said to follow the general pattern captured by the “textbook example”: Measure would be the moment of the understanding or thesis, the Measureless would be the dialectical moment or antithesis, and Essence would be the speculative moment or synthesis that unifies the two earlier moments. However, before the transition to Essence takes place, the Measureless itself is redefined as a Measure (EL §109)—undercutting a precise parallel with the textbook Being-Nothing-Becoming example, since the transition from Measure to Essence would not follow a Measure-Measureless-Essence pattern, but rather a Measure-(Measureless?)-Measure-Essence pattern.

Other sections of Hegel’s philosophy do not fit the triadic, textbook example of Being-Nothing-Becoming at all, as even interpreters who have supported the traditional reading of Hegel’s dialectics have noted. After using the Being-Nothing-Becoming example to argue that Hegel’s dialectical method consists of “triads” whose members “are called the thesis, antithesis, synthesis” (Stace 1955 [1924]: 93), W.T. Stace, for instance, goes on to warn us that Hegel does not succeed in applying this pattern throughout the philosophical system. It is hard to see, Stace says, how the middle term of some of Hegel’s triads are the opposites or antitheses of the first term, “and there are even ‘triads’ which contain four terms!” (Stace 1955 [1924]: 97). As a matter of fact, one section of Hegel’s logic—the section on Cognition—violates the thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern because it has only two sub-divisions, rather than three. “The triad is incomplete”, Stace complains. “There is no third. Hegel here abandons the triadic method. Nor is any explanation of his having done so forthcoming” (Stace 1955 [1924]: 286; cf. McTaggart 1964 [1910]: 292).

Interpreters have offered various solutions to the complaint that Hegel’s dialectics sometimes seems to violate the triadic form. Some scholars apply the triadic form fairly loosely across several stages (e.g. Burbidge 1981: 43–5; Taylor 1975: 229–30). Others have applied Hegel’s triadic method to whole sections of his philosophy, rather than to individual stages. For G.R.G. Mure, for instance, the section on Cognition fits neatly into a triadic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis account of dialectics because the whole section is itself the antithesis of the previous section of Hegel’s logic, the section on Life (Mure 1950: 270). Mure argues that Hegel’s triadic form is easier to discern the more broadly we apply it. “The triadic form appears on many scales”, he says, “and the larger the scale we consider the more obvious it is” (Mure 1950: 302).

Scholars who interpret Hegel’s description of dialectics on a smaller scale—as an account of how to get from stage to stage—have also tried to explain why some sections seem to violate the triadic form. J.N. Findlay, for instance—who, like Stace, associates dialectics “with the triad , or with triplicity ”—argues that stages can fit into that form in “more than one sense” (Findlay 1962: 66). The first sense of triplicity echoes the textbook, Being-Nothing-Becoming example. In a second sense, however, Findlay says, the dialectical moment or “contradictory breakdown” is not itself a separate stage, or “does not count as one of the stages”, but is a transition between opposed, “but complementary”, abstract stages that “are developed more or less concurrently” (Findlay 1962: 66). This second sort of triplicity could involve any number of stages: it “could readily have been expanded into a quadruplicity, a quintuplicity and so forth” (Findlay 1962: 66). Still, like Stace, he goes on to complain that many of the transitions in Hegel’s philosophy do not seem to fit the triadic pattern very well. In some triads, the second term is “the direct and obvious contrary of the first”—as in the case of Being and Nothing. In other cases, however, the opposition is, as Findlay puts it, “of a much less extreme character” (Findlay 1962: 69). In some triads, the third term obviously mediates between the first two terms. In other cases, however, he says, the third term is just one possible mediator or unity among other possible ones; and, in yet other cases, “the reconciling functions of the third member are not at all obvious” (Findlay 1962: 70).

Let us look more closely at one place where the “textbook example” of Being-Nothing-Becoming does not seem to describe the dialectical development of Hegel’s logic very well. In a later stage of the logic, the concept of Purpose goes through several iterations, from Abstract Purpose (EL §204), to Finite or Immediate Purpose (EL §205), and then through several stages of a syllogism (EL §206) to Realized Purpose (EL §210). Abstract Purpose is the thought of any kind of purposiveness, where the purpose has not been further determined or defined. It includes not just the kinds of purposes that occur in consciousness, such as needs or drives, but also the “internal purposiveness” or teleological view proposed by the ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle (see entry on Aristotle ; EL Remark to §204), according to which things in the world have essences and aim to achieve (or have the purpose of living up to) their essences. Finite Purpose is the moment in which an Abstract Purpose begins to have a determination by fixing on some particular material or content through which it will be realized (EL §205). The Finite Purpose then goes through a process in which it, as the Universality, comes to realize itself as the Purpose over the particular material or content (and hence becomes Realized Purpose) by pushing out into Particularity, then into Singularity (the syllogism U-P-S), and ultimately into ‘out-thereness,’ or into individual objects out there in the world (EL §210; cf. Maybee 2009: 466–493).

Hegel’s description of the development of Purpose does not seem to fit the textbook Being-Nothing-Becoming example or the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model. According to the example and model, Abstract Purpose would be the moment of understanding or thesis, Finite Purpose would be the dialectical moment or antithesis, and Realized Purpose would be the speculative moment or synthesis. Although Finite Purpose has a different determination from Abstract Purpose (it refines the definition of Abstract Purpose), it is hard to see how it would qualify as strictly “opposed” to or as the “antithesis” of Abstract Purpose in the way that Nothing is opposed to or is the antithesis of Being.

There is an answer, however, to the criticism that many of the determinations are not “opposites” in a strict sense. The German term that is translated as “opposite” in Hegel’s description of the moments of dialectics (EL §§81, 82)— entgegensetzen —has three root words: setzen (“to posit or set”), gegen , (“against”), and the prefix ent -, which indicates that something has entered into a new state. The verb entgegensetzen can therefore literally be translated as “to set over against”. The “ engegengesetzte ” into which determinations pass, then, do not need to be the strict “opposites” of the first, but can be determinations that are merely “set against” or are different from the first ones. And the prefix ent -, which suggests that the first determinations are put into a new state, can be explained by Hegel’s claim that the finite determinations from the moment of understanding sublate (cancel but also preserve) themselves (EL §81): later determinations put earlier determinations into a new state by preserving them.

At the same time, there is a technical sense in which a later determination would still be the “opposite” of the earlier determination. Since the second determination is different from the first one, it is the logical negation of the first one, or is not -the-first-determination. If the first determination is “e”, for instance, because the new determination is different from that one, the new one is “not-e” (Kosek 1972: 240). Since Finite Purpose, for instance, has a definition or determination that is different from the definition that Abstract Purpose has, it is not -Abstract-Purpose, or is the negation or opposite of Abstract Purpose in that sense. There is therefore a technical, logical sense in which the second concept or form is the “opposite” or negation of—or is “not”—the first one—though, again, it need not be the “opposite” of the first one in a strict sense.

Other problems remain, however. Because the concept of Realized Purpose is defined through a syllogistic process, it is itself the product of several stages of development (at least four, by my count, if Realized Purpose counts as a separate determination), which would seem to violate a triadic model. Moreover, the concept of Realized Purpose does not, strictly speaking, seem to be the unity or combination of Abstract Purpose and Finite Purpose. Realized Purpose is the result of (and so unifies) the syllogistic process of Finite Purpose, through which Finite Purpose focuses on and is realized in a particular material or content. Realized Purpose thus seems to be a development of Finite Purpose, rather than a unity or combination of Abstract Purpose and Finite Purpose, in the way that Becoming can be said to be the unity or combination of Being and Nothing.

These sorts of considerations have led some scholars to interpret Hegel’s dialectics in a way that is implied by a more literal reading of his claim, in the Encyclopaedia Logic , that the three “sides” of the form of logic—namely, the moment of understanding, the dialectical moment, and the speculative moment—“are moments of each [or every; jedes ] logically-real , that is each [or every; jedes ] concept” (EL Remark to §79; this is an alternative translation). The quotation suggests that each concept goes through all three moments of the dialectical process—a suggestion reinforced by Hegel’s claim, in the Phenomenology , that the result of the process of determinate negation is that “a new form has thereby immediately arisen” (PhG-M §79). According to this interpretation, the three “sides” are not three different concepts or forms that are related to one another in a triad—as the textbook Being-Nothing-Becoming example suggests—but rather different momentary sides or “determinations” in the life, so to speak, of each concept or form as it transitions to the next one. The three moments thus involve only two concepts or forms: the one that comes first, and the one that comes next (examples of philosophers who interpret Hegel’s dialectics in this second way include Maybee 2009; Priest 1989: 402; Rosen 2014: 122, 132; and Winfield 1990: 56).

For the concept of Being, for example, its moment of understanding is its moment of stability, in which it is asserted to be pure presence. This determination is one-sided or restricted however, because, as we saw, it ignores another aspect of Being’s definition, namely, that Being has no content or determination, which is how Being is defined in its dialectical moment. Being thus sublates itself because the one-sidedness of its moment of understanding undermines that determination and leads to the definition it has in the dialectical moment. The speculative moment draws out the implications of these moments: it asserts that Being (as pure presence) implies nothing. It is also the “unity of the determinations in their comparison [ Entgegensetzung ]” (EL §82; alternative translation): since it captures a process from one to the other, it includes Being’s moment of understanding (as pure presence) and dialectical moment (as nothing or undetermined), but also compares those two determinations, or sets (- setzen ) them up against (- gegen ) each other. It even puts Being into a new state (as the prefix ent - suggests) because the next concept, Nothing, will sublate (cancel and preserve) Being.

The concept of Nothing also has all three moments. When it is asserted to be the speculative result of the concept of Being, it has its moment of understanding or stability: it is Nothing, defined as pure absence, as the absence of determination. But Nothing’s moment of understanding is also one-sided or restricted: like Being, Nothing is also an undefined content, which is its determination in its dialectical moment. Nothing thus sublates itself : since it is an undefined content , it is not pure absence after all, but has the same presence that Being did. It is present as an undefined content . Nothing thus sublates Being: it replaces (cancels) Being, but also preserves Being insofar as it has the same definition (as an undefined content) and presence that Being had. We can picture Being and Nothing like this (the circles have dashed outlines to indicate that, as concepts, they are each undefined; cf. Maybee 2009: 51):

In its speculative moment, then, Nothing implies presence or Being, which is the “unity of the determinations in their comparison [ Entgegensetzung ]” (EL §82; alternative translation), since it both includes but—as a process from one to the other—also compares the two earlier determinations of Nothing, first, as pure absence and, second, as just as much presence.

The dialectical process is driven to the next concept or form—Becoming—not by a triadic, thesis-antithesis-synthesis pattern, but by the one-sidedness of Nothing—which leads Nothing to sublate itself—and by the implications of the process so far. Since Being and Nothing have each been exhaustively analyzed as separate concepts, and since they are the only concepts in play, there is only one way for the dialectical process to move forward: whatever concept comes next will have to take account of both Being and Nothing at the same time. Moreover, the process revealed that an undefined content taken to be presence (i.e., Being) implies Nothing (or absence), and that an undefined content taken to be absence (i.e., Nothing) implies presence (i.e., Being). The next concept, then, takes Being and Nothing together and draws out those implications—namely, that Being implies Nothing, and that Nothing implies Being. It is therefore Becoming, defined as two separate processes: one in which Being becomes Nothing, and one in which Nothing becomes Being. We can picture Becoming this way (cf. Maybee 2009: 53):

In a similar way, a one-sidedness or restrictedness in the determination of Finite Purpose together with the implications of earlier stages leads to Realized Purpose. In its moment of understanding, Finite Purpose particularizes into (or presents) its content as “ something-presupposed ” or as a pre-given object (EL §205). I go to a restaurant for the purpose of having dinner, for instance, and order a salad. My purpose of having dinner particularizes as a pre-given object—the salad. But this object or particularity—e.g. the salad—is “inwardly reflected” (EL §205): it has its own content—developed in earlier stages—which the definition of Finite Purpose ignores. We can picture Finite Purpose this way:

In the dialectical moment, Finite Purpose is determined by the previously ignored content, or by that other content. The one-sidedness of Finite Purpose requires the dialectical process to continue through a series of syllogisms that determines Finite Purpose in relation to the ignored content. The first syllogism links the Finite Purpose to the first layer of content in the object: the Purpose or universality (e.g., dinner) goes through the particularity (e.g., the salad) to its content, the singularity (e.g., lettuce as a type of thing)—the syllogism U-P-S (EL §206). But the particularity (e.g., the salad) is itself a universality or purpose, “which at the same time is a syllogism within itself [ in sich ]” (EL Remark to §208; alternative translation), in relation to its own content. The salad is a universality/purpose that particularizes as lettuce (as a type of thing) and has its singularity in this lettuce here—a second syllogism, U-P-S. Thus, the first singularity (e.g., “lettuce” as a type of thing)—which, in this second syllogism, is the particularity or P —“ judges ” (EL §207) or asserts that “ U is S ”: it says that “lettuce” as a universality ( U ) or type of thing is a singularity ( S ), or is “this lettuce here”, for instance. This new singularity (e.g. “this lettuce here”) is itself a combination of subjectivity and objectivity (EL §207): it is an Inner or identifying concept (“lettuce”) that is in a mutually-defining relationship (the circular arrow) with an Outer or out-thereness (“this here”) as its content. In the speculative moment, Finite Purpose is determined by the whole process of development from the moment of understanding—when it is defined by particularizing into a pre-given object with a content that it ignores—to its dialectical moment—when it is also defined by the previously ignored content. We can picture the speculative moment of Finite Purpose this way:

Finite Purpose’s speculative moment leads to Realized Purpose. As soon as Finite Purpose presents all the content, there is a return process (a series of return arrows) that establishes each layer and redefines Finite Purpose as Realized Purpose. The presence of “this lettuce here” establishes the actuality of “lettuce” as a type of thing (an Actuality is a concept that captures a mutually-defining relationship between an Inner and an Outer [EL §142]), which establishes the “salad”, which establishes “dinner” as the Realized Purpose over the whole process. We can picture Realized Purpose this way:

If Hegel’s account of dialectics is a general description of the life of each concept or form, then any section can include as many or as few stages as the development requires. Instead of trying to squeeze the stages into a triadic form (cf. Solomon 1983: 22)—a technique Hegel himself rejects (PhG §50; cf. section 3 )—we can see the process as driven by each determination on its own account: what it succeeds in grasping (which allows it to be stable, for a moment of understanding), what it fails to grasp or capture (in its dialectical moment), and how it leads (in its speculative moment) to a new concept or form that tries to correct for the one-sidedness of the moment of understanding. This sort of process might reveal a kind of argument that, as Hegel had promised, might produce a comprehensive and exhaustive exploration of every concept, form or determination in each subject matter, as well as raise dialectics above a haphazard analysis of various philosophical views to the level of a genuine science.

We can begin to see why Hegel was motivated to use a dialectical method by examining the project he set for himself, particularly in relation to the work of David Hume and Immanuel Kant (see entries on Hume and Kant ). Hume had argued against what we can think of as the naïve view of how we come to have scientific knowledge. According to the naïve view, we gain knowledge of the world by using our senses to pull the world into our heads, so to speak. Although we may have to use careful observations and do experiments, our knowledge of the world is basically a mirror or copy of what the world is like. Hume argued, however, that naïve science’s claim that our knowledge corresponds to or copies what the world is like does not work. Take the scientific concept of cause, for instance. According to that concept of cause, to say that one event causes another is to say that there is a necessary connection between the first event (the cause) and the second event (the effect), such that, when the first event happens, the second event must also happen. According to naïve science, when we claim (or know) that some event causes some other event, our claim mirrors or copies what the world is like. It follows that the necessary, causal connection between the two events must itself be out there in the world. However, Hume argued, we never observe any such necessary causal connection in our experience of the world, nor can we infer that one exists based on our reasoning (see Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature , Book I, Part III, Section II; Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding , Section VII, Part I). There is nothing in the world itself that our idea of cause mirrors or copies.

Kant thought Hume’s argument led to an unacceptable, skeptical conclusion, and he rejected Hume’s own solution to the skepticism (see Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason , B5, B19–20). Hume suggested that our idea of causal necessity is grounded merely in custom or habit, since it is generated by our own imaginations after repeated observations of one sort of event following another sort of event (see Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature , Book I, Section VI; Hegel also rejected Hume’s solution, see EL §39). For Kant, science and knowledge should be grounded in reason, and he proposed a solution that aimed to reestablish the connection between reason and knowledge that was broken by Hume’s skeptical argument. Kant’s solution involved proposing a Copernican revolution in philosophy ( Critique of Pure Reason , Bxvi). Nicholas Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who said that the earth revolves around the sun, rather than the other way around. Kant proposed a similar solution to Hume’s skepticism. Naïve science assumes that our knowledge revolves around what the world is like, but, Hume’s criticism argued, this view entails that we cannot then have knowledge of scientific causes through reason. We can reestablish a connection between reason and knowledge, however, Kant suggested, if we say—not that knowledge revolves around what the world is like—but that knowledge revolves around what we are like . For the purposes of our knowledge, Kant said, we do not revolve around the world—the world revolves around us. Because we are rational creatures, we share a cognitive structure with one another that regularizes our experiences of the world. This intersubjectively shared structure of rationality—and not the world itself—grounds our knowledge.

However, Kant’s solution to Hume’s skepticism led to a skeptical conclusion of its own that Hegel rejected. While the intersubjectively shared structure of our reason might allow us to have knowledge of the world from our perspective, so to speak, we cannot get outside of our mental, rational structures to see what the world might be like in itself. As Kant had to admit, according to his theory, there is still a world in itself or “Thing-in-itself” ( Ding an sich ) about which we can know nothing (see, e.g., Critique of Pure Reason , Bxxv–xxvi). Hegel rejected Kant’s skeptical conclusion that we can know nothing about the world- or Thing-in-itself, and he intended his own philosophy to be a response to this view (see, e.g., EL §44 and the Remark to §44).

How did Hegel respond to Kant’s skepticism—especially since Hegel accepted Kant’s Copernican revolution, or Kant’s claim that we have knowledge of the world because of what we are like, because of our reason? How, for Hegel, can we get out of our heads to see the world as it is in itself? Hegel’s answer is very close to the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle’s response to Plato. Plato argued that we have knowledge of the world only through the Forms. The Forms are perfectly universal, rational concepts or ideas. Because the world is imperfect, however, Plato exiled the Forms to their own realm. Although things in the world get their definitions by participating in the Forms, those things are, at best, imperfect copies of the universal Forms (see, e.g., Parmenides 131–135a). The Forms are therefore not in this world, but in a separate realm of their own. Aristotle argued, however, that the world is knowable not because things in the world are imperfect copies of the Forms, but because the Forms are in things themselves as the defining essences of those things (see, e.g., De Anima [ On the Soul ], Book I, Chapter 1 [403a26–403b18]; Metaphysics , Book VII, Chapter 6 [1031b6–1032a5] and Chapter 8 [1033b20–1034a8]).

In a similar way, Hegel’s answer to Kant is that we can get out of our heads to see what the world is like in itself—and hence can have knowledge of the world in itself—because the very same rationality or reason that is in our heads is in the world itself . As Hegel apparently put it in a lecture, the opposition or antithesis between the subjective and objective disappears by saying, as the Ancients did,

that nous governs the world, or by our own saying that there is reason in the world, by which we mean that reason is the soul of the world, inhabits it, and is immanent in it, as it own, innermost nature, its universal. (EL-GSH Addition 1 to §24)

Hegel used an example familiar from Aristotle’s work to illustrate this view:

“to be an animal”, the kind considered as the universal, pertains to the determinate animal and constitutes its determinate essentiality. If we were to deprive a dog of its animality we could not say what it is. (EL-GSH Addition 1 to §24; cf. SL-dG 16–17, SL-M 36-37)

Kant’s mistake, then, was that he regarded reason or rationality as only in our heads, Hegel suggests (EL §§43–44), rather than in both us and the world itself (see also below in this section and section 4 ). We can use our reason to have knowledge of the world because the very same reason that is in us, is in the world itself as it own defining principle. The rationality or reason in the world makes reality understandable, and that is why we can have knowledge of, or can understand, reality with our rationality. Dialectics—which is Hegel’s account of reason—characterizes not only logic, but also “everything true in general” (EL Remark to §79).

But why does Hegel come to define reason in terms of dialectics, and hence adopt a dialectical method? We can begin to see what drove Hegel to adopt a dialectical method by returning once again to Plato’s philosophy. Plato argued that we can have knowledge of the world only by grasping the Forms, which are perfectly universal, rational concepts or ideas. Because things in the world are so imperfect, however, Plato concluded that the Forms are not in this world, but in a realm of their own. After all, if a human being were perfectly beautiful, for instance, then he or she would never become not-beautiful. But human beings change, get old, and die, and so can be, at best, imperfect copies of the Form of beauty—though they get whatever beauty they have by participating in that Form. Moreover, for Plato, things in the world are such imperfect copies that we cannot gain knowledge of the Forms by studying things in the world, but only through reason, that is, only by using our rationality to access the separate realm of the Forms (as Plato argued in the well-known parable of the cave; Republic , Book 7, 514–516b).

Notice, however, that Plato’s conclusion that the Forms cannot be in this world and so must be exiled to a separate realm rests on two claims. First, it rests on the claim that the world is an imperfect and messy place—a claim that is hard to deny. But it also rests on the assumption that the Forms—the universal, rational concepts or ideas of reason itself—are static and fixed, and so cannot grasp the messiness within the imperfect world. Hegel is able to link reason back to our messy world by changing the definition of reason. Instead of saying that reason consists of static universals, concepts or ideas, Hegel says that the universal concepts or forms are themselves messy . Against Plato, Hegel’s dialectical method allows him to argue that universal concepts can “overgrasp” (from the German verb übergreifen ) the messy, dialectical nature of the world because they, themselves, are dialectical . Moreover, because later concepts build on or sublate (cancel, but also preserve) earlier concepts, the later, more universal concepts grasp the dialectical processes of earlier concepts. As a result, higher-level concepts can grasp not only the dialectical nature of earlier concepts or forms, but also the dialectical processes that make the world itself a messy place. The highest definition of the concept of beauty, for instance, would not take beauty to be fixed and static, but would include within it the dialectical nature or finiteness of beauty, the idea that beauty becomes, on its own account, not-beauty. This dialectical understanding of the concept of beauty can then overgrasp the dialectical and finite nature of beauty in the world, and hence the truth that, in the world, beautiful things themselves become not-beautiful, or might be beautiful in one respect and not another. Similarly, the highest determination of the concept of “tree” will include within its definition the dialectical process of development and change from seed to sapling to tree. As Hegel says, dialectics is “the principle of all natural and spiritual life” (SL-M 56; SL-dG 35), or “the moving soul of scientific progression” (EL §81). Dialectics is what drives the development of both reason as well as of things in the world. A dialectical reason can overgrasp a dialectical world.

Two further journeys into the history of philosophy will help to show why Hegel chose dialectics as his method of argument. As we saw, Hegel argues against Kant’s skepticism by suggesting that reason is not only in our heads, but in the world itself. To show that reason is in the world itself, however, Hegel has to show that reason can be what it is without us human beings to help it. He has to show that reason can develop on its own, and does not need us to do the developing for it (at least for those things in the world that are not human-created). As we saw (cf. section 1 ), central to Hegel’s dialectics is the idea that concepts or forms develop on their own because they “self-sublate”, or sublate (cancel and preserve) themselves , and so pass into subsequent concepts or forms on their own accounts, because of their own, dialectical natures. Thus reason, as it were, drives itself, and hence does not need our heads to develop it. Hegel needs an account of self-driving reason to get beyond Kant’s skepticism.

Ironically, Hegel derives the basic outlines of his account of self-driving reason from Kant. Kant divided human rationality into two faculties: the faculty of the understanding and the faculty of reason. The understanding uses concepts to organize and regularize our experiences of the world. Reason’s job is to coordinate the concepts and categories of the understanding by developing a completely unified, conceptual system, and it does this work, Kant thought, on its own, independently of how those concepts might apply to the world. Reason coordinates the concepts of the understanding by following out necessary chains of syllogisms to produce concepts that achieve higher and higher levels of conceptual unity. Indeed, this process will lead reason to produce its own transcendental ideas, or concepts that go beyond the world of experience. Kant calls this necessary, concept-creating reason “speculative” reason (cf. Critique of Pure Reason , Bxx–xxi, A327/B384). Reason creates its own concepts or ideas—it “speculates”—by generating new and increasingly comprehensive concepts of its own, independently of the understanding. In the end, Kant thought, reason will follow out such chains of syllogisms until it develops completely comprehensive or unconditioned universals—universals that contain all of the conditions or all of the less-comprehensive concepts that help to define them. As we saw (cf. section 1 ), Hegel’s dialectics adopts Kant’s notion of a self-driving and concept-creating “speculative” reason, as well as Kant’s idea that reason aims toward unconditioned universality or absolute concepts.

Ultimately, Kant thought, reasons’ necessary, self-driving activity will lead it to produce contradictions—what he called the “antinomies”, which consist of a thesis and antithesis. Once reason has generated the unconditioned concept of the whole world, for instance, Kant argued, it can look at the world in two, contradictory ways. In the first antinomy, reason can see the world (1) as the whole totality or as the unconditioned, or (2) as the series of syllogisms that led up to that totality. If reason sees the world as the unconditioned or as a complete whole that is not conditioned by anything else, then it will see the world as having a beginning and end in terms of space and time, and so will conclude (the thesis) that the world has a beginning and end or limit. But if reason sees the world as the series, in which each member of the series is conditioned by the previous member, then the world will appear to be without a beginning and infinite, and reason will conclude (the antithesis) that the world does not have a limit in terms of space and time (cf. Critique of Pure Reason , A417–18/B445–6). Reason thus leads to a contradiction: it holds both that the world has a limit and that it does not have a limit at the same time. Because reason’s own process of self-development will lead it to develop contradictions or to be dialectical in this way, Kant thought that reason must be kept in check by the understanding. Any conclusions that reason draws that do not fall within the purview of the understanding cannot be applied to the world of experience, Kant said, and so cannot be considered genuine knowledge ( Critique of Pure Reason , A506/B534).

Hegel adopts Kant’s dialectical conception of reason, but he liberates reason for knowledge from the tyranny of the understanding. Kant was right that reason speculatively generates concepts on its own, and that this speculative process is driven by necessity and leads to concepts of increasing universality or comprehensiveness. Kant was even right to suggest—as he had shown in the discussion of the antinomies—that reason is dialectical, or necessarily produces contradictions on its own. Again, Kant’s mistake was that he fell short of saying that these contradictions are in the world itself. He failed to apply the insights of his discussion of the antinomies to “ things in themselves ” (SL-M 56; SL-dG 35; see also section 4 ). Indeed, Kant’s own argument proves that the dialectical nature of reason can be applied to things themselves. The fact that reason develops those contradictions on its own, without our heads to help it , shows that those contradictions are not just in our heads, but are objective, or in the world itself. Kant, however, failed to draw this conclusion, and continued to regard reason’s conclusions as illusions. Still, Kant’s philosophy vindicated the general idea that the contradictions he took to be illusions are both objective—or out there in the world—and necessary. As Hegel puts it, Kant vindicates the general idea of “the objectivity of the illusion and the necessity of the contradiction which belongs to the nature of thought determinations” (SL-M 56; cf. SL-dG 35), or to the nature of concepts themselves.

The work of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (see entry on Fichte ) showed Hegel how dialectics can get beyond Kant—beyond the contradictions that, as Kant had shown, reason (necessarily) develops on its own, beyond the reductio ad absurdum argument (which, as we saw above, holds that a contradiction leads to nothingness), and beyond Kant’s skepticism, or Kant’s claim that reason’s contradictions must be reined in by the understanding and cannot count as knowledge. Fichte argued that the task of discovering the foundation of all human knowledge leads to a contradiction or opposition between the self and the not-self (it is not important, for our purposes, why Fichte held this view). The kind of reasoning that leads to this contradiction, Fichte said, is the analytical or antithetical method of reasoning, which involves drawing out an opposition between elements (in this case, the self and not-self) that are being compared to, or equated with, one another. While the traditional reductio ad absurdum argument would lead us to reject both sides of the contradiction and start from scratch, Fichte argued that the contradiction or opposition between the self and not-self can be resolved. In particular, the contradiction is resolved by positing a third concept—the concept of divisibility—which unites the two sides ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 110–11; Fichte 1982: 108–110). The concept of divisibility is produced by a synthetic procedure of reasoning, which involves “discovering in opposites the respect in which they are alike ” ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 112–13; Fichte 1982: 111). Indeed, Fichte argued, not only is the move to resolve contradictions with synthetic concepts or judgments possible, it is necessary . As he says of the move from the contradiction between self and not-self to the synthetic concept of divisibility,

there can be no further question as to the possibility of this [synthesis], nor can any ground for it be given; it is absolutely possible, and we are entitled to it without further grounds of any kind. ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 114; Fichte 1982: 112)

Since the analytical method leads to oppositions or contradictions, he argued, if we use only analytic judgments, “we not only do not get very far, as Kant says; we do not get anywhere at all” ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 113; Fichte 1982: 112). Without the synthetic concepts or judgments, we are left, as the classic reductio ad absurdum argument suggests, with nothing at all. The synthetic concepts or judgments are thus necessary to get beyond contradiction without leaving us with nothing.

Fichte’s account of the synthetic method provides Hegel with the key to moving beyond Kant. Fichte suggested that a synthetic concept that unifies the results of a dialectically-generated contradiction does not completely cancel the contradictory sides, but only limits them. As he said, in general, “[t]o limit something is to abolish its reality, not wholly , but in part only” ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 108; Fichte 1982: 108). Instead of concluding, as a reductio ad absurdum requires, that the two sides of a contradiction must be dismissed altogether, the synthetic concept or judgment retroactively justifies the opposing sides by demonstrating their limit, by showing which part of reality they attach to and which they do not ( The Science of Knowledge , I: 108–10; Fichte 1982: 108–9), or by determining in what respect and to what degree they are each true. For Hegel, as we saw (cf. section 1 ), later concepts and forms sublate—both cancel and preserve —earlier concepts and forms in the sense that they include earlier concepts and forms in their own definitions. From the point of view of the later concepts or forms, the earlier ones still have some validity, that is, they have a limited validity or truth defined by the higher-level concept or form.

Dialectically generated contradictions are therefore not a defect to be reigned in by the understanding, as Kant had said, but invitations for reason to “speculate”, that is, for reason to generate precisely the sort of increasingly comprehensive and universal concepts and forms that Kant had said reason aims to develop. Ultimately, Hegel thought, as we saw (cf. section 1 ), the dialectical process leads to a completely unconditioned concept or form for each subject matter—the Absolute Idea (logic), Absolute Spirit (phenomenology), Absolute Idea of right and law ( Philosophy of Right ), and so on—which, taken together, form the “circle of circles” (EL §15) that constitutes the whole philosophical system or “Idea” (EL §15) that both overgrasps the world and makes it understandable (for us).

Note that, while Hegel was clearly influenced by Fichte’s work, he never adopted Fichte’s triadic “thesis—antithesis—synthesis” language in his descriptions of his own philosophy (Mueller 1958: 411–2; Solomon 1983: 23), though he did apparently use it in his lectures to describe Kant’s philosophy (LHP III: 477). Indeed, Hegel criticized formalistic uses of the method of “ triplicity [Triplizität]” (PhG-P §50) inspired by Kant—a criticism that could well have been aimed at Fichte. Hegel argued that Kantian-inspired uses of triadic form had been reduced to “a lifeless schema” and “an actual semblance [ eigentlichen Scheinen ]” (PhG §50; alternative translation) that, like a formula in mathematics, was simply imposed on top of subject matters. Instead, a properly scientific use of Kant’s “triplicity” should flow—as he said his own dialectical method did (see section 1 )—out of “the inner life and self-movement” (PhG §51) of the content.

Scholars have often questioned whether Hegel’s dialectical method is logical. Some of their skepticism grows out of the role that contradiction plays in his thought and argument. While many of the oppositions embedded in the dialectical development and the definitions of concepts or forms are not contradictions in the strict sense, as we saw ( section 2 , above), scholars such as Graham Priest have suggested that some of them arguably are (Priest 1989: 391). Hegel even holds, against Kant (cf. section 3 above), that there are contradictions, not only in thought, but also in the world. Motion, for instance, Hegel says, is an “ existent contradiction”. As he describes it:

Something moves, not because now it is here and there at another now, but because in one and the same now it is here and not here, because in this here, it is and is not at the same time. (SL-dG 382; cf. SL-M 440)

Kant’s sorts of antinomies (cf. section 3 above) or contradictions more generally are therefore, as Hegel puts it in one place, “in all objects of all kinds, in all representations, concepts and ideas” (EL-GSH Remark to §48). Hegel thus seems to reject, as he himself explicitly claims (SL-M 439–40; SL-dG 381–82), the law of non-contradiction, which is a fundamental principle of formal logic—the classical, Aristotelian logic (see entries on Aristotle’s Logic and Contradiction ) that dominated during Hegel’s lifetime as well as the dominant systems of symbolic logic today (cf. Priest 1989: 391; Düsing 2010: 97–103). According to the law of non-contradiction, something cannot be both true and false at the same time or, put another way, “x” and “not-x” cannot both be true at the same time.

Hegel’s apparent rejection of the law of non-contradiction has led some interpreters to regard his dialectics as illogical, even “absurd” (Popper 1940: 420; 1962: 330; 2002: 443). Karl R. Popper, for instance, argued that accepting Hegel’s and other dialecticians’ rejection of the law of non-contradiction as part of both a logical theory and a general theory of the world “would mean a complete breakdown of science” (Popper 1940: 408; 1962: 317; 2002: 426). Since, according to today’s systems of symbolic logic, he suggested, the truth of a contradiction leads logically to any claim (any claim can logically be inferred from two contradictory claims), if we allow contradictory claims to be valid or true together, then we would have no reason to rule out any claim whatsoever (Popper 1940: 408–410; 1962: 317–319; 2002: 426–429).

Popper was notoriously hostile toward Hegel’s work (cf. Popper 2013: 242–289; for a scathing criticism of Popper’s analysis see Kaufmann 1976 [1972]), but, as Priest has noted (Priest 1989: 389–91), even some sympathetic interpreters have been inspired by today’s dominant systems of symbolic logic to hold that the kind of contradiction that is embedded in Hegel’s dialectics cannot be genuine contradiction in the strict sense. While Dieter Wandschneider, for instance, grants that his sympathetic theory of dialectic “is not presented as a faithful interpretation of the Hegelian text” (Wandschneider 2010: 32), he uses the same logical argument that Popper offered in defense of the claim that “dialectical contradiction is not a ‘normal’ contradiction, but one that is actually only an apparent contradiction” (Wandschneider 2010: 37). The suggestion (by the traditional, triadic account of Hegel’s dialectics, cf. section 2 , above) that Being and Nothing (or non-being) is a contradiction, for instance, he says, rests on an ambiguity. Being is an undefined content, taken to mean being or presence, while Nothing is an undefined content, taken to mean nothing or absence ( section 2 , above; cf. Wandschneider 2010: 34–35). Being is Nothing (or non-being) with respect to the property they have as concepts, namely, that they both have an undefined content. But Being is not Nothing (or non-being) with respect to their meaning (Wandschneider 2010: 34–38). The supposed contradiction between them, then, Wandschneider suggests, takes place “in different respects ”. It is therefore only an apparent contradiction. “Rightly understood”, he concludes, “there can be no talk of contradiction ” (Wandschneider 2010: 38).

Inoue Kazumi also argues that dialectical contradiction in the Hegelian sense does not violate the law of non-contradiction (Inoue 2014: 121–123), and he rejects Popper’s claim that Hegel’s dialectical method is incompatible with good science. A dialectical contradiction, Inoue says, is a contradiction that arises when the same topic is considered from different vantage points, but each vantage point by itself does not violate the law of non-contradiction (Inoue 2014: 120). The understanding leads to contradictions, as Hegel said (cf. section 3 above), because it examines a topic from a fixed point of view; reason embraces contradictions because it examines a topic from multiple points of view (Inoue 2014: 121). The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the Earth and the heliocentric theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, for instance, Inoue suggests, are both correct from certain points of view. We live our everyday lives from a vantage point in which the sun makes a periodic rotation around the Earth roughly every 24 hours. Astronomers make their observations from a geocentric point of view and then translate those observations into a heliocentric one. From these points of view, the geocentric account is not incorrect. But physics, particularly in its concepts of mass and force, requires the heliocentric account. For science—which takes all these points of view into consideration—both theories are valid: they are dialectically contradictory, though neither theory, by itself, violates the law of non-contradiction (Inoue 2014: 126–127). To insist that the Earth really revolves around the sun is merely an irrational, reductive prejudice, theoretically and practically (Inoue 2014: 126). Dialectical contradictions, Inoue says, are, as Hegel said, constructive: they lead to concepts or points of view that grasp the world from ever wider and more encompassing perspectives, culminating ultimately in the “Absolute” (Inoue 2014: 121; cf. section 1 , above). Hegel’s claim that motion violates the law of non-contradiction, Inoue suggests, is an expression of the idea that contradictory claims can be true when motion is described from more than one point of view (Inoue 2014: 123). (For a similar reading of Hegel’s conception of dialectical contradiction, which influenced Inoue’s account [Inoue 2014: 121], see Düsing 2010: 102–103.)

Other interpreters, however, have been inspired by Hegel’s dialectics to develop alternative systems of logic that do not subscribe to the law of non-contradiction. Priest, for instance, has defended Hegel’s rejection of the law of non-contradiction (cf. Priest 1989; 1997 [2006: 4]). The acceptance of some contradictions, he has suggested, does not require the acceptance of all contradictions (Priest 1989: 392). Popper’s logical argument is also unconvincing. Contradictions lead logically to any claim whatsoever, as Popper said, only if we presuppose that nothing can be both true and false at the same time (i.e. only if we presuppose that the law of non-contradiction is correct), which is just what Hegel denies. Popper’s logical argument thus assumes what it is supposed to prove or begs the question (Priest 1989: 392; 1997 [2006: 5–6]), and so is not convincing. Moreover, consistency (not allowing contradictions), Priest suggests, is actually “a very weak constraint” (Priest 1997 [2006: 104]) on what counts as a rational inference. Other principles or criteria—such as being strongly disproved (or supported) by the data—are more important for determining whether a claim or inference is rational (Priest 1997 [2006: 105]). And, as Hegel pointed out, Priest says, the data—namely, “the world as it appears ” (as Hegel puts it in EL) or “ordinary experience itself” (as Hegel puts it in SL)—suggest that there are indeed contradictions (EL Remark to §48; SL-dG 382; cf. SL-M 440; Priest 1989: 389, 399–400). Hegel is right, for instance, Priest argues, that change, and motion in particular, are examples of real or existing contradictions (Priest 1985; 1989: 396–97; 1997 [2006: 172–181, 213–15]). What distinguishes motion, as a process, from a situation in which something is simply here at one time and then some other place at some other time is the embodiment of contradiction: that, in a process of motion, there is one (span of) time in which something is both here and not here at the same time (in that span of time) (Priest 1985: 340–341; 1997 [2006: 172–175, 213–214]). A system of logic, Priest suggests, is always just a theory about what good reasoning should be like (Priest 1989: 392). A dialectical logic that admits that there are “dialetheia” or true contradictions (Priest 1989: 388), he says, is a broader theory or version of logic than traditional, formal logics that subscribe to the law of non-contradiction. Those traditional logics apply only to topics or domains that are consistent, primarily domains that are “static and changeless” (Priest 1989: 391; cf. 395); dialectical/dialetheic logic handles consistent domains, but also applies to domains in which there are dialetheia. Thus Priest, extending Hegel’s own concept of aufheben (“to sublate”; cf. section 1 , above), suggests that traditional “formal logic is perfectly valid in its domain, but dialectical (dialetheic) logic is more general” (Priest 1989: 395). (For an earlier example of a logical system that allows contradiction and was inspired in part by Hegel [and Marx], see Jaśkowski 1999: 36 [1969: 143] [cf. Inoue 2014: 128–129]. For more on dialetheic logic generally, see the entry on Dialetheism .)

Worries that Hegel’s arguments fail to fit his account of dialectics (see section 2 , above) have led some interpreters to conclude that his method is arbitrary or that his works have no single dialectical method at all (Findlay 1962: 93; Solomon 1983: 21). These interpreters reject the idea that there is any logical necessity to the moves from stage to stage. “[T]he important point to make here, and again and again”, Robert C. Solomon writes, for instance,

is that the transition from the first form to the second, or the transition from the first form of the Phenomenology all the way to the last, is not in any way a deductive necessity. The connections are anything but entailments, and the Phenomenology could always take another route and other starting points. (Solomon 1983: 230)

In a footnote to this passage, Solomon adds “that a formalization of Hegel’s logic, however ingenious, is impossible” (Solomon 1983: 230).

Some scholars have argued that Hegel’s necessity is not intended to be logical necessity. Walter Kaufmann suggested, for instance, that the necessity at work in Hegel’s dialectic is a kind of organic necessity. The moves in the Phenomenology , he said, follow one another “in the way in which, to use a Hegelian image from the preface, bud, blossom and fruit succeed each other” (Kaufmann 1965: 148; 1966: 132). Findlay argued that later stages provide what he called a “ higher-order comment ” on earlier stages, even if later stages do not follow from earlier ones in a trivial way (Findlay 1966: 367). Solomon suggested that the necessity that Hegel wants is not “‘necessity’ in the modern sense of ‘logical necessity,’” (Solomon 1983: 209), but a kind of progression (Solomon 1983: 207), or a “necessity within a context for some purpose ” (Solomon 1983: 209). John Burbidge defines Hegel’s necessity in terms of three senses of the relationship between actuality and possibility, only the last of which is logical necessity (Burbidge 1981: 195–6).

Other scholars have defined the necessity of Hegel’s dialectics in terms of a transcendental argument. A transcendental argument begins with uncontroversial facts of experience and tries to show that other conditions must be present—or are necessary—for those facts to be possible. Jon Stewart argues, for instance, that “Hegel’s dialectic in the Phenomenology is a transcendental account” in this sense, and thus has the necessity of that form of argument (Stewart 2000: 23; cf. Taylor 1975: 97, 226–7; for a critique of this view, see Pinkard 1988: 7, 15).

Some scholars have avoided these debates by interpreting Hegel’s dialectics in a literary way. In his examination of the epistemological theory of the Phenomenology , for instance, Kenneth R. Westphal offers “a literary model” of Hegel’s dialectics based on the story of Sophocles’ play Antigone (Westphal 2003: 14, 16). Ermanno Bencivenga offers an interpretation that combines a narrative approach with a concept of necessity. For him, the necessity of Hegel’s dialectical logic can be captured by the notion of telling a good story—where “good” implies that the story is both creative and correct at the same time (Bencivenga 2000: 43–65).

Debate over whether Hegel’s dialectical logic is logical may also be fueled in part by discomfort with his particular brand of logic. Unlike today’s symbolic logics, Hegel’s logic is not only syntactic, but also semantic (cf. Berto 2007; Maybee 2009: xx–xxv; Margolis 2010: 193–94). Hegel’s interest in semantics appears, for instance, in the very first stages of his logic, where the difference between Being and Nothing is “something merely meant ” (EL-GSH Remark to §87; cf. section 2 above). While some of the moves from stage to stage are driven by syntactic necessity, other moves are driven by the meanings of the concepts in play. Indeed, Hegel rejected what he regarded as the overly formalistic logics that dominated the field during his day (EL Remark to §162; SL-M 43–44; SL-dG 24). A logic that deals only with the forms of logical arguments and not the meanings of the concepts used in those argument forms will do no better in terms of preserving truth than the old joke about computer programs suggests: garbage in, garbage out. In those logics, if we (using today’s versions of formal, symbolic logic) plug in something for the P or Q (in the proposition “if P then Q ” or “ P → Q ”, for instance) or for the “ F ”, “ G ”, or “ x ” (in the proposition “if F is x , then G is x ” or “ F x → G x ”, for instance) that means something true, then the syntax of formal logics will preserve that truth. But if we plug in something for those terms that is untrue or meaningless (garbage in), then the syntax of formal logic will lead to an untrue or meaningless conclusion (garbage out). Today’s versions of prepositional logic also assume that we know what the meaning of “is” is. Against these sorts of logics, Hegel wanted to develop a logic that not only preserved truth, but also determined how to construct truthful claims in the first place. A logic that defines concepts (semantics) as well as their relationships with one another (syntax) will show, Hegel thought, how concepts can be combined into meaningful forms. Because interpreters are familiar with modern logics focused on syntax, however, they may regard Hegel’s syntactic and semantic logic as not really logical (cf. Maybee 2009: xvii–xxv).

In Hegel’s other works, the moves from stage to stage are often driven, not only by syntax and semantics—that is, by logic (given his account of logic)—but also by considerations that grow out of the relevant subject matter. In the Phenomenology , for instance, the moves are driven by syntax, semantics, and by phenomenological factors. Sometimes a move from one stage to the next is driven by a syntactic need—the need to stop an endless, back-and-forth process, for instance, or to take a new path after all the current options have been exhausted (cf. section 5 ). Sometimes, a move is driven by the meaning of a concept, such as the concept of a “This” or “Thing”. And sometimes a move is driven by a phenomenological need or necessity—by requirements of consciousness , or by the fact that the Phenomenology is about a consciousness that claims to be aware of (or to know) something. The logic of the Phenomenology is thus a phenomeno -logic, or a logic driven by logic—syntax and semantics—and by phenomenological considerations. Still, interpreters such as Quentin Lauer have suggested that, for Hegel,

phenomeno-logy is a logic of appearing, a logic of implication, like any other logic, even though not of the formal entailment with which logicians and mathematicians are familiar. (Lauer 1976: 3)

Lauer warns us against dismissing the idea that there is any implication or necessity in Hegel’s method at all (Lauer 1976: 3). (Other scholars who also believe there is a logical necessity to the dialectics of the Phenomenology include Hyppolite 1974: 78–9 and H.S. Harris 1997: xii.)

We should also be careful not to exaggerate the “necessity” of formal, symbolic logics. Even in these logics, there can often be more than one path from some premises to the same conclusion, logical operators can be dealt with in different orders, and different sets of operations can be used to reach the same conclusions. There is therefore often no strict, necessary “entailment” from one step to the next, even though the conclusion might be entailed by the whole series of steps, taken together. As in today’s logics, then, whether Hegel’s dialectics counts as logical depends on the degree to which he shows that we are forced—necessarily—from earlier stages or series of stages to later stages (see also section 5 ).

Although Hegel’s dialectics is driven by syntax, semantics and considerations specific to the different subject matters ( section 4 above), several important syntactic patterns appear repeatedly throughout his works. In many places, the dialectical process is driven by a syntactic necessity that is really a kind of exhaustion: when the current strategy has been exhausted, the process is forced, necessarily, to employ a new strategy. As we saw ( section 2 ), once the strategy of treating Being and Nothing as separate concepts is exhausted, the dialectical process must, necessarily, adopt a different strategy, namely, one that takes the two concepts together. The concept of Becoming captures the first way in which Being and Nothing are taken together. In the stages of Quantum through Number, the concepts of One and Many take turns defining the whole quantity as well as the quantitative bits inside that make it up: first, the One is the whole, while the Many are the bits; then the whole and the bits are all Ones; then the Many is the whole, while the bits are each a One; and finally the whole and the bits are all a Many. We can picture the development like this (cf. Maybee 2009, xviii–xix):

Since One and Many have been exhausted, the next stage, Ratio, must, necessarily, employ a different strategy to grasp the elements in play. Just as Being-for-itself is a concept of universality for Quality and captures the character of a set of something-others in its content (see section 1 ), so Ratio (the whole rectangle with rounded corners) is a concept of universality for Quantity and captures the character of a set of quantities in its content (EL §105–6; cf. Maybee 2009, xviii–xix, 95–7). In another version of syntactic necessity driven by exhaustion, the dialectical development will take account of every aspect or layer, so to speak, of a concept or form—as we saw in the stages of Purpose outlined above, for instance ( section 2 ). Once all the aspects or layers of a concept or form have been taken account of and so exhausted, the dialectical development must also, necessarily, employ a different strategy in the next stage to grasp the elements in play.

In a second, common syntactic pattern, the dialectical development leads to an endless, back-and-forth process—a “bad” (EL-BD §94) or “spurious” (EL-GSH §94) infinity—between two concepts or forms. Hegel’s dialectics cannot rest with spurious infinities. So long as the dialectical process is passing endlessly back and forth between two elements, it is never finished, and the concept or form in play cannot be determined. Spurious infinities must therefore be resolved or stopped, and they are always resolved by a higher-level, more universal concept. In some cases, a new, higher-level concept is introduced that stops the spurious infinity by grasping the whole, back-and-forth process. Being-for-itself (cf. section 1 ), for instance, is introduced as a new, more universal concept that embraces—and hence stops—the whole, back-and-forth process between “something-others”. However, if the back-and-forth process takes place between a concept and its own content—in which case the concept already embraces the content—then that embracing concept is redefined in a new way that grasps the whole, back-and-forth process. The new definition raises the embracing concept to a higher level of universality—as a totality (an “all”) or as a complete and completed concept. Examples from logic include the redefinition of Appearance as the whole World of Appearance (EL §132; cf. SL-M 505–7, SL-dG 443–4), the move in which the endless, back-and-forth process of Real Possibility redefines the Condition as a totality (EL §147; cf. SL-M 547, SL-dG 483), and the move in which a back-and-forth process created by finite Cognition and finite Willing redefines the Subjective Idea as Absolute Idea (EL §§234–5; cf. SL-M 822–3, SL-dG 733–4).

Some of the most famous terms in Hegel’s works—“in itself [ an sich ]”, “for itself [ für sich ]” and “in and for itself [ an und für sich ]”—capture other, common, syntactic patterns. A concept or form is “in itself” when it has a determination that it gets by being defined against its “other” (cf. Being-in-itself, EL §91). A concept or form is “for itself” when it is defined only in relation to its own content, so that, while it is technically defined in relation to an “other”, the “other” is not really an “other” for it. As a result, it is really defined only in relation to itself. Unlike an “in itself” concept or form, then, a “for itself” concept or form seems to have its definition on its own, or does not need a genuine “other” to be defined (like other concepts or forms, however, “for itself” concepts or forms turn out to be dialectical too, and hence push on to new concepts or forms). In the logic, Being-for-itself (cf. section 1 ), which is defined by embracing the “something others” in its content, is the first, “for itself” concept or form.

A concept or form is “in and for itself” when it is doubly “for itself”, or “for itself” not only in terms of content —insofar as it embraces its content—but also in terms of form or presentation, insofar as it also has the activity of presenting its content. It is “for itself” (embraces its content) for itself (through its own activity), or not only embraces its content (the “for itself” of content) but also presents its content through its own activity (the “for itself” of form). The second “for itself” of form provides the concept with a logical activity (i.e., presenting its content) and hence a definition that goes beyond—and so is separate from—the definition that its content has. Since it has a definition of its own that is separate from the definition of its content, it comes to be defined—in the “in itself” sense— against its content, which has become its “other”. Because this “other” is still its own content, however, the concept or form is both “in itself” but also still “for itself” at the same time, or is “in and for itself” (EL §§148–9; cf. Maybee 2009: 244–6). The “in and for itself” relationship is the hallmark of a genuine Concept (EL §160), and captures the idea that a genuine concept is defined not only from the bottom up by its content, but also from the top down through its own activity of presenting its content. The genuine concept of animal, for instance, is not only defined by embracing its content (namely, all animals) from the bottom up, but also has a definition of its own, separate from that content, that leads it to determine (and so present), from the top down, what counts as an animal.

Other technical, syntactic terms include aufheben (“to sublate”), which we already saw ( section 1 ), and “abstract”. To say that a concept or form is “abstract” is to say that it is only a partial definition. Hegel describes the moment of understanding, for instance, as abstract (EL §§79, 80) because it is a one-sided or restricted definition or determination ( section 1 ). Conversely, a concept or form is “concrete” in the most basic sense when it has a content or definition that it gets from being built out of other concepts or forms. As we saw ( section 2 ), Hegel regarded Becoming as the first concrete concept in the logic.

Although Hegel’s writing and his use of technical terms can make his philosophy notoriously difficult, his work can also be very rewarding. In spite of—or perhaps because of—the difficulty, there are a surprising number of fresh ideas in his work that have not yet been fully explored in philosophy.

• [EL], The Encyclopedia Logic [Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften I] . Because the translations of EL listed below use the same section numbers as well as sub-paragraphs (“Remarks”) and sub-sub-paragraphs (“Additions”), citations simply to “EL” refer to either translation. If the phrasing in English is unique to a specific translation, the translators’ initials are added.
• [EL-BD], Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Basic Outline Part I: Science of Logic [Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften I] , translated by Klaus Brinkmann and Daniel O. Dahlstrom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• [EL-GSH], The Encyclopedia Logic: Part 1 of the Encyclopaedia of Philosophical Sciences [Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften I] , translated by T.F. Geraets, W.A. Suchting, and H.S. Harris, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1991.
• [LHP], Lectures on the History of Philosophy [Geschichte der Philosophie] , in three volumes, translated by E.S. Haldane and Frances H. Simson, New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1974.
• [PhG], Phenomenology of Spirit [Phänomenologie des Geistes] . Because the translations of PhG listed below use the same section numbers, citations simply to “PhG” refer to either translation. If the phrasing in English is unique to a specific translation, the translator’s initial is added.
• [PhG-M], Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit [Phänomenologie des Geistes] , translated by A.V. Miller, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
• [PhG-P], Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: The Phenomenology of Spirit [Phänomenologie des Geistes] , translated and edited by Terry Pinkard, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
• [PR], Elements of the Philosophy of Right [Philosophie des Rechts] , edited by Allen W. Wood and translated by H.B. Nisbet, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
• [SL-dG], Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel: The Science of Logic [Wissenschaft der Logik] , translated by George di Giovanni, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
• [SL-M], Hegel’s Science of Logic [Wissenschaft der Logik] , translated by A.V. Miller, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977.
• Aristotle, 1954, The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation (in two volumes), edited by Jonathan Barnes. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Citations to Aristotle’s text use the Bekker numbers, which appear in the margins of many translations of Aristotle’s works.)
• Fichte, J.G., 1982 [1794/95], The Science of Knowledge , translated by Peter Heath and John Lachs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Citations to Fichte’s work include references to the volume and page number in the German edition of Fichte’s collected works edited by I.H Fichte, which are used in the margins of many translations of Fichte’s works.)
• Kant, Immanuel, 1999 [1781], Critique of Pure Reason , translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Citations to Kant’s text use the “Ak.” numbers, which appear in the margins of many translations of Kant’s works.)
• Plato, 1961, The Collected Dialogues of Plato: Including the Letters , edited by Edith Hamilton and Huntington Cairns. Princeton: Princeton University Press. (Citations to Plato’s text use the Stephanus numbers, which appear in the margins of many translations of Plato’s works.)
• Bencivenga, Ermanno, 2000, Hegel’s Dialectical Logic , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Berto, Francesco, 2007, “Hegel’s Dialectics as a Semantic Theory: An Analytic Reading”, European Journal of Philosophy , 15(1): 19–39.
• Burbidge, John, 1981, On Hegel’s Logic: Fragments of a Commentary , Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
• Düsing, Klaus, 2010, “Ontology and Dialectic in Hegel’s Thought”, translated by Andrés Colapinto, in The Dimensions of Hegel’s Dialectic , Nectarios G. Limmnatis (ed.), London: Continuum, pp. 97–122.
• Findlay, J.N., 1962, Hegel: A Re-Examination , New York: Collier Books.
• –––, 1966, Review of Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, and Commentary , by Walter Kaufmann. The Philosophical Quarterly , 16(65): 366–68.
• Forster, Michael, 1993, “Hegel’s Dialectical Method”, in The Cambridge Companion to Hegel , Frederick C. Beiser (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 130–170.
• Fritzman, J.M., 2014, Hegel , Cambridge: Polity Press.
• Harris, Errol E., 1983, An Interpretation of the Logic of Hegel , Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
• Harris, H.S. (Henry Silton), 1997, Hegel’s Ladder (in two volumes: vol. I, The Pilgrimage of Reason , and vol. II, The Odyssey of Spirit ), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).
• Hyppolite, Jean, 1974, Genesis and Structure of Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit ”, Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
• Inoue, Kazumi, 2014, “Dialectical Contradictions and Classical Formal Logic”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science , 28(2), 113–132.
• Jaśkowski, Stanislaw, 1999 [1969], “A Propositional Calculus for Inconsistent Deductive Systems”, translated by Olgierd Wojtasiewicz and A. Pietruszczak, Logic and Logical Philosophy (7)7: 35–56. (This article is a republication, with some changes, of a 1969 translation by Wojtasiewicz entitled “Propositional Calculus for Contradictory Deductive Systems (Communicated at the Meeting of March 19, 1948)”, published in Studia Logica , 24, 143–160.)
• Kaufmann, Walter Arnold, 1965, Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, and Commentary , Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company Inc.
• –––, 1966, A Reinterpretation , Garden City, NY: Anchor Books. (This is a republication of the first part of Hegel: Reinterpretation, Texts, and Commentary .)
• –––, 1976 [1972], “The Hegel Myth and its Method”, in Hegel: A Collection of Critical Essays , Alasdair MacIntyre (ed.), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press: 21–60. (This is a republication of the 1972 Anchor Books/Doubleday edition.)
• Kosok, Michael, 1972, “The Formalization of Hegel’s Dialectical Logic: Its Formal Structure, Logical Interpretation and Intuitive Foundation”, in Hegel: A Collection of Critical Essays , Alisdair MacIntyre (ed.), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press: 237–87.
• Lauer, Quentin, 1976, A Reading of Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit” , New York: Fordham University Press.
• Margolis, Joseph, 2010, “The Greening of Hegel’s Dialectical Logic”, in The Dimensions of Hegel’s Dialectic , Nectarios G. Limmnatis (ed.), London: Continuum, pp. 193–215.
• Maybee, Julie E., 2009, Picturing Hegel: An Illustrated Guide to Hegel’s “Encyclopaedia Logic” , Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
• McTaggart, John McTaggart Ellis, 1964 [1910], A Commentary of Hegel’s Logic , New York: Russell and Russell Inc. (This edition is a reissue of McTaggart’s book, which was first published in 1910.)
• Mueller, Gustav, 1958, “The Hegel Legend of ‘Synthesis-Antithesis-Thesis’”, Journal of the History of Ideas , 19(3): 411–14.
• Mure, G.R.G., 1950, A Study of Hegel’s Logic , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Pinkard, Terry, 1988, Hegel’s Dialectic: The Explanation of a Possibility , Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Priest, Graham, 1985, “Inconsistencies in Motion”, American Philosophical Quarterly , 22(4): 339–346.
• –––, 1989, “Dialectic and Dialetheic”, Science and Society , 53(4): 388–415.
• –––, 1997 [2006], In Contradiction: A Study of the Transconsistent , expanded edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press; first edition, Martinus Nijhoff, 1997.
• Popper, Karl R., 1940, “What is Dialectic?”, Mind , 49(196): 403–426. (This article was reprinted, with some changes, in two different editions of Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge , listed below.)
• –––, 1962, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge , New York: Basic Books.
• –––, 2002, Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge , second edition, London: Routledge Classics.
• –––, 2013, The Open Society and its Enemies , Princeton: Princeton University Press. (This is a one-volume republication of the original, two-volume edition first published by Princeton University Press in 1945.)
• Rosen, Michael, 1982, Hegel’s Dialectic and its Criticism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Rosen, Stanley, 2014, The Idea of Hegel’s “Science of Logic” , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Singer, Peter, 1983, Hegel , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Solomon, Robert C., 1983, In the Spirit of Hegel: A Study of G.W.F. Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit” , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Stace, W.T., 1955 [1924], The Philosophy of Hegel: A Systematic Exposition , New York: Dover Publications. (This edition is a reprint of the first edition, published in 1924.)
• Stewart, Jon, 1996, “Hegel’s Doctrine of Determinate Negation: An Example from ‘Sense-certainty’ and ‘Perception’”, Idealistic Studies , 26(1): 57–78.
• –––, 2000, The Unity of Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit”: A Systematic Interpretation , Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
• Taylor, Charles, 1975, Hegel , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Wandschneider, Dieter, 2010, “Dialectic as the ‘Self-Fulfillment’ of Logic”, translated by Anthony Jensen, in The Dimensions of Hegel’s Dialectic , Nectarios G. Limmnatis (ed.), London: Continuum, pp. 31–54.
• Westphal, Kenneth R., 2003, Hegel’s Epistemology: A Philosophical Introduction to the “Phenomenology of Spirit” , Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.
• Winfield, Richard Dien, 1990, “The Method of Hegel’s Science of Logic ”, in Essays on Hegel’s Logic , George di Giovanni (ed.), Albany, NY: State University of New York, pp. 45–57.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Hegel on Dialectic , Philosophy Bites podcast interview with Robert Stern
• Hegel , Philosophy Talks preview video, interview notes and recorded radio interview with Allen Wood, which includes a discussion of Hegel’s dialectics

Aristotle | Aristotle, General Topics: logic | Fichte, Johann Gottlieb | Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich | Hume, David | Kant, Immanuel | Plato

Copyright © 2020 by Julie E. Maybee < julie . maybee @ lehman . cuny . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

Chapter 11: Developing a Convincing Argument

11.2 Dialectics

Learning Objectives

• Explain the components, practice, and benefits of dialectical thinking
• Conduct a dialect discussion to consider other points of view on your topic

As you read in Section 10.3: Being Critical , a strong persuasive essay will respectfully identify and discuss perspectives of the same topic. When you do this, you are presenting a well-rounded and complete discussion to your reader that shows you have critically thought about the topic and have been selective in choosing your points. As a result, there is a higher probably that you will convince your reader . The process of looking at multiple sides of a topic is called dialectics .

Dialectics is the act of using logical reasoning to combine, juxtapose, or synthesize opposing ideas to arrive at a strong conclusion.

The Components of Dialectics To begin the dialectic process, you first need to come up with an idea of what topic will be discussed; this is the thesis behind the discussion. Once you have determined your thesis, through various methods (the easiest being discussion with someone else), you will explore opposing sides to the topic, eventually discovering at least one antithesis . Combining those two perspectives, you can then make your own conclusions. Maybe this process will result in you standing by the original thesis, or maybe the antithesis is incredibly convincing and you will switch sides of the argument, or maybe you still believe the original thesis but accept there are other conditions that have credibility as well. This end result is called the synthesis : the blending of ideas. Essentially, the process would look like this:

Considering both your thesis and the discovered antithetical perspectives will help you to arrive at a wider view of a topic: one that has more credibility. Looking back to the persuasive essay samples you read in Section 10.4 and discussed in Self – Practice Exercise 11.5 , consider to what degree the authors acknowledged opposing views. How did they justify their opinions? Consider how integrating dialectics into each of those arguments to a greater degree would have strengthened their points of view, ultimately making their arguments more convincing.

Self-Practice Exercise 11.6

H5P:  Integrating Dialectics

Reviewing the Argument

Based on the thesis “Governments use capital punishment as an effective tool for deterring violent crime,” answer the following questions.

• What is your stance on this statement? To what extent do you agree/disagree?
• List all the ideas you can think of that would support your stance on the statement.
• List all the ideas you can think of that would counter your stance on the statement.

Embracing Perspectives

Discuss your answers with a partner (if you’re not in class, enlist a trusted friend). Can you expand either list based on what your partner has to say? Make those notes below.

After coming up with and considering the other perspective, has your point of view changed at all?

Do you still stick by your same point of view 100 percent? Or do you concede that there are valid points from the other perspective?

Self-Practice Exercise 11.7/Discussion 3

H5P:  Dialectics

Reviewing Your Notes

For this exercise, you will need the work you did for Self-Practice Exercise 11.4. In addition, you might find it helpful to review Self-Practice Exercise 11.6 in order to remind yourself of what dialectic work looks like.

• Make a list of all the information you have that supports your thesis.
• Using your dialectic skills, work with a partner in class (or a trusted friend outside of class) to think through your position and any possible counter positions. Note what you learn from your discussions about the other side of the argument below.
• Did doing this exercise change your original point of view at all? Is there anything you can make concessions on being valid?

Revising Your Work

Doing this exercise may have changed your working thesis statement. Redraft your central argument below.

Now, revise your outline, using one or two of the counter points and incorporating them into your argument.

Writing for Success - 1st Canadian H5P Edition Copyright © 2021 by Tara Horkoff is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

ESSAY SAUCE

FOR STUDENTS : ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF A GOOD ESSAY

Guide: How to write a Dialectic essay

Guide details:.

• Subject area(s): Types of essay
• Reading time: 4 minutes
• Price: Free download
• Published: 25 July 2024*
• Last Modified: 31 July 2024
• File format: Text
• Words: 1,193 (approx)
• Number of pages: 5 (approx)
• Tags: Guides

Text preview of this guide:

This page of the guide has 1,193 words. Download the full version above.

The dialectic essay is typically used in philosophy to explore the whole range of perspectives about a philosophical stance. Students often tend to endorse one opinion without being able to see the merits of the opposition’s point of view. For example, if the student is against abortion, they may be unable to understand why the opposition feels that the right to choose is important. The dialectic essay forces the student to consider the opposing side’s opinion. Elements of the dialectic essay are also used in the basic argumentative essay because the structure allows the writer to refute the opposition’s argument.

Tone and Audience

The audience of the essay consists of people who have an opinion about the philosophical issue. Some of the audience may agree with the writer’s thesis, whereas others may espouse the opposing viewpoint. Because the audience has a mix of opinions, the writer should strive for a fair and balanced tone that does not use emotional appeals or inflammatory language. Maintaining an objective and respectful tone ensures that the essay appeals to a broad audience and encourages thoughtful consideration of the arguments presented.

Basic Structure

The basic structure of the dialectic essay has three main parts:

• The Thesis: In the first portion, the writer presents their opinion and supports it with sources and examples. This section sets the stage for the discussion and lays out the writer’s initial stance.
• The Antithesis: After the writer has made their case, they present the opposition’s argument. This section requires the writer to step into the shoes of their opponents and present their arguments as convincingly as possible.
• The Synthesis: Finally, the writer either refutes the opposition’s argument, accepts part of the opposition’s argument and refutes part of it, or abandons their original argument in favor of the opposition’s argument. This nuanced conclusion helps the writer synthesize the arguments and reach a balanced perspective.

This structure is similar to that of a traditional argumentative essay , but with some major differences. The argumentative essay also includes the opposing side’s opinion, but the intent of including their viewpoint is to strengthen the original argument by knocking holes in the opposition’s position. The writer of an argumentative essay never ends the essay having changed their opinion, as they can in a dialectic essay. This openness to changing one’s mind is a hallmark of the dialectic essay and reflects a deeper engagement with the philosophical debate.

Introduction and Thesis

The introduction of the dialectic essay provides background for the philosophical argument. It may or may not use outside sources. The thesis of the essay states a position that the author endorses, such as “Abortion should be illegal.” The introduction should set the context for the debate, briefly explaining why the issue is significant and outlining the main points that will be discussed. For example, the introduction might mention the ethical, legal, and social dimensions of the abortion debate, setting up the detailed exploration that will follow.

Supporting Paragraphs

The supporting paragraphs present evidence for the writer’s argument. Like the introduction, the assignment may ask the student to use outside support, or it may ask the student to use hypothetical examples to support the point. Each paragraph should focus on a specific aspect of the argument, providing detailed reasoning and evidence. For instance, in the abortion essay, one paragraph might discuss the moral implications of abortion, using philosophical theories such as Kantian ethics or utilitarianism to support the writer’s stance. Another paragraph might present legal arguments, referencing court cases and legal precedents.

Presenting The Opposition’s Argument

After the writer’s complete argument and the supporting evidence are presented, the writer presents the opposition’s objections to the argument. The author must present this argument in a fair and balanced manner, striving to avoid emotional language. This section should be as robust as the supporting paragraphs, demonstrating that the writer understands and respects the opposing viewpoint. For example, the writer might discuss the arguments for the right to choose, including bodily autonomy and women’s rights, citing relevant philosophical and legal sources. Presenting these arguments thoroughly shows that the writer has engaged deeply with the topic and considered multiple perspectives.

In the conclusion, the writer decides which opinion is valid, or if a mixture of both is valid. If the writer continues to avoid their original opinion, they should present evidence that supports their position, even in light of the opposition’s argument. If the author accepts the opposition’s argument, they must explain why their opinion was changed. If they move to an undecided position or accept parts of each argument, the author must also explain that position.

For instance, in the abortion essay, the writer might conclude by affirming their original stance against abortion but acknowledging the importance of women’s rights and suggesting potential compromises, such as stricter regulations rather than an outright ban. Alternatively, the writer might decide that the right to choose is more compelling and explain how the process of writing the essay led to this change in perspective.

Practical Examples

To further illustrate the dialectic essay, let’s consider a few practical examples:

• Capital Punishment: Suppose the thesis is “Capital punishment should be abolished.” The supporting paragraphs might discuss the ethical implications, such as the potential for executing innocent people and the moral arguments against taking a life. The opposition’s argument might present the idea that capital punishment deters crime and provides justice for victims. The conclusion might synthesize these views, perhaps suggesting reforms to the justice system to prevent wrongful executions while maintaining some form of capital punishment for the most heinous crimes.
• Climate Change Policies: If the thesis is “Government regulations are essential to combat climate change,” the supporting paragraphs could provide evidence of environmental damage and the effectiveness of regulations in reducing emissions. The opposition’s argument might focus on the economic impact of such regulations and the potential for innovation in the private sector to address climate change. The conclusion might acknowledge the economic concerns but argue that the urgency of climate change necessitates government intervention, proposing a balanced approach that includes both regulations and incentives for private innovation.
• Universal Basic Income (UBI): For a thesis like “Universal Basic Income should be implemented,” the supporting paragraphs might highlight the benefits of UBI, such as reducing poverty and providing financial stability. The opposition’s argument could address concerns about the cost of UBI and its potential to discourage work. The conclusion might explore a middle ground, such as pilot programs to test the feasibility of UBI and adjustments based on the outcomes.

The dialectic essay is a powerful tool for exploring philosophical issues in depth. By considering both sides of an argument and being open to changing one’s perspective, writers can develop a more nuanced understanding of complex issues. The structure of the dialectic essay, with its emphasis on presenting and refuting opposing arguments, encourages critical thinking and intellectual honesty. By carefully planning, presenting balanced arguments, and thoughtfully concluding, writers can create compelling dialectic essays that contribute meaningfully to philosophical discourse.

...(download the rest of the guide above)

Discover more:

Recommended for you.

• How to Write an APA Paper
• How to write a literary essay
• How to write a 5 paragraph essay

About this guide:

This is a free guide to help you with your studies.

Essay Categories:

• Accounting essays
• Architecture essays
• Business essays
• Computer science essays
• Criminology essays
• Economics essays
• Education essays
• Engineering essays
• English language essays
• Environmental studies essays
• Essay examples
• Finance essays
• Geography essays
• Health essays
• History essays
• Hospitality and tourism essays
• Human rights essays
• Information technology essays
• International relations
• Leadership essays
• Linguistics essays
• Literature essays
• Management essays
• Marketing essays
• Mathematics essays
• Media essays
• Medicine essays
• Military essays
• Miscellaneous essays
• Music Essays
• Nursing essays
• Philosophy essays
• Photography and arts essays
• Politics essays
• Project management essays
• Psychology essays
• Religious studies and theology essays
• Sample essays
• Science essays
• Social work essays
• Sociology essays
• Sports essays
• Types of essay
• Zoology essays

Encyclopedia

Writing with artificial intelligence.

Dialectic is the process of reasoned dialog and logical analysis . Argument is a form of dialect.

Synonyms: Debate, Rational Discourse, Legal Analysis, Scholarship as a Conversation

People engage in dialectics (spoken dialog or written dialog with others)

• when they debate one another in face-to-face situations
• when they use logical reasoning to debate interpretations of events and texts.
• when they engage in logical reasoning about opposing ideas, topics , theses/research questions , research methods–and so on.
• when they engage in Information Literacy practices, particularly Critical Literacy , summary , paraphrase , and citation .

Dialectics is sometimes referred to as  the ceaseless debate –a recurring cycle of interpretation and reinterpretation.

Legal discourse is built on the foundation of dialectics–the notion that logos rather than pathos or ethos should be used to vet truth claims.

Brevity - Say More with Less

Clarity (in Speech and Writing)

Coherence - How to Achieve Coherence in Writing

Flow - How to Create Flow in Writing

Inclusivity - Inclusive Language

The Elements of Style - The DNA of Powerful Writing

Recommended

Academic Writing – How to Write for the Academic Community

Structured Revision – How to Revise Your Work

Professional Writing – How to Write for the Professional World

Credibility & Authority – How to Be Credible & Authoritative in Research, Speech & Writing

Citation Guide – Learn How to Cite Sources in Academic and Professional Writing

Page Design – How to Design Messages for Maximum Impact

Suggested edits.

• Please select the purpose of your message. * - Corrections, Typos, or Edits Technical Support/Problems using the site Advertising with Writing Commons Copyright Issues I am contacting you about something else
• Your full name
• Your email address *
• Page URL needing edits *
• Name This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Other Topics:

Citation - Definition - Introduction to Citation in Academic & Professional Writing

• Joseph M. Moxley

Explore the different ways to cite sources in academic and professional writing, including in-text (Parenthetical), numerical, and note citations.

Collaboration - What is the Role of Collaboration in Academic & Professional Writing?

Collaboration refers to the act of working with others or AI to solve problems, coauthor texts, and develop products and services. Collaboration is a highly prized workplace competency in academic...

Genre may reference a type of writing, art, or musical composition; socially-agreed upon expectations about how writers and speakers should respond to particular rhetorical situations; the cultural values; the epistemological assumptions...

Grammar refers to the rules that inform how people and discourse communities use language (e.g., written or spoken English, body language, or visual language) to communicate. Learn about the rhetorical...

Information Literacy - Discerning Quality Information from Noise

Information Literacy refers to the competencies associated with locating, evaluating, using, and archiving information. In order to thrive, much less survive in a global information economy — an economy where information functions as a...

Mindset refers to a person or community’s way of feeling, thinking, and acting about a topic. The mindsets you hold, consciously or subconsciously, shape how you feel, think, and act–and...

Rhetoric: Exploring Its Definition and Impact on Modern Communication

Learn about rhetoric and rhetorical practices (e.g., rhetorical analysis, rhetorical reasoning,  rhetorical situation, and rhetorical stance) so that you can strategically manage how you compose and subsequently produce a text...

Style, most simply, refers to how you say something as opposed to what you say. The style of your writing matters because audiences are unlikely to read your work or...

The Writing Process - Research on Composing

The writing process refers to everything you do in order to complete a writing project. Over the last six decades, researchers have studied and theorized about how writers go about...

Writing Studies

Writing studies refers to an interdisciplinary community of scholars and researchers who study writing. Writing studies also refers to an academic, interdisciplinary discipline – a subject of study. Students in...

Featured Articles

Newest Articles

• Exploring the Role of Research Design and Methodology
• Writing Essays and Articles on Philosophy
• Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Idealism: The History and Concepts of a Modern Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Theory of Forms
• Epistemology
• Materialism
• Moral relativism
• Utilitarianism
• Virtue ethics
• Normative ethics
• Applied ethics
• Moral Psychology
• Philosophy of art
• Philosophy of language
• Philosophy of beauty
• Nature of Art
• Philosophy of Film
• Philosophy of Music
• Deductive reasoning
• Inductive reasoning
• Justification
• Perception and Knowledge
• Beliefs and Truth
• Modern philosophy
• Romanticism
• Analytic philosophy
• Enlightenment philosophy
• Existentialism
• Enlightenment
• Ancient philosophy
• Classical Greek philosophy
• Renaissance philosophy
• Medieval philosophy
• Pre-Socratic philosophy
• Hellenistic philosophy
• Presocratic philosophy
• Rationalism
• Scholasticism
• Jewish philosophy
• Early Islamic philosophy
• Reasoning and Argumentation
• Seeking Justice After a Tractor-Trailer Accident: Why You Need an Experienced Lawyer
• Critical Thinking
• Fallacies and logical errors
• Skepticism and doubt
• Creative Thinking
• Lateral thinking
• Thought experiments
• Argumentation and Logic
• Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
• Fallacies and Rebuttals
• Inductive Reasoning and Analogy
• Reasoning and Problem-Solving
• Critical Thinking and Decision Making
• Creative Thinking and Problem Solving
• Analytical Thinking and Reasoning
• Philosophical Writing and Analysis
• Argumentative Writing and Analysis
• Interpreting Philosophical Texts
• Philosophical Research Methods
• Qualitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Quantitative Research Methods in Philosophy
• Research Design and Methodology
• Ethics and Morality
• Aesthetics and Beauty
• Metaphysical terms
• Ontological argument
• Ethical terms
• Aesthetic terms
• Metaphysical theories
• Kant's Categorical Imperative
• Aristotle's Four Causes
• Plato's Theory of Forms
• Hegel's Dialectic
• Ethical theories
• Aesthetic theories
• John Dewey's aesthetic theory
• Immanuel Kant's aesthetic theory
• Modern philosophical texts
• Foucault's The Order of Things
• Descartes' Meditations
• Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
• Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
• Ancient philosophical texts
• Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
• Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
• Plato's Republic
• Ancient philosophers
• Modern philosophers
• Modern philosophical schools
• German Idealism
• British Empiricism
• Ancient philosophical schools
• The Skeptic school
• The Cynic school
• The Stoic school
• The Epicurean school
• The Socratic school
• Philosophy of Language
• Semantics and Pragmatics of Language Usage
• Analytic-Synthetic Distinction
• Meaning of Words and Phrases
• Philosophy of Science
• Scientific Realism and Rationalism
• Induction and the Hypothetico-Deductive Model
• Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
• Philosophy of Mind
• Mind-Body Dualism and Emergentism
• Materialism and Physicalism
• Identity Theory and Personal Identity
• Philosophy of Religion
• Religious Pluralism and Exclusivism
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering
• Religious Experience and Faith
• Metaphysical Theories
• Idealism and Realism
• Determinism, Fatalism, and Libertarianism
• Phenomenalism and Nominalism
• Epistemological Theories
• Intuitionism, Skepticism, and Agnosticism
• Rationalism and Empiricism
• Foundationalism and Coherentism
• Aesthetic Theories
• Formalist Aesthetics, Emotional Aesthetics, Experiential Aesthetics
• Relational Aesthetics, Sociological Aesthetics, Historical Aesthetics
• Naturalistic Aesthetics, Immanent Aesthetics, Transcendental Aesthetics
• Ethical Theories
• Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism, Deontology
• Subjectivism, Egoism, Hedonism
• Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, Care Ethics
• Metaphysical Terms
• Cause, Necessity, Possibility, Impossibility
• Identity, Persistence, Time, Space
• Substance, Attribute, Essence, Accident
• Logic and Argumentation Terms
• Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction, Induction
• Inference, Validity, Soundness, Refutation
• Premise, Conclusion, Entailment, Contradiction
• Epistemological Terms
• Perception and Knowledge Claims
• Infallibility, Verifiability, Coherence Theory of Truth
• Justification, Beliefs and Truths
• Ethical Terms
• Modern Texts
• A Vindication of the Rights of Woman by Mary Wollstonecraft
• Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche
• The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant
• Medieval Texts
• The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides
• The Summa Theologiae by Thomas Aquinas
• The Incoherence of the Incoherence by Averroes
• Ancient Texts
• The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle
• The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero
• The Republic by Plato
• Hegel's Dialectic: A Comprehensive Overview
• Philosophical theories

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's dialectic is one of the most influential philosophical theories of the modern era. It has been studied and debated for centuries, and its influence can be seen in many aspects of modern thought. Hegel's dialectic has been used to explain a wide range of topics from politics to art, from science to religion. In this comprehensive overview, we will explore the major tenets of Hegel's dialectic and its implications for our understanding of the world. Hegel's dialectic is based on the premise that all things have an inherent contradiction between their opposites.

It follows that any idea or concept can be understood through a synthesis of the two opposing forces. This synthesis creates a new and higher understanding, which then leads to further progress and development. Hegel's dialectic has been used in many different fields, from philosophy to economics, and it provides an important framework for understanding how our world works. In this article, we will explore the historical origins and development of Hegel's dialectic. We will also examine its application in various fields, from politics to art, from science to religion.

Finally, we will consider the implications of Hegel's dialectic for our understanding of the world today. Hegel's dialectic is a philosophical theory developed by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel in the early 19th century. It is based on the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis , which are steps in the process of progress. The thesis is an idea or statement that is the starting point of an argument. The antithesis is a statement that contradicts or negates the thesis.

The synthesis is a combination of the two opposing ideas, which produces a new idea or statement. This process can be repeated multiple times, leading to an evolution of ideas. Hegel's dialectic has been used in many fields, such as politics and economics . It has been used to explain how ideas progress through debate and discussion.

In politics, it has been used to explain how different points of view can lead to compromise or resolution. In economics, it has been used to explain how different economic theories can lead to new solutions and strategies. Hegel's dialectic can also be applied to everyday life. For example, it can be used to resolve conflicts between people or groups.

Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis

Thesis and antithesis are two conflicting ideas, while synthesis is the result of their interaction. The dialectic process is a way of understanding how the world works, as it helps to explain the constant flux of ideas and events. It also helps to explain how change and progress are possible. Thesis and antithesis can be thought of as two sides of a coin. One side represents an idea or opinion, while the other side represents its opposite.

When the two sides come together, they create a synthesis that incorporates both sides. This synthesis can then be used to create new ideas or opinions. The dialectic process can be applied in various contexts, such as politics and economics. In politics, it can be used to explain how different factions come together to create policies that are beneficial to all parties. In economics, it can be used to explain how supply and demand interact to create a stable market. Hegel's dialectic can also be used in everyday life.

Applications of Hegel's Dialectic

For example, in the political sphere, it can be used to explore how different ideologies can be reconciled or how compromises can be reached. In economics, Hegel's dialectic has been used to explain the process of economic growth and development. It can be seen as a way of understanding how different economic systems interact with each other and how different economic actors are affected by changes in the marketplace. For example, it can help to explain how different economic policies can lead to different outcomes. Hegel's dialectic has also been applied to other social sciences, such as sociology and anthropology. In particular, it has been used to explore how different social systems interact with each other and how different social groups are affected by changes in their environment.

Using Hegel's Dialectic in Everyday Life

This process can be used to explain how various aspects of life, such as career or relationships, evolve over time. Thesis represents an idea or concept, while antithesis represents the opposite of that idea or concept. Synthesis is the resolution between the two opposing forces. This process is repeated until a conclusion is reached.

For example, in a career conflict between two people, one might present an idea while the other presents the opposite idea. Through discussion and negotiation, the two parties can come to a synthesis that meets both their needs. Hegel's dialectic can also be used to resolve conflicts between groups of people. It involves each party presenting their ideas and opinions, then engaging in dialogue to reach a compromise or agreement.

This process can be applied to any area of life, from politics and economics to relationships and personal growth. It helps to create understanding and respect between different perspectives, allowing everyone to come together in a meaningful way. By understanding and applying Hegel's dialectic in everyday life, we can better navigate our relationships and interactions with others. Through dialogue, negotiation, and compromise we can work towards resolutions that benefit all parties involved.

In economics, it has been used to explain how market forces interact with each other and how different economic theories can be used to explain the same phenomenon. The dialectic has also been used in other fields such as philosophy, science, and psychology. In philosophy, it has been used to explain the relationship between theory and practice and how theories evolve over time. In science, it has been used to explain the relationship between empirical evidence and logical reasoning.

This theory can be applied to any area of life, from career to relationships. The core of Hegel's dialectic involves the concept of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis, which is a way of understanding how ideas evolve over time. In this way, the dialectic helps to identify contradictions in a situation and find a resolution through synthesis. In terms of its application to everyday life, the dialectic can be used to find common ground between two opposing sides. For example, if two people are in disagreement, the dialectic can help them identify the underlying issues and then work to resolve them.

Additionally, it can help individuals and groups identify areas where they have common interests, which can lead to more productive conversations and outcomes. The dialectic is also useful in understanding how different perspectives can lead to different solutions. By recognizing different points of view, individuals and groups can gain insight into why certain solutions may not work for everyone involved. This can help to create a more productive environment for collaboration. Finally, the dialectic can be used as a tool for self-reflection. By understanding how different ideas evolve over time and how different perspectives interact, individuals can gain insight into their own views and values.

For example, it can be used to explain the development of a new policy proposal or a new form of government. In economics, Hegel's dialectic can be used to explain the dynamics of supply and demand, or the emergence of a new economic system. In addition, Hegel's dialectic has been applied in other areas, such as education and religion. In education, this theory can be used to explain the process of learning and understanding new concepts. In religion, it can be used to explain the evolution of religious beliefs and practices over time.

This is followed by a synthesis of the two, which creates a new, higher form of understanding. This new understanding then forms the basis for further analysis, which can lead to further synthesis and resolution. Hegel's dialectic can be applied to any area of life, such as career or relationships. For example, if two people have different approaches to a problem, they can use the dialectic to work together to find a solution that works for both of them.

This could involve identifying their respective points of view and then looking for common ground where they can agree. As the synthesis forms, it can provide a basis for further discussion, which may eventually lead to a resolution. The same process can be used to resolve conflicts between groups, such as political parties or countries. By recognizing each side's point of view and then looking for common ground, it is possible to find ways to bridge the divide between them.

This can help create an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect, which can lead to constructive dialogue and positive outcomes. Hegel's dialectic is a valuable tool for helping people and groups come to agreement and harmony despite their differences. By recognizing both sides' points of view and then looking for common ground, it is possible to create a synthesis that can provide a basis for further discussion and resolution. Hegel's dialectic is a powerful philosophical tool that helps to explain how ideas evolve over time. Through the concept of thesis, antithesis and synthesis, it provides a framework for understanding how opposing forces interact and ultimately create new ideas and solutions.

This theory has been applied to many areas, such as politics and economics, and can be used in everyday life. The article has provided a comprehensive overview of Hegel's dialectic and its various applications.

Top Articles

• Understanding Existentialism: A Brief Introduction

• Foundationalism and Coherentism: An Overview

• Lateral Thinking: An Overview
• Exploring Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil
• Understanding Utilitarianism: A Guide
• Exploring Plato's Theory of Forms
• Exploring the Philosophy of Immanuel Kant
• Exploring the Analytic-Synthetic Distinction in Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Art: Exploring Aesthetics and Beauty
• Exploring Expression: A Philosophical and Aesthetic Overview
• The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring the Philosophy of Beauty
• Induction and the Hypothetico-Deductive Model: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring the Life and Works of David Hume
• Philosophy of Film: Exploring Aesthetics and Types of Philosophy
• Understanding Inference, Validity, Soundness, and Refutation
• Materialism and Physicalism: Exploring the Philosophical Concepts
• Analytic Philosophy: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Syllogisms and Deductive Reasoning
• Exploring Social Contract Theory, Natural Law Theory, and Care Ethics
• Analytic Philosophy: A Primer
• Exploring the Phenomenon: A Philosophical and Metaphysical Investigation
• Exploring the Theory of Forms: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Aesthetic Theories: Formalism, Emotionalism and Experientialism
• The Stoic School: An Overview
• Exploring Cosmology: What We Know and What We Don't
• Virtue Ethics: What it is and How it Works
• Exploring Plato's Republic
• Understanding Virtue Ethics, Utilitarianism and Deontology
• Early Islamic Philosophy
• Idealism and Realism: A Philosophical Comparison
• A Comprehensive Overview of Kant's Categorical Imperative
• Exploring the History and Impact of Empiricism
• Exploring 'The Summa Theologiae' by Thomas Aquinas
• A Comprehensive Overview of Foucault's The Order of Things
• Aristotle: A Comprehensive Overview
• Understanding Inductive Reasoning
• Exploring Subjectivism, Egoism and Hedonism
• Exploring Skepticism and Doubt: A Philosophical and Critical Thinking Perspective
• Exploring Hellenistic Philosophy: An Introduction
• Exploring Rationalism and Empiricism
• Understanding Inductive Reasoning and Analogy
• Altruism: Exploring the Power of Selflessness
• Exploring Kant's Critique of Pure Reason
• An Introduction to Scholasticism and its Role in Medieval Philosophy

Exploring the Rationalism of Renaissance Philosophy

• Exploring Theology: A Comprehensive Overview

Understanding Fallacies and Rebuttals

• Exploring the Concept of Beauty
• Exploring Inference: A Philosophical Thinking Primer
• Exploring Theory-Ladenness and Underdetermination
• Understanding Utilitarianism
• Exploring Religious Pluralism and Exclusivism
• Exploring Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit
• Exploring Moral Psychology: A Closer Look
• The Art of Rhetoric by Cicero: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Pre-Socratic Philosophy: An Overview
• Understanding Fallacies and Logical Errors
• Exploring Virtue: A Philosophical and Ethical Perspective
• Deontology: An Introduction to an Ethical Theory
• Substance, Attribute, Essence, and Accident: A Philosophical and Metaphysical Overview
• Perception and Knowledge: An Overview
• Justification: A Comprehensive Overview
• Classical Greek Philosophy: A Comprehensive Overview
• Exploring Virtue Ethics: The Philosophical Theory
• Medieval Philosophy: An Overview
• Exploring Noumenon: A Philosophical and Metaphysical Overview
• A Comprehensive Overview of Presocratic Philosophy
• The Problem of Evil and Suffering: A Philosophical Exploration
• Epistemology: Understanding the Nature of Knowledge
• An Overview of Friedrich Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra
• Exploring the Concept of Idealism
• Understanding Deontology: Ethics and Principles
• Exploring Identity, Persistence, Time, and Space
• Exploring the Skeptic School of Ancient Philosophy
• Exploring Aristotle's Four Causes
• The Cynic School: An In-depth Look
• Exploring Infallibility, Verifiability, and the Coherence Theory of Truth
• Exploring Egoism: What It Is and What It Means
• Understanding the Meaning of Words and Phrases
• Exploring the Socratic School: An Overview
• Explore The Epicurean School of Ancient Philosophy
• Exploring Jewish Philosophy
• Philosophy of Music: Exploring the Aesthetics of Sound
• Understanding Utilitarianism: An Overview
• Comparing Analogy, Syllogism, Deduction and Induction

Exploring Ontology: A Comprehensive Overview

• Exploring the Life and Work of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
• Exploring Deductive Reasoning

New Articles

Which cookies do you want to accept?

• Our Services
• Free Essays
• Place an order 1 (888) 465-3440 1 (888) 414-0271 Live Chat

How to Write a Dialectical Essay?

How to Write a Dialectical Essay: Important Info

• How to Write a Dialectical Essay with a Powerful Conclusion

The Structure of Your Essay

• Dialectic Essay Sample

Buy Essays: Pay for Your Perfect Paper

If you are asked to write a dialectic essay, the process will require you to find a controversial topic for exploration. Because of this, it can help to begin by looking through articles in journals, newspapers, and on the Internet. This will enable you to collect sufficient information on the topic you intend to discuss. Remember to cite all materials properly and pay careful attention to the academic style or format you have been instructed to or chosen to use. 

It is possible you will find quite a bit of helpful information on the Internet about writing this type of essay. One of the most important factors is to choose reliable and credible websites. Additionally or alternatively, you are welcome to use the instructions provided below.

“How to write a dialectical essay?” is one of the frequently questions that many students try to find an answer to. The emphasis of such a type essay is in the presentation of the opposite points of view or attitudes concerning a certain issue and a bit different understanding of the problem under study. It implies objecting a specific technique and brainstorming with the key purpose to discover diverse ideas related to the chosen topic. The main essence of a dialectical essay is very controversial and essential. Throughout the process of writing, a person denies a specific fact or evidence, and presents controversial arguments. The key purpose of the author is to determine a novel objective of the well-known issue. The nature of the dialectical essay is very philosophical.

It should be noted that this written task requires fascinating preparation, knowledge, as well as experience. Like any other essay type, it has its peculiar characteristics. To satisfy all the content needs, it is imperative to keep to the tips given below. Primarily, the writer will face the need to do some research in order to determine new perspectives of the issue under study. To deliver am amazing dialectical essay, it is of great significance to be competent in the chosen topic, as well as knowledgeable about it.

The following assignment requires that students approach the problem utilizing various objectives. The essay is aimed at exploring a set of solutions instead of making emphasis on a specific one. Consider that whenever your teacher asks you to complete such an essay, it means that he / she is eager to estimate your thinking flexibility and creativity, as well as the skills aimed at clarifying the ideas or considerations regarding a specific subject or topic. A writer of a dialectical essay should discover both negative and positive aspects of the issue / problem and provide all the pros or cons concerning the chosen issue.

Useful Hints on How to Write a Dialectical Essay with a Powerful Conclusion

The structural elements assisting in writing a dialectical essay can be easily seen if you refer to dialectic essay examples available online, but we would like to focus on the most important of them in the article below.

There are essential constituents of the structure giving a clear explanation on how to write a dialectical essay. Take into account that the dialectic essay should comprise five paragraphs. Every of them has its peculiar features. The introduction one should include a thesis statement. The thesis statement may have two interpretations. Essentially, it should be formulated in such a way the writer may approach it from two different perspectives. Further, in the essay, it should provide the readers with the controversial ideas. The format of the introduction should be clear, short, informative, and eye-catching.

In an ordinary essay, the body is composed of two-three paragraphs, which can either support or deny the key thesis argument or point of view. On the contrast, the characteristics are different in a dialectic essay. After the introduction, there should be an argument paragraph. The task is to give one argument that supports the key thesis. It is possible to provide the readers with certain reasons, why it is worth supporting this key thesis.

The objection paragraph is supposed to be the next one. The task of the author here is to object the statements indicated in the precious paragraph. There is on the significant nuance that the author should be well aware. It should be stressed that the objective section does not have to comprise the sentences which content denies the thesis statement or doubts of its rightness.

The third paragraph of the body is referred to as a response. In the following part, the writer should respond to the statements indicated in the objection section of the essay. You ought to specify it clearly. Consider that you should not provide any novel arguments. You should present a critical approach in your essay.

The last element of a dialectical essay is the conclusion. The task of the author is to formulate the results of the debates presented in the work. The writer should take a decision which viewpoint is valid and reliable and should be paid attention to. Sometimes the composition of several points should be credible and reliable. Moreover, the writer should present some piece of evidence that supports her / his position, in some cases even through the prism of the opposing arguments. In case, when the writer changes his / her viewpoint, he /she should explain to the readers each point or consideration. The writer should provide some reasons, as well as defend her / his point of view throughout the essay.

Once the essay is ready, you should read it very carefully and make the final adjustments. It is of great significance that the conclusion ought to support the thesis statement, as well as the arguments presented in the essay. The opposing arguments ought not to deny the key statement of the essay. However, they should object the other pieces of argumentation provided in the dialectical essay.

Always keep in mind that a dialectical essay is a type of writing that approaches the set or chosen question from two different angles, which are opposite. The conclusion means the alternative viewpoint is based on the data looked into. The task of the author is to search for the disputes, contrasts, as well as oppositions. Then it is imperative to search for the key idea that will combine all those points and make it the most significant issue of your writing. While working on your dialectical essay, you should utilize your dialectical thinking. The structural characteristics of the dialectical essay allow combining the controversial viewpoints and make it look logically organized and full of sense.

There are a few techniques that can be applied during the writing process. You can utilize a con and pro collection grid. The following technique can help you arrange all of your points of view accordingly and avoid creating a mess in your work. Moreover, you can always apply the brainstorming technique in case you lack some ideas.

The format of the essay is also an important criterion affecting the quality of writing. It concerns citing, as well as plagiarism and editing issues. In the majority of cases, the dialectical essay should comprise about 600-800 words.

In case there is a necessity to clearly realize how to write a dialectical essay, you should not get worried or panic. Make sure that you know all its peculiar features, are well aware of the requirements, as well as have critical thinking. Without doubt, you will be able to prepare a dialectical essay of premium quality!

• Introductory Paragraph

The introduction paragraph should be used to introduce the topic of your essay. Usually, this includes:

• An overview of the topic you will be discussing in your essay
• A presentation of the various opinions on the topic you will be discussing.
• The main point that demonstrates why it is important to explore the particular topic you will be discussing. 
• Background Information

Provide your readers with any background information you think will be useful.

• Presentation of Your Viewpoint (First Part)

Identify the main point or idea of your paper and focus on this. You should use this section to provide as much powerful and reliable evidence as possible. This means presenting an opinion you will go on to support. Say why you believe your opinion is objective and valid. Provide information on any experts who agree with your chosen viewpoint.

• Presentation of Your Viewpoint (Second Part)

You should use this section to examine the main point or idea of the work you are exploring. Give a further opinion on the topic you are examining and make reference to others who support this. Offer a few well-reasoned arguments in support of this point of view.   

• Analysis of Any Opinion(s) You Present

Mention any opposing viewpoints and say why you think these are not valid. Analyze any arguments that support or oppose your viewpoint.

• Give Your Own Opinion

Give your own opinion on the topic. Towards the end, present any conclusion(s) you arrive at. Why have you taken a particular stance? Set out solid arguments to support your choice.

Do not overlook the importance of including any historical facts or information that is relevant to your topic’s development.

Pay attention to spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Try to make your essay or paper as gripping as possible. Establish whether your readers already know anything about the matter you are examining.  

It is essential to double-check the points listed below when writing a dialectic essay:

• Is the information you provided correct?
• Is your chosen topic sufficiently important or significant?
• Are people likely to act in the exact same manner in different circumstances or situations?

Is it important that everyone be treated equally?

Check Our Dialectic Essay Sample

Now when you have faced a problem of essay writing you clearly understand that a professional help would be very opportune. From the first sight it may seem unreal to find somebody ready to help you immediately. But it is far from the truth. EssaysLab.com offers you qualified assistance for your academic paper writing, here you can find anything you need – you can buy essays or order any other writing services. We understand the importance of such assignments and we do our best to provide you with the top quality essays.

• Fill in the order form, adding all the details about your Essay.
• Pay for the order and we receive a payment for it.
• You can contact our professional support team.
• Get your Essay which will result in an excellent grade.

Although essay writing is not a clear demonstration of your understanding of the subject it is still and it will always be an integral part of the school prospectus on different academic levels. It is one of the reasons why writing services have become so widespread and why it is so easy to buy essays online.

Without doubts you are able to write your essay paper on your own, but imagine how much time you can save and how better your result can be if you get a professional writing assistance.

We have also been students in we know the difficulties of written assignments. So many stages, each of them special and particular– developing a topic, thesis statement, researching information, proofreading and editing is a huge task. After you have tried to write articles on your own you may have understood that good essay writing is everything but simple.

Buy an essay and make your life easier, cooperate with us and get benefits. At EssaysLab.com you can find everything you need for writing– help, support, and writing tips and whole papers. Why spend hours reading, researching, writing without even having enough sleep, when you can buy an essay and solve this problem in a five minute period.

Why we claim to be one of the best writing services on the web? Well, it is not difficult to suggest it. We offer the most beneficial deals and we provide an attentive customer support. For us every client is important and special, and his/her needs constitute to our top priorities. We understand our customers and we try to support them in their desire to save money and get high quality assistance. That is why we have started this company – to help people. We know that we are able to assure the best services, and we do. From now you can forget about your writing problems, you can enjoy your weekends and sleep at nights while our experts will do all the work for you. Buy your essay now and make sure that we are the best!

• We’ll write any essay from scratch according to your instructions
• Prices start from only 11.99 $/page
• Placing an order takes 3 minutes
• All papers are plagiarism free

You May Find These Useful:

Buy Capstone Project Write a Response Paper Thesis Writing Services Buy Answer Questions

Read Reviews

I cannot say enough good things about EssaysLab.com, and I plan on having a very long relationship with this company.

An exceptional paper was produced by my assigned writer. This is the fourth paper from EssaysLab.com, and each has been a jewel. Thank you!

I am more than happy with the paper - delivered on time and just as I ordered!

Your editing staff is first-rate. I sent in two papers for review, with an urgent deadline, and my two editors had the tasks completed within 48 hours. And these were lengthy papers too! At any rate, what I got back was completely cleaned up, some parts totally rewritten, and I could submit them with confidence. Thanks for a great job!

How to Write a Dialectic Essay

What Is an Impressive Dialectic Essay?

When preparing your dialectic essay, you will be required to explore a controversial issue. For this reason, you should look through the articles on the Internet, in journals, or newspapers. In such a way, you will gather enough data about the discussed question. Do not forget to make proper citations paying attention to the chosen academic format.

You may find a lot of useful information on the web about preparing such kinds of essays. The most important thing is to use reliable websites. However, you may also follow the detailed instructions given below.

Paper Structure:

Introduction

The introductory paragraph presents the subject of the work. This section should include:

• The issue that is going to be discussed in the essay.
• Different opinions about the examined question.
• The point which will demonstrate the importance of exploring the chosen topic.

Background Details

Give readers useful information about the examined point.

Presenting the Point of View (Part 1)

Focus on the key idea of the paper. In this paragraph, you need to provide the most powerful evidence. It means that you should present the opinion which you support. Explain why you consider the stated opinion objective. Give information about the academicians who share the discussed point of view.

Presenting the Point of View (Part 2)

Here, you should examine the main idea of the work as well. Present one more opinion about the explored matter and indicate its supporters. Provide a few arguments to support this viewpoint.

Analyzing the Presented Opinion

State why the opposite point of view is poor. Analyze the arguments provided to support both viewpoints.

Personal Opinion

Present your personal point of view on the discussed topic. Provide your conclusion. Why do you take such a position? Put forward strong arguments to affirm your decision.

Bear in mind that it is necessary to mention historical factors that influenced the development of the matter.

Mind the grammar, punctuation, and spelling issues. Write a gripping paper. Find out whether readers know something about the examined question.

When preparing a dialectic essay, it is important to check the following points:

• Are the provided data correct?
• Is the covered topic significant?
• Should everyone be treated in the same way?
• What if people will act identically in different situations?

In the next paragraph, you need to present the opposing viewpoint, as well as the arguments of your opponents. This objection should refer to the previous argument, not to the thesis. In such a way, you will be able to transform your essay in a debate. Your reader will see that you acknowledge that there are several viewpoints but you can provide solid arguments opposing them.

In the following paragraph, you need to suggest a response to the objection. Pay attention that your response should be supported by strong evidence other than the one that was mentioned in the introduction. Although this paragraph continues your debate, you need to present new arguments.

In the last paragraph of your dialectic essay, you need to wrap up your and summarize your debate. Pay attention that you should not change your initial position and introduce new arguments.

How to Write an Impressive Dialectic Essay?

When you need to write a dialectic essay, pay attention that your main goal is not to provide a mere dispute but to present an in-depth investigation of your topic in which you will suggest several opposing viewpoints supporting them with solid evidence. In other words, a dialectic essay resembles a dialogue on a particular topic presented in the form of an academic essay. To please your reader, you need to focus on two contradictory arguments and discuss these viewpoints from different perspectives. What is more, you need to show the relation between these viewpoints. Writing a dialectic essay requires solid knowledge, as well as good analytical and synthesizing skills. Before you start working on this essay, you need to study the well-written samples of dialectic essays in order to find out how to develop your arguments, how to structure your ideas, etc. To create a truly good paper, you need to spend enough time on research and brainstorming as these stages are integral parts of the writing process.

If you want to create a perfect dialectic essay, you need to work with a perfect topic. Such a topic should provide you with room for discussion and be interesting for your reader. As such, you need to spend enough time selecting a subject that would match your research interests. If you think that you will be able to write a great dialectic essay in just a few hours before the deadline, you are mistaken. Given the intricate nature of this task, you will need to spend a few days or even weeks writing such an essay. Finally, to bring you a good grade, your paper should fully meet the requirements provided by your teacher.

If you have any difficulties with understanding how this essay should look like, you should not waste your time but get in touch with our reputed dialectic essay writing service . Having sufficient experience in writing dialectic essays, our writers will be able to cover any topic, even the most difficult one.

Writing a dialectic essay is a great challenge for a student having no sufficient skills and knowledge. If you are one of them, you should learn more about our customer-centered writing company that will help you improve your academic performance without spending an enormous amount of time and effort.

How to Choose a Good Writing Service?

If you are searching for a writing company with a brilliant reputation, you should be very careful. Unfortunately, there are a lot of scammers that offer unbelievably low prices but cannot provide high-quality papers. If you do not want to put your reputation at risk, you should try purchasing your paper at WeWriteOnline.com. This service is known as a trustworthy writing platform where all students can receive expert help with dialectic essay writing or any other academic task. Taking care of the needs of our clients, we provide all of them with many attractive benefits that turn our cooperation into a truly successful experience. In particular, you can be sure that at the end of our cooperation, you will receive a well-written essay that will be absolutely free from plagiarism. Besides, you can be sure that it will be delivered to your personal profile without any delays.

So, if the deadline is approaching and you do not have any idea how to write a dialectic essay, stop torturing yourself and place your order at our writing service. Having vast experience in academic writing, we know how to provide you with dialectic essay writing help that will exceed your expectations!

Buy Dialectic Essay at a Reliable Writing Platform Today!

If you do not want to compromise your academic reputation by submitting a low-quality essay, you have the only option – to purchase dialectic essay writing help at the online writing service. If you decide to try cooperate with WeWriteOnline.com, we will accompany you from the moment of placing the order until its submission. Our platform has a brilliant reputation in the writing industry for its fair treatment of customers’ needs, hard work, and a system of values that allows providing each client with exceptional quality and support. Choosing our writing service for ordering dialectic essay writing help, you will be absolutely satisfied with your decision because the paper written by one of our professionals will be not only an instrument for getting a good grade but also for improving your own writing skills. Once you place your order at WeWriteOnline.com, you will never look for others. Our company provides its customers with the most attractive price and quality ratio available in the writing industry.

Calculate your essay price

Place the first order and Get 15% Discount!

Feautured Posts

More from our blog

Our last posts.

Top Tips for Writing Chapters for a Thesis or Dissertation

In the process of writing dissertation chapters, it is essential that one clearly understands the fundamental principles of dissertation writing.

Detailed Report on a Scholarship Essay Writing

One should know that writing a superior scholarship essay requires considerable skills and efforts. If to take all papers that have ever won scholarships, it will be hard to define the specific feature that combines all of them.

First-Rate Informal Essay

A lot of people write diaries and keep a record of all the events that happen in their lives. In addition, many of us write different blogs as the social networking industry grows rapidly and such kind of activity becomes very popular.

Familiar Essay: Definition and Writing Recommendations

Usually secondary and high school students know nothing about familiar essays because it is considered as a challenging assignment.

How to Write a Marvelous Explanatory Essay

An explanatory essay, otherwise known as an expository essay, aims to suggest a certain viewpoint concerning some event, situation, policy, issue, etc.

Tips on How to Write an Analytical Essay

The structure of an analytic essay is as follows: An introductory paragraph Some main body paragraphs A concluding paragraph The Introductory Paragraph An introductory paragraph should be eye-catching and compelling.

Response Paper Writing Made Easier

In most cases, when you are working on a personal paper, you are expected to read a book, review an article, or watch a movie.

Five Paragraph Essay Help from Renowned Academic Writers

Five Paragraph Essay Help Is Right Here for You Many students find Google to be something magical – you just type into the search field some inquiry and get a plethora of results.

Evaluative Essay Writing

Defining an Evaluative Essay This is one of the types of essays aimed at revealing students’ analytical skills.

Useful Tips on Writing Drafts

What are drafts? It can be convenient to think there are two main stages to any writing task i.e. the first or initial draft and the end product.

What Is an Impressive Dialectic Essay? When preparing your dialectic essay, you will be required to explore a controversial issue.

Guide to Definition Essay Writing

The process of writing a definition essay is more intricate than merely providing the dictionary definition of a term or word.

Writing about Texts

Dialectic Note-taking

A dialectical approach to taking notes sounds much more complicated than it is. A dialectic is just a dialogue, a discussion between two (or more) voices trying to figure something out. Whenever we read new material, particularly material that is challenging in some way, it can be helpful to take dialectic notes to create clear spaces for organizing these different sets of thoughts.

Creating Dialectic Notes

Start by drawing a vertical line down the middle of a fresh sheet of paper to make two long columns.

The Left Column

This column will be a straightforward representation of the main ideas in the text you are reading (or viewing). In it, you will note things like

• What are the author’s main points in this section?
• What kind of support is the author using in this section?
• Other points of significant interest?
• Note the source and page number, if any, so that you can find and document this source later

You can   directly quote these points, but do write them down as you encounter them, not after the fact. If you quote directly, use quotation marks; if you paraphrase, do not use quotation marks. Be consistent so that you don’t make more work for yourself when you start writing your draft. For more guidance with writing summaries , paraphrasing , and quoting , see the “Drafting” section of this text.

The Right Column

The right column will be the questions and connections you make as you encounter this author’s ideas. This might include

• Questions you want to ask in class
• Bigger-picture questions you might explore further in writing
• Connections to other texts you’ve read or viewed for this class
• Connections to your own personal experiences
• Connections to the world around you (issues in your community, stories on the news, or texts you’ve read or viewed outside of this class)

Bottom of the Page

It is often a good idea to leave space at the bottom of the page (or on the back) for additional notes about this piece you may want to write down based on what your instructor has to say about it or for comments and questions your peers make about it during class discussion.

Once you’ve finished the text and have taken your dialectic notes while reading it, you might have something that looks a bit like this (for the sake of the example, I read a story I’d never read before from an author I’m familiar with, so you could see genuine reactions to a first read):

Once you have this set of dialectic notes, there are a number of ways you can use them. Here are a few:

• They can help you contribute to class discussion about this piece and the topics it addresses.
• Significant questions you encountered while reading are already written down and collected in one place so you don’t have to sift back through the reading to re-discover those questions.
• These notes provide a place where many of your observations and thoughts about the piece are already organized, which can help you see patterns and connections within those observations. Finding these connections can be a strong starting point for written assignments.
• If you are asked to respond to this piece in writing, these notes can serve as a reference point as you develop a draft. They can give you new ideas if you get stuck and help keep the original connections you saw when reading fresh in your mind as you respond more formally to that reading.

The Word on College Reading and Writing Copyright © by Carol Burnell, Jaime Wood, Monique Babin, Susan Pesznecker, and Nicole Rosevear is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

How To Write An Outstanding Dialectic Essay

Publication Date: 22 Apr 2019

A dialectic essay is a peculiar type of academic writing. Students of many disciplines aren’t required to write such paper simply because a dialectic essay is written in a polemic style. Indeed, not much can be argued upon in mathematics or physics while such disciplines as philosophy, sociology or politics do require a student to explore various subjects in a dialectic manner.

If you received such assignment as composing a dialectic essay and you’re not sure how to do it, you can find examples of good papers online or at the library and try writing an essay yourself. In case you don’t know whether the examples that you stumbled upon are quality ones, you can use professional essay writing service so that an expert writer could craft a paper for you and you could learn how it has to be done.

This article will show the basic peculiarities of composing such challenging paper as a dialectic essay so that you could craft a decent piece of writing and receive approval from your mentor.

A dialectic essay definition

A dialectic essay is a type of paper where you need to make a thesis and provide arguments and counter-arguments to test the main point and come up with a corresponding conclusion, usually the one, which supports the main thesis.

The purpose of a dialectic essay

The main idea behind writing a dialectic essay is to develop analytical skills in students and check how they can synthesize the information. When the subject is presented from different sides, it is important to find verity in both positive and negative aspects and come up with your own conclusion based on your exploration of the issue.

The structure of a dialectic essay

A traditional five- paragraph structure is the most suited for a dialectic essay. That is, the text should consist of an introduction, a three-paragraph body and a concluding section.

• Introduction

This part needs to be short and concise with a definition of the essay topic and the introduction of the thesis statement . Don’t give away too many details of a further discussion but try to catch reader’s attention so that he wants to read further and is eager to reveal the conclusion that you will come up with at the end of your essay.

• The body of an essay

Obviously, this part of the paper is the largest and it typically may consist of three paragraphs. Now you get a chance to elaborate on the subject and present all arguments that you gathered as a result of your research.

In the first paragraph, you need to state your argument and provide the reasons and pieces of evidence, which you gathered while researching various media such as articles, videos, websites, and so on. Whatever valid facts for the support of the thesis you’ve found, present them in this paragraph.

The second section needs to be dedicated to the counter-argument. The objection should refer to the point of view presented in the previous paragraph and not to the main thesis that needs to be viewed only as debatable.

The third paragraph is aimed at expressing your response to the objection in the previous paragraph. Be careful not to repeat yourself with the arguments, which you’ve already listed in the first body paragraph. What you need to do is to criticize the counter-argument of the second section.

In the concluding paragraph, you can either restate your initial thesis statement or present an updated thesis.

In the first case, you will be able to reiterate the initial idea with more certainty since you’ve already proven in the above analysis that the thesis in question is now verified.

In the second case, you can provide a new thesis, which should not be completely contradictory to your initial statement. It needs to be slightly updated as a result of the discussion presented in the essay.

Tips to consider when writing a dialectic essay

• The topic of your essay should be debatable enough for you to come up with a valid argument and a similarly viable objection.
• Keep in mind your audience and use the correct tone. The nature of a dialectic essay implies controversy so your tone needs to be persuasive and objective but never aggressive, offensive or condescending no matter whether you agree with one of the arguments or are completely against it.
• Whatever reasons you give, they need to be factual and clear. Steer away from presenting any dubious and subjective claims so that you could avoid any misunderstandings between those who support the thesis statement and those who object it.

Dialectic Essay Examples: Great Strategies for Effective Writing

As you may probably know, there are various types of academic essays. If you have not heard of dialectic essays before, you may look for dialectic essay examples on the net. As a student, you may be often asked to provide academic essays of different types. Therefore, it is essential to understand the difference between different essay types. As such, when you are assigned a dialectic essay, you need to take into consideration the structure and mode of organization. Read on and find out what a dialectic essay is.

A dialectic essay is a type of an argumentative debate or dialogue where it is important for a writer to formulate a thesis statement comprising of different “for” and “against” arguments (counterarguments are a must) that are aimed to support the thesis.

Why Do You Need to Write Dialectic Essays?

If you are given a task to submit a dialectic essay, you need to demonstrate your abilities and skills in clarifying and explaining your thoughts on a specific topic/ issue. With the help of dialectic essay writing, you can discuss a specific topic from different perspectives, where you take into account all its positive and negative aspects. If you look at some of dialectic essay examples, you will see that the conclusion is composed based on the analysis of the pros and cons of the topic discussion.

Dialectic Essay Structure

The organization is the same as of a classical five-paragraph essay. It is a must to have an introductory paragraph, body paragraphs, and conclusion. When developing the main body, which normally consists of three body paragraphs, you need to develop the argument in great detail. To put it simply, you need to elaborate on the argument presented in the thesis statement. Read on to find detailed information about the structure of dialectic essay examples.

• Introductory paragraph In the introduction, you have to present a thesis statement. In any case, you need to include both an argument and a counterargument when formulating the thesis. As such, you need to take into account two possible interpretations of the issue. Since you have to focus on both of the arguments, it is advisable to choose a controversial topic to make the essay more interesting.
• Presentation of the argument In the first body paragraph, present the argument and support it with solid reasons or expert opinion. Make sure the supporting evidence is strong enough so that the audience could agree with you.
• Presentation of the counterargument In the next paragraph, focus on the objection. Make sure the objection does not deny the thesis you have formulated (does not refute it or makes false) but only the argument mentioned in the previous paragraph. Provide reasons why the counterargument should also be considered and claimed true.
• Response In the third body paragraph, make sure to respond to the counterargument. It should be presented in a form of a debate. As such, respond to the objection. You do not need to present some new argument – merely respond to the counterargument presented in the second body paragraph.
• Conclusion In the conclusive paragraph, make sure to provide clear and strong support for the originally written thesis or provide a new one, which is frequently a combination of the argument and counterargument. As a rule, you should not provide a new argument that completely differs from what you have discussed in the paper.

Dialectic Essay Sample PDF

Writing and structuring a top-quality dialectic essay.

Introductory Paragraph

• This unit should provide a thesis statement. When choosing a topic, you need to remember that it should be based on your thesis statement which is to be interpreted at least in two different ways.
• The writer should examine a disputable question which requires providing arguments and facts to give the paper specific features.
• Remember that the introductory section of your paper should be neither very long nor very short. It should include only one paragraph presenting your thesis statement.
• An argument supporting your thesis should be presented in the first paragraph of your paper body. Then, it is required to discuss your thesis in a way that will make readers take your position.
• Do not forget that it is necessary to provide incontrovertible facts to prove your thesis statement.
• The data presented in this paragraph should oppose the information mentioned in the previous one.
• By stating an opposing opinion, you need to be very cautious not to present your thesis as a fake one.
• Number the points according to which your work contains invalid content. Try to make your paper disputable as if it presents controversial viewpoints expressed by two people.
• The third paragraph should give a proper answer to the posed question. Nevertheless, you should not impart the same facts as in the first paragraph of your work.
• In this section, you need to provide the arguments that would oppose the contradictory ones given in the second paragraph of your paper. Here, you are to critically analyze the second paragraph
• It is essential to keep in mind that a thesis statement has to be presented in the introduction. All the rest paragraphs should focus on different aspects of the topic.

Concluding Unit

• In this paragraph, you need to support your thesis. However, you may also present a new viewpoint. This section combines both supporting and opposing arguments.
• Do not alter your thesis statement completely. Show that you are ready to discuss new ideas.

You may also be interested in:

Ideas for best exploratory essay topics   scholarship essay    how to write a five paragraph essay   how to make an exploratory essay engaging.

University of Notre Dame

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

• Home ›
• Reviews ›

The Dimensions of Hegel's Dialectic

Nectarios G. Limnatis (ed.), The Dimensions of Hegel's Dialectic , Continuum, 2010, 276pp., $120.00 (hbk), ISBN 9781441109552.

Reviewed by Michael Morris, University of South Florida

In an apt description of the guiding purpose, intended audience, and intellectual context for this collection of essays, editor Nectarios G. Limnatis notes that, "despite the immense and steadily growing Hegel discussion, dialectic is not frequently addressed in a systematic and comprehensive way in the English speaking world" (3). Accordingly, this volume brings together a roughly equal number of contributions from European and American scholars, with the intention of fostering English-language discussion of this central but abstruse Hegelian topic. While some contributions directly connect this topic with recent trends in contemporary Anglophone philosophy, including themes from the works of Wilfred Sellars, Robert Brandom, and John McDowell, other essays situate Hegel's dialectic within more exotic traditions, including negative theology and Heideggerian discussions of onto-theology. Additionally, many essays provide helpful historical context, focusing on the relationship between Hegel's dialectic and various related themes in the works of Kant, Fichte, Hölderlin, Schelling, Reinhold, and Novalis.

This book implicitly raises an important question, one that highlights the significance of the essays it contains, while, at the same time, suggesting some specific challenges these essays must address. Limnatis's pointed observation raises the question: why has the dialectic received so little attention from Anglophone philosophers, particularly those steeped in the analytic tradition?

In part, the answer lies in the history of analytic philosophy itself. If we ignore the role played by distinctly continental traditions in the formation of analytic philosophy, including the work of Frege and the logical positivism of the Vienna Circle, then we might say that analytic philosophy emerged from Russell and Moore's rejection of the British Hegelianism of their elders, the philosophical systems of F.H. Bradley and John McTaggart. Among other things, this involved the rejection of holism, the embrace of realism, and the insistence upon the role of formal systems and linguistic analysis as the primary means for resolving traditional philosophical problems. At least since Quine's "Two Dogmas," however, various kinds of holism have enjoyed a resurgence, and the dominance of rigidly formal, logical, and linguistic approaches to philosophical problems has greatly declined. Moreover, historical scholarship has suggested significant differences between Berkeley's idealism, with its Cartesian starting point, and the more complex and nuanced idealisms of Kant and Hegel, thus correcting certain simplistic conceptions of idealism that can be found in Bradley, McTaggert, and their detractors. Finally, the recent works of McDowell, and the reemergence of certain strands of pragmatism, as represented in the works of Sellars, Rorty, and Brandom, have suggested potential connections between contemporary concerns and the themes of Hegelian philosophy.

However, even if holism, idealism, and non-formal approaches to philosophy now enjoy a more prominent place in the Anglophone world, there remains a potential stumbling block at the heart of Hegel's philosophy: namely, the dialectic, along with Hegel's peculiar conception of the role that contradiction plays within thought and within the very structures of reality itself. It is clear, of course, that contradiction plays an important role in philosophical thought. Insofar as logical coherence provides a necessary -- if not sufficient -- condition for a true philosophical system, philosophical progress often involves both the discovery of latent contradictions within our pre-philosophical assumptions as well as the evaluation of various suggestions for removing these contradictions. If dialectic simply involved the discovery of contradiction within one system of thought and the development of a successor system that eliminates these contradictions, then it would be wholly unobjectionable. However, as many authors in this collection rightly emphasize, contradiction plays a far more complex role in Hegel's dialectic. On the traditional view of philosophical progress already presented, contradictions play a purely negative and ultimately contingent role. Their role is negative, for they merely indicate that we hold some false belief(s). Likewise, their role is contingent, for thought could, in principle, exist without them.

By contrast, contradiction plays a positive and essential role in Hegel's conception of thought, a role that apparently reflects the existence of contradictions in the basic structure of reality itself. Hegel's texts are filled with remarks like the following: "a consideration of everything that is shows that in its own self everything is in its self-sameness different from itself and self-contradictory." [1] Any serious interpretation of Hegel's texts must grapple with repeated claims of this sort. As one contributor to this volume, Dieter Wandschneider, pointedly notes: "Hegel's objective-idealistic program is so closely tied to the possibility of dialectical logic that the program itself stands or falls thereon" (31). Dialectic is not an optional feature of Hegel's philosophy, one we might safely ignore or excise.

In relation to this perplexing topic, we can approach the essays in this volume in terms of three different questions. First, what leads Hegel to make contradiction a central theme in his philosophy? Second, what aspects or interpretations of the dialectic might allow us to avoid the unsettling conclusion that Hegel's philosophy flagrantly violates the principle of non-contradiction? Third, what does Hegel actually mean when he presents contradiction as an essential feature of thought and reality?

Two of the more interesting and helpful explanations for Hegel's interest in contradiction and dialectic come from the contributions of Klaus D ü sing and Dieter Heidemann, both of whom locate the roots of the dialectic in Hegel's early theological concerns. Like the friends of his youth, Schelling and Hölderlin, the young Hegel engaged in heterodox speculations about the ultimate but imminent unity of reality, about a pantheistic and non-personal god in the tradition of Spinoza. Discursive thought divides and distinguishes, and thus it cannot grasp a unity that is absolute and unconditioned. In its attempts to do so, discursive thought inevitably breaks down, becomes embroiled in contradiction, and thus ultimately points beyond itself to a unity without difference or distinction, one that can only be grasped through some kind of emotional experience, intellectual intuition, or form of faith. After considering the various phases of development during this early period, both D ü sing and Heidemann carefully examine both how and why Hegel's position evolved.

These essays have a nice complementarity: D ü sing focuses on the ontological aspects of this development while Heidemann considers its epistemological features. As Hegel's thought matured, he became increasingly dissatisfied with a conception of the divine as a unity without difference, distinction, or differentiation. He became dissatisfied with the epistemological priority of faith, emotion, or intuition over philosophical cognition. Thus he sought to develop a conception of unity that included difference, a form of cognition that transcended but also essentially relied upon discursivity. Among other things, this required the possibility of thinking contradiction.

Tom Rockmore and Limnatis's essays take a different approach, considering the dialect in terms of the self-reflective and essentially relational structures of subjectivity, particularly as presented in the Phenomenology of Spirit . The self or subject is essentially relational in at least a threefold sense. First, the self is never merely what it is, nor is it simply what it takes itself to be. Instead, it is the relation of what it is in itself to what it is for itself . Second, the self or subject always exists both in relation to and distinction from an objective world. Finally, the self always exists in relation to and distinction from other selves. While Rockmore's essay focuses on the circularity and dialectical progression that derives from the second of these relational features of the self, Limnatis considers the relation between the second and the third features, between the self's relation to an object and to other selves. Such essential relationality suggests at least one possible gloss on Hegel's claim that things (or subjects, in this case) are self-contradictory. If relations constitute a thing, then the essence of the thing also involves what the thing is not -- i.e. the relation that extends beyond the thing.

In yet another approach to this topic, Allen Speight's essay examines the dialectic in terms of the positive or constitutive role that skepticism plays in Hegel's conception of philosophical thought. Specifically, he focuses on the differences between ancient and modern skepticism, and he shows how Hegel's philosophy draws upon the questions, concerns, and techniques of the former variant of skepticism, not upon those of the later.

The contributions from Joseph Margolis, Markus Gabriel, Vittorio H ö sle, and Dieter Wandschneider present partial defenses or creative reconstructions of certain features of the dialectic. The most creative or non-standard interpretation comes from Margolis, who employs an admittedly reconstructed Hegel to defend Pierce's pragmatism and Cassirer's open-ended neo-Kantianism against the more contemporary variations of pragmatism presented in the works of Sellars and Brandom. Margolis accuses Sellars and Brandom of retaining vestiges of formalism in their conceptions of thought and logic. By contrast, Margolis's reconstructed Hegel holds that, "logic … emerges out of the contingent practices of cultural life and, reaching for inclusive closure, outstrips its seemingly assured capacity" (204-5). Logic is wholly material and historical, without any purely formal elements. Contradictions inevitably arise from the finitude of human thought, from our failure to grasp totality. Moreover, contradictions play a positive role, since they remind us of our finitude and prevent us from artificially closing off our current, incomplete systems of thought.

Interestingly enough, Gabriel presents a similar account of the dialectic, though he presents it as a faithful interpretation, not as a reconstruction. Gabriel seeks to defend Hegel against the Heideggerian charges of "onto-theology." He insists that Hegel's philosophical project precludes the possibility of finality, since the absolute, the end and ultimate ground of thought, cannot be defined without falsely transforming it into a thing.

Like Margolis, Hösle also engages the works of Sellars, Brandom, and McDowell. In contrast with Margolis and Gabriel, however, he presents a more traditional interpretation of Hegel as a metaphysical thinker who insists upon the ability of thought to grasp the fundamental nature of reality. H ö sle argues that Sellars, Brandom, and McDowell ignore the dialectical features of Hegel's thought, thus depriving themselves of possible resources for overcoming the contingency and relativism that threatens their anti-empiricist account of concepts. Systems of concepts, H ö sle insists, reflect the structure of reality to varying degrees. Following Kant, Hegel accepts that this reflective relation, which holds between concepts and reality, cannot simply be explained in terms of our passive or empirical receptivity to the very structure of reality itself, as presented in experience. Thought always plays an active and constructive role in the formation of experience and the concepts related to it. Nonetheless, the dialectical and progressive relationship between various systems of concepts allows us to overcome the contingency and relativism that would otherwise seem to be inherent in this anti-empiricist account of concepts.

Wandschneider's essay focuses directly on the nature and role of contradiction within the dialectic. In what he describes as a defensible reconstruction, not as a faithful interpretation, Wandschneider presents contradictions within the dialectic as cases of essential or constitutive semantic relations. Thus, despite their genuine difference, oppositional concepts, such as being and nothing, can only be grasped or conceived in their relational opposition. However, this semantic relation does not imply fundamental ambiguity, for Wandschneider holds that the meanings of being and nothing can still be fully disambiguated or distinguished. "Rightly understood," he insists, "there can be no talk of contradiction" (38).

Klaus Brinkmann's essay delves still further into the perplexing topic of dialectical contradictions. Focusing on the more ontological features of this topic, Brinkmann characterizes Hegel's view in terms of the existence or inclusion of opposites in one another. Brinkmann helpfully points out the asymmetry of this inclusion. Thus, for instance, while identity and difference are contained in one another, Brinkmann nonetheless suggests, albeit in terms that remain troublingly metaphorical, that identity is "stronger" than difference, that identity contains a kind of priority over difference. It is this priority, according to Brinkmann, that allows Hegel to avoid violating the principle of non-contradiction.

Perhaps the most insightful treatment of this problem comes in D ü sing's essay, which we have already considered in another respect. D ü sing locates the source of contradiction in what he describes as Hegel's "process ontology." If we ontologically prioritize actions or changes over the categories of substance or thing, then traditional approaches for conceiving change, such as the one proposed in Aristotle's Physics , become untenable. In one of the more perspicuous remarks about the source of contradiction within his philosophy, one that clearly supports D ü sing's approach, Hegel says: "The ancient dialecticians must be granted the contradictions that they pointed out in motion; but it does not follow that therefore there is no motion, but on the contrary, that motion is existent contradiction itself." [2] If reality is fundamentally dynamic and thus inherently contradictory, then thought, it seems, must somehow come to grasp or think that which is contradictory.

While most of the essays in this volume provide a sympathetic interpretation or defense of Hegel's dialectic, the contributions from Angelica Nuzzo and Elizabeth Millán take a more critical approach. Millán, for instance, favorably contrasts the philosophical open-endedness championed by Friedrich Schlegel and Novalis with what she takes to be the excessive commitment to systematicity inherent in Hegel's dialectical method. In her difficult but suggestive essay, Nuzzo argues that the assumptions and goals of Hegel's Science of Logic should have led him to begin that work with nothingness rather than with being. Moreover, she argues that the initial transition from nothing to being presents the non-dialectical movement whereby thought itself emerges from nothingness.

While admirable and ambitious in its intentions, this volume seems unlikely to elevate the topic of dialectic from its current state of neglect. For one thing, the fundamental disagreements among the volume's authors may serve to increase suspicions about what sometimes seems the hopelessly murky and endlessly ambiguous depths of Hegel's philosophy. Thus, while some authors insist upon the directionality and finality of the dialectic, others characterize the dialectic as essentially open-ended, contingent, and even historically relativistic. Similarly, while some authors construe Hegel as a fundamentally post-Kantian and thus post-metaphysical thinker, others present him as a metaphysician, albeit one who rejects transcendent metaphysics and traditional ontologies of substance.

Additionally, there is a wide range in the quality of the essays. The comprehension of some of the essays demands a high degree of care and attention, a degree of effort that goes unrewarded. Finally, it should be said that many, though not all, of the essays are written in a style and idiom drawn from the continental tradition, not in the more analytic style that continues to dominate much historical scholarship in the Anglophone world. While this more continental approach may be fully justified, given the style, subject matter, and Wirkungsgeschichte of Hegel's philosophy, it will not help to assuage the concerns and suspicions of many Anglophone philosophers, who may otherwise be sympathetic to broadly Hegelian ideas, nor, for that matter, is it likely to convince more analytically-oriented Hegel scholars to delve into this central but often ignored topic.

[1] Hegel, G.W.F. Science of Logic . Trans. A.V. Miller. Humanity Books, Amherst. p. 412.

• Essay Samples
• College Essay
• Writing Tools
• Writing guide

Creative samples from the experts

↑ Return to Essay Samples

Dialectic Essay: Are Teenagers Capable of Loving Intensely?

Introduction

Love between two teenagers refers to the chemical, emotional and psychological phenomena commonly described as love, but also that is overused to the point of lacking a truly definitive definition. Intense love is nothing more than a prolonged feeling of love that adds a whiff of compulsion into the mix. Compulsion is what skewers what would otherwise be known as sound common sense.

Thesis & Argument

Teenagers are unable to feel real love because they are not emotionally mature enough to feel it.

Objection to argument

Emotional maturity does not have a done-by date, and many people are never emotionally mature. Many people have multiple partners and feel love intensely for all of them. Others have trouble mustering love for just one partner and go through their life without ever feeling that they have had love. How could a person with no experience of love ever compare to a teenager who feels it?

Love is also not something that is specifically guided by emotional maturity. It is true that an emotionally mature person may not be so swept along by emotion and will be better equipped to deal with intense love, but emotional maturity is not a prerequisite for love.

Counter argument to the objection

Emotional immaturity is more common in younger people and so the feeling of real love is impossible. There may be older people who are emotionally immature, but that does not mean that all or most teenagers are emotionally mature. It actually agrees with the idea that emotional maturity within younger people is less likely. A teenager may grow into a person who is emotionally mature, but an emotionally mature older person is not going to grow into a love struck teenager.

Counter argument to the counter argument

People often realize their own opinion on love through what they learn from the first time they have their heart broken. Many people meet their first love in their teens and do not feel heartbreak until their late twenties and thirties. This would make love a situational-specific endeavor and not age-specific. Therefore, even though there are more emotionally immature teenagers, this does not mean that they cannot truly feel love. There is nothing that says their first impression with love is the one that they keep throughout their lives (even if they do not stay with the same partner all their lives).

Final and resounding argument

Generalization such as this is always flawed because there are too many factors at play. A person with Aspergers may become emotionally mature at the age of ten, and there are plenty of people who are emotionally immature up into their sixties. There are some people who appreciate love the first time they have it, whether they are in their teens or not, and there are people who never truly understand the meaning of love and that may be due to their first experience (or lack of), or they may even have come from a very unloving family. Generalization is the biggest flaw in this argument.

Follow Us on Social Media

Get more free essays

Send via email

Most useful resources for students:.

• Free Essays Download
• Writing Tools List
• Proofreading Services
• Universities Rating

Contributors Bio

Find more useful services for students

Free plagiarism check, professional editing, online tutoring, free grammar check.