“Right! Empedocles’ standpoint—which provided the compromise
between the two schools of thought—was what Hegel called the negation of
the negation.”
“What a terrible term!”
“He also called these three stages of knowledge thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis. You could, for example, say that Descartes’s rationalism was a
thesis—which was contradicted by Hume’s empirical antithesis. But the
contradiction, or the tension between two modes of thought, was resolved in
Kant’s synthesis. Kant agreed with the rationalists in some things and with the
empiricists in others. But the story doesn’t end with Kant. Kant’s synthesis
now becomes the point of departure for another chain of reflections, or ‘triad.’
Because a synthesis will also be contradicted by a new antithesis.”
“It’s all very theoretical!”
“Yes, it certainly is theoretical. But Hegel didn’t see it as pressing history
into any kind of framework. He believed that history itself revealed this
dialectical pattern. He thus claimed he had uncovered certain laws for the
development of reason—or for the progress of the ‘world spirit’ through
history.”
“There it is again!”
“But Hegel’s dialectic is not only applicable to history. When we discuss
something, we think dialectically. We try to find flaws in the argument. Hegel
called that ‘negative thinking.’ But when we find flaws in an argument, we
preserve the best of it.”
“Give me an example.”
“Well, when a socialist and a conservative sit down together to resolve a
social problem, a tension will quickly be revealed between their conflicting
modes of thought. But this does not mean that one is absolutely right and the
other totally wrong. It is possible that they are both partly right and partly
wrong. And as the argument evolves, the best of both arguments will often
crystallize.”
“I hope.”
“But while we are in the throes of a discussion like that, it is not easy to
decide which position is more rational. In a way, it’s up to history to decide
what’s right and what’s wrong. The reasonable is that which is viable.”
“Whatever survives is right.”
“Or vice versa: that which is right survives.”
“Don’t you have a tiny example for me?”
“One hundred and fifty years ago there were a lot of people fighting for
women’s rights. Many people also bitterly opposed giving women equal rights.
When we read the arguments of both sides today, it is not difficult to see
which side had the more ‘reasonable’ opinions. But we must not forget that we
have the knowledge of hindsight.
If ‘proved to be the case’ that those who fought for equality were right. A
lot of people would no doubt cringe if they saw in print what their grandfathers
had said on the matter.”
“I’m sure they would. What was Hegel’s view?”
“About equality of the sexes?”
“Isn’t that what we are talking about?”
“Would you like to hear a quote?”
“Very much.”