From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!hilbert!smoliar Sun Dec  1 13:06:46 EST 1991
Article 1766 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!nuscc!hilbert!smoliar
>From: smoliar@hilbert.iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar)
Subject: Re: Is dialectical thought an "informal logic"?
Message-ID: <1991Nov30.044556.5450@nuscc.nus.sg>
Summary: dialectical thought versus communication
Sender: usenet@nuscc.nus.sg
Organization: Institute of Systems Science, NUS, Singapore
References: <439@trwacs.UUCP> <Z1u3BB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: Sat, 30 Nov 1991 04:45:56 GMT

In article <Z1u3BB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard
Carlson) writes:
> Why are Americans so
>disinclined to discuss the dialectic and dialectical reasoning
>even when they exemplify it?  (I noticed just how short and
>deliberately informal your own post was.)  This is even more
>amazing since it is probably the dialectical nature of human
>reasoning, the question and answer, back and forth, movement --
>whether between persons or inside one single person -- which most
>differentiates human thinking from machine information
>processing.
>
One good reason might be that we Americans like to acknowledge the limitations
of short-term memory!  When we engage in dialOG, we do not exchange lengthy
paragraphs and treatises.  We exchange sentences.  Sometimes, when we have
a difficult point to make, we exchange paragraphs;  but each speaker usually
respects the fact that there is only so much spoken text the listener can
retain.  At this level of granularity, dialog is much more a matter of
NEGOTIATION than dialectic is;  but I would argue that communication is
basically an ongoing process of negotiation.  To try to burden it down
with too much text in a single shot would be to subvert its fundamental
aim.

So where does that stand on the matter of bulletin board articles?  Basically
it depends on how you choose to read them.  If you just let them scroll by on
your screen, you probably cannot deal with anything more complex than the level
of dialog.  The bulletin board is simply another we to share spoken utterances.
I, on the other hand, tend to take certainly length passages which interest me
and print them out for subsequent study (and, hopefully, a reasonably studied
response).  I suspect others to the same;  and, in so doing, we move into the
arena of dialectic.  Nevertheless, as I indicated in an earlier article, even
with the luxury to take my time with printed text, I tend to lose patience with
those who seem to be doing little more than indulging in the sounds of their
voices (translating that metaphor to posted text).  I do not mind plowing
through a length text which is trying to get to a point;  but if I just want
mental excursions, I would rather listen to Beethoven.
>
>Btw, does anybody happen to know the difference between a
>_paradox_ and an _antinomy_?  The word "antinomy" seems more
>dialectical somehow, since it seems to foreground the
>disagreement or inconsistency or incommensurability of two
>statements, but that might just be surplus connotational meaning.
>Is there a difference or are these words complete synonyms?
>
The OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY gives "paradox" as one of the definitions of
"antinomy" (and acknowledges Kant's use of the term).  This seems as good
as calling the two synonyms.  That, of course, is an Anglo-American opinion.
I am sure you can get a much lengthier discussion of the matter on the
continent!
-- 
Stephen W. Smoliar; Institute of Systems Science
National University of Singapore; Heng Mui Keng Terrace
Kent Ridge, SINGAPORE 0511
Internet:  smoliar@iss.nus.sg


