In one way or another, we all (humans and other critters) are
trying to increase our understanding of the world we find ourselves inhabiting.
Why? The better we understand it, the more successful our life will be. At the least, every
living thing aims to keep living.
One method we humans can use to improve our understanding of the
world is called the dialectical process.
While this technique is usually employed between disputing individuals or
groups of people, it can also be employed as a means of self-inquiry. The
dialectical process is one in which deeper insight into an issue is arrived at
by a careful consideration of opposing viewpoints. The idea is that each of two
opposing perspectives may have an element of truth to it, so rather than
choosing just one and discarding the other, we look for a way to find common
ground between them or, better yet, seek a new and better viewpoint that
contains the true parts of both perspectives.
The dialectic process most often is used when two people
disagree on their views of an issue. Through respectful debate and discussion,
they eventually arrive at an understanding that is more accurate and truthful
than either one of them initially possessed. It’s not a compromise, but the
creation of a new perspective that is better than either starting one. The
dialectical process is rarely used in today’s polarized society, where opposing
sides shriek out their point of view, hoping to shout down their opponent and
triumph. It requires that people listen
to one other—an action that has gone very much out of style.
As I wrote above, the dialectical process can also be
employed by oneself, as a type of self-inquiry. The best practitioner of this solitary
technique that I know of was Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk who was a member of
Gethsemani Abbey in Kentucky, in the
1950s and ‘60s. Merton lived a life of contemplation (which is a lifestyle from
which I derive much inspiration). His lifelong task was to search for truth, which
is just another way of saying that he was searching for a better understanding
of our world. He saw his work as a gradual, lifelong process. (Since we can
never arrive at THE TRUTH; our best bet is to move progressively towards it,
throughout our life.) In fact, in Merton’s case, the dialectical process was a mystical process, in which he sought
deep spiritual truths that are beyond the average human intellect. He saw it as
seeking union with the Divine.
By definition, deeply spiritual questions are beyond the
cognitive ability of humans to answer definitively. (I would add that it’s often
much the same case for scientific questions. More on that later.) Although some
answers may indeed come to one from divine inspiration, Merton felt that there
were still countless questions about life—the smaller personal spiritual inquiries—that
require an ongoing self-examination via the dialectic process. He often found
that, although an answer to a given question may not be initially accessible,
through contemplation, one might at least generate a better question. In fact,
one of the paradoxes that he encountered is that a good question can often be a
kind of answer in itself.
The specific method that Merton employed was to ponder a
question whose answer was initially beyond his cognitive reach. A potential
answer—or thesis—eventually came to mind. (In fact, Hegel regarded this as the first
step of dialectical reasoning, wherein one develops a “thesis.”) Next, one
plays devil’s advocate with oneself—coming up with a viewpoint that is contrary
to the first answer. In debate or dialog, this is called the “antithesis,”
which may be held by the other person. To generate an appropriate antithesis during
self-inquiry requires that one be spiritually and intellectually honest, in
order to come up with a valid antithesis. This calls for some degree of
detachment from one’s beliefs and ideas.
Then, through continued meditation and contemplation, one
weighs and examines these two opposing ideas. If done candidly, a resolution to
the conflict between thesis and antithesis may eventually come. This may be called
the synthesis, whereby a new idea
comes to mind that settles some of the disagreement between thesis and
antithesis. It is closer to the truth than either initial viewpoint; it is a
more valid understanding. The key factor is that one has not simply selected either
thesis or antithesis (thinking one must be completely true) and discarded the
other (thinking it’s false).
Since the full truth may still not have yet been discovered
by arriving at a synthesis, the process can go on with additional iterations.
An answer might not be found each time, but a better question may have been discovered.
If done honestly, one’s understanding gradually improves. A final answer may
never come, but the truth can slowly be approached.
No comments:
Post a Comment