2 Answers

  1. As I understand it, this is a materialist dialectic (not the one used by the ancient Greeks). Well, in general, it is in the network, but still:

    1) Unity and struggle of opposites. Opposites are one, because their existence is mutually conditioned – we can not understand what ” big ” means if we do not have an idea of “small”, for example. And also with everything-hot/cold, light/dark, rich/poor, etc.

    The struggle consists in the fact that these opposites not only condition, but also negate (exclude) each other. Well, this is the usual formal logic – if “A is greater than B”, then there is no way to get “A is less than B”. Specifically , for example, you can't be both focused and distracted at the same time.

    By the way, it is the struggle of opposites that is considered the source of development in dialectics.

    2) Quantitative changes turn into qualitative ones (and vice versa). A common example is the aggregate states of water: by heating ice (increasing the temperature quantitatively), we achieve the transformation of ice into water at a certain point. Continuing to heat the water already , we get steam. Thus, a change in the quantitative variable (temperature) led to a change in the qualitative one (state of matter).

    3) Negation of negation. The new phenomenon is the development of the old, which denies it. But, developing further, it already denies itself, becoming old.�

    There is also a well – established example for this-food. When we are hungry, we want to be satisfied, to eat, in other words. When we have eaten, we are no longer hungry; satiety negates hunger. However, when we are full and eat more than we need, we already experience satiety – that is, we deny the desire to eat. Which was only recently relevant.�

    The chain is thus: Hunger – > Satiety (- hunger) – > Satiety (-hunger).

Leave a Reply