Capybobby and I want to play a little bit of dialectic on this blog. So I thought for my first post, that I would post some rules to help keep it all fun.

First, what is dialectic? Science is the examination of the empirical world; namely, it examines anything that happens in reality, anything that can be measured in heighth, width, length, or duration.

Dialectic, conversely is the examination of common sense. It examines anything that has not yet spilled out into heighth, width, length, or duration. In some sense, dialectic is pre-scientific. It is where the ideas for new scientific research come from.

Imagine waking up in the morning in Kansas and watching the sun rise. Your common sense tells you that the Earth is flat and you are curious if this is true. One way to find out is to go to the library, open a book, read what someone else has written and then trust that they aren’t lying. A second way to do it is through a dialectic/scientific investigation.

In order to conduct a dialectical survey of whether or not the earth is flat, one person will propose the thesis, “The earth is flat.” A second person will try to disprove that theory by asking questions about the terms of the thesis. If I were the second person attacking the thesis, “The earth is flat.” I would immediately ask, “Please explain what you mean by Earth?” If I were a skilled dialectic player, I would control the direction of the conversation by suggesting answers. “Do you mean the ground beneath us or do you mean something else?”

A: I mean the ground beneath us.
B: And if the ground beneath us is flat, do you mean that there are no hills or do you mean something else.
A: There are obviously hills.
B: Then what do you mean by flat.
A: I mean that it is not round like a ball.
B: If it is not round like a ball, then it extends outward in all directions?
A: Yes, it extends outward from us in 360 degrees and downwards but not upwards.
B: And does it have an edge or does it extend outward infinitely. Can you imagine walking in any direction over an infinite variety of landscape?
A: It must have an edge. I can’t imagine walking over an infinite variety of landscape.

(and to pause for a moment. “A” could easily have said that it extends outward infinitely, and made the discussion much more complicated, but unless that is what “A” truly believes, then choosing the infinite answer would violate the rules of dialectic.

Remember that ultimately, the aim of dialectic is to examine common sense, so it is important to stick to your own common sense even if you have a better chance of “winning” the argument by departing from it.

Currently, I am arguing the perspective of “A” and I cannot imagine infinity, so an infinite extension outwards is not an available answer for me. I must choose the answer I believe to be true, or if that answer is not provided by “B” I must give an account of the answer I believe to “B” and “B” must accept it before we can move on.

B: If it has an edge, does it have an edge on one side or on all sides?
A: It must have an edge on all sides.
B: Are the edges like a cliff that you fall down if you go over them, or are the like a second surface on which you can walk.
A: They are cliffs.
B: And if they are like cliffs, do you fall forever if you go over them?
A: Yes.
B: Imagine that you aren’t falling, but instead you are slowing climbing down the cliff at the edge of the world.
A: Ok.
B: Could you climb down forever?
A: I guess so.
B: But, you said earlier that you couldn’t imagine walking forever over an infinite variety of landscape. Can you now imagine climbing down past an infinite variety of landscape?
A: No.
B: So then, the cliff must have a bottom?
A: That’s right.
B: And if the earth has edges in every direction over which there are cliffs that have a bottom, then the earth must have a surface on the other side with the same dimensions as the surface on which we are standing now.
A: That’s right.
B: So the earth would look more like a cube.
A: That’s right. I was wrong to say that the Earth is flat, may god have mercy on my soul.

And with this, “A” loses the argument that the earth is flat. This does not mean that “B” wins the argument that the earth is a cube. “B” was only able to prove that the earth was a cube using the premise that “the earth is flat.” Further examination would reveal that the sun revolves around the earth, which would in turn have problems until we were forced to admit that the earth turns while the sun stays still, and as the argument developed, we would have more and more in our argument that we were able to compare against the empirical world until we were no longer involved very much with dialectic, but rather with science.

That is a poorly demonstrated example of how really smart people use dialectic to change the way the world thinks about fundamental things. That is serious dialectic.

On this blog, we will just be playing dialectic like a game. Take whatever premise you want, and then try to defend it. Remember that the difference between serious dialectic and the playful sort is that the former attempts to discover truth whereas the latter simply disabuses us of our false opinions.

The rules are really simple.

1. If you have to change any of the definitions of the terms of your premise, you lose.
2. If you and your dialectical opponents arrive at a fundamental difference of opinion, you lose.
3. You may only post one response to each attack. Just as in chess, once you have made your move, you can’t take it back.
4. Anyone may comment on the way each match goes, but only one person may defend and only one person may attack.

The point of dialectic is to lose in such a way that you have learned something from your loss. If you win, you are either brilliant, and may God have mercy on your soul, or you are choosing boring topics, and again, may God have mercy on your soul.

Well, if this sounds fun to you, then lets get some good arguing in. This is the first time I have ever tried something like this so lets see how it goes and, um, may God have mercy on our souls. “And what do you mean by God?” “Well…”