Hegelian Dialectic

An interpretive method in which the seeming contradiction between a proposition (thesis) and some opposing proposition (antithesis) is resolved at a higher level of truth (synthesis).

are there some canonical examples of this [Hegelian Dialectic]?

Jokes, which typically come in three segments: Premise, setup, punch line. (e.g. What the rabbi says. Then, what the priest says. Finally, what the minister says.)

This imperative is not scientific, rather it is aesthetic: It expresses some particular dogma, without ulterior objective, so it exists only for its own sake. Hence, it is just a statement of preference. (Never wear white after Labor Day. Well why not? Just don't.)

Another illustration:

The classical aesthetic (thesis) was created by whomever got there first, existing in a state child-like innonence and one-ness.
The modern aesthetic (antithesis) was a reactionary movement, a backlash against the classical aesthetic.
The postmodern aesthetic (synthesis) takes a step back from the clash between the classical and the modern. As such, most postmodern aesthetics are preoccupied with self-referentiality, irony, communication difficulties, limits, boundaries, and subjectivity (since it knows how well both the classical and the modern aesthetics see themselves as 'objectively' superior). To adherents of the classical and modern aesthetics, the postmodern can seem detached and/or insufficiently due seriousness. Indeed, the term 'postmodern' is a sly joke, concocted by the original postmodernists trying to underscore the inherent absurdity of calling one's aesthetic 'modern'.

In general, a single proposition cannot be treated in a vacuum. It must be contrasted (opposed with) another element to achieve meaning. However, thinking of things in terms of dichotomies (black and white thinking) is very limiting. To escape the constraints of analyzing everything through the lens of binary opposition, one must take a step back and respond to both simultaneously (synthesize).

As the HegelianDialectic is an aesthetic fundamentally bent on usurping binaries in favor of trichotomies, it is a numerology based upon the number 3. Which isn't to say it isn't useful or that it's somehow impoverished. Indeed, quite the opposite.

The dogma of 3-ary analysis has cropped up is many disparate fields of human intellectual history. Siddhartha was born a prince, but he renounced his riches to he become an ascetic and pursue enlightenment. But soon he rejected also the way of the ascetic. He achieved enlightenment and became the Buddha by renouncing 'both' extremes and proclaiming "the middle way the best".

In a very different domain, but nonetheless pairwise isomorphically, FriedrichNietzsche had the same idea in mind when he wrote of going "beyond good and evil".

What's special about the number 2? Humans find it very easy to break down things into binaries, since the essence of any binary is difference. Difference abounds.
What's special about the number 3? Breaking things down into trichotomies may not jump out at you, but once you see a trichotomy you don't forget it. This is because the relation between the third item and the other two items immediately follows merely from knowing what the third item is. For example, If I tell you the first two parts of a 'good' joke, you cannot predict what the third part will be. But once you know what the third part is, the relationship between all three items falls into place. This is because the binary opposition relation is---ipso facto---symmetric (not to mention anti-reflexive), so there are only two possible ways a third item can extend the relation to ternary:
- It can be indistinguishable from the other two items. In this case, we have a cylical 3-ary relationship. For example, gas, liquid, and solid. They are indistinguishable in the sense that you cannot decode what the punchline is vis-a-vis the other two items.
- It can be distinguished from the other two items. For example, if I jumble up the parts of a joke, you can nonetheless tell what the punchline is. The other permutations don't make sense. A special case is this 3-ary relation is the HegelianDialectic, where the 3rd item subsumes the other two items.
What's special about the number 4? Nothing really. How many 4-ary relations can you think of, off the top of your head? Since's there's such a huge explosion of possible 4-ary relations (because of the number of ways the fourth item can extend the other three items), none are intelligence enough to be in common use. Try to think of a sensible 4-ary relation. The cylical 4-ary relation is degenerate, so it doesn't count. 4-ary relations that can be broken down to 2-ary relations (e.g father-son-daughter-mother) or 2-ary and 3-ary relations don't justify the need for the expressive power of 4-ary relations either. If you think hard enough to come up with a 4-ary relation, you're thinking too hard. Don't bother trying to communicate it, it won't have visceral resonance with anyone else. That's the point, and that's why these sorts of numerologies are not extended past the number 3. 3 is sufficient for most intents and purposes.

Formal statement and proof of the above argument is left as an exercise to the reader. -- JosephTurian

Also a WikiPattern: ThesisAntithesisSynthesis

Hegel's formulation is deeply teleological: each of these thesis-anithesis-synthesis cycles (the synthesis becomes a thesis, to which, and so on...) is meant to inevitably lead us to some kind of paradise.

This is one of the philosophical roots of MarxismIdeology (dialectical materialism) and, with some other of Hegel's ideas, PostModernism (cultural materialism).

I am always impressed by the way Hegel's rather harmless observation is related to MarxismIdeology's "one solution revolution" philosophy. I can see closer links between MarxismIdeology and the WorldWrestlingFederation?.

Marx was part of the group of Hegel's followers known as left-wing Hegelians. They focused on Hegel's dialectic view of history, but replaced his idealism with materialism. Neither right- nor left-wing Hegelians were known for their interest in wrestling. :)

Wasn't there something in the CommunistManifesto? about "opening a can of whup-ass on the capital-owning elites"? Or maybe I was just reading a bad translation.

Hegel's dialectic applied to the true self vs the false self (or selves) is an interesting example. The thesis-anithesis-synthesis cycle does not remove the tension but leads us a little closer to paradise.

true self - our individuality, the self that asks "to be or not to be"
false self - our role or roles in the world as such, our realization of being

true and false not intended to imply good or bad, these words are not Hegel's but the ideas are. I like the concept of driver and vehicle but they don't communicate the tension. Spirit and Flesh, Soul and Body could be alternatives but carry a lot of baggage. Suggestions welcome.

I think Mr Ben (English children's program) explored this issue.