The Dance of Dialectical Thought (English/Turkish)

in philosophy •  8 months ago


Is there a common framework of knowledge that describes nature, society and people? Can we achieve an information model that combines the disciplines of physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, economics, psychology? If we had such a model of information that we could apply in a very wide area, which can be expressed with a small number of words, it would be much easier to understand the world. When we had such knowledge, we felt as if we were close to solving the mysteries of the universe.

I had a great curiosity about how the world works in my 20s. I wanted to learn quickly everything that was important in a young rush. In this context, I didn't like the fact that science was divided into specialized disciplines. It was a very troublesome task to learn each science separately. I wanted to see the big picture and understand the relationship between disciplines. That's why I was interested in philosophy.

History Of Thought

Soon I realized that philosophy is a very confusing discipline. I was get cought in hail while I was running from rain. Almost every philosopher had a different view of the reasons for what was going on in the world. Fortunately, I was not the only one experiencing such a problem, and there were books written to solve this problem. I read the book "History of Thought: Critical Review On Classical Works of Four Thousand Years of Thought, Art and Science" by Turkish researcher and writer Orhan Hançerlioğlu. In this epic book, which was first published in 1970, Kant-Hegel-Marx philosophical line was described as "true light." It was understood from every line of the book that the author had a great accumulation of philosophical issues. And I was convinced that the author did not put this view forward because of a political bias or sensationalism. So I began to examine the philosophical thought, called dialectical materialism.

The dialectic method, which examined reality through argument, counter argument, and synthesis, was first used by ancient Greek philosopher Socrates. When Socrates wanted to discuss a topic, asked
people questions, took the answers and evaluate the realization. Thus, he would be able to examine the logical results of his argument and evaluate his thesis comprehensively over the opposite arguments.

According to the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, the way the ancient Greeks used dialectics did not help to find reality because it was intended to prove the accuracy of an argument. According to Kant, development was made up of a trilogy of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Antithesis refers to the thesis produced as opposed to the thesis, which contradicts it. Synthesis was the ultimate solution to resolve the contrast and tension between the thesis and antithesis.

Hegelian Dialectic

Hegel chose to express the three dimensional structure of dialectical method in different words: abstract-negative-concrete. According to Hegel, the thesis-antitesis-synthesis formulation did not explain why the thesis needed an antitesis. However, the abstract-negative-concrete trio explained better why the thesis needed an antithesis. According to Hegel, the concrete, in other words synthesis, must take full advantage of the negative, and during this journey, some kind of compromise between abstract and negative should be made.

This statement reminds me of the solution phases of a optimization problem. In the field of artificial intelligence, all learning algorithms start to work by assigning an estimated value to the desired variable (abstract-thesis). Then it is checked whether this estimate gives an appropriate result for the data set used (negative-anti-thesis). As a result of many iterations, the correct value is estimated and the optimum result is obtained. (concrete-synthesis)

Another important dialectical rule Hegel put forward is the transformation of quantity into quality. Quantitative(numerical) values result in a qualitative transformation after reaching a certain threshold. This is ture for the boiling point of water. When water starts to heat, it does not change its quality for a long time. The quantitative change in temperature seems to not affect the quality of water. When water reaches 100 degrees Celsius, it begins to evaporate and become gas.

Hegel applies the dialectical method to the relation between matter and spirit and to social issues such as the slave master relationship. He examines the relations between these opposites by using dialectical method. According to Hegel, mental dialectical processes allow "ideas" to acquire a material self at the end of the process.

Marxist Dialectic

Karl Marx's philosophy, which would lead to major changes in the world in the 20th century is based on Hegel's dialectical method . He takes the idea of developing history through dialectical processes and reinterprets it with a materialist understanding. According to Marx, Hegel's philosophy portrays reality with great success, but this philosophy is upside down. Hegel implies that the soul or ideas form the material world through a dialectical process. According to Marx, the substance is preceded by the spirit, allowing the creation of ideas in the material world.

Marx describes in his book Das Capital how the material world determines people's ideas in an analytical clarity. According to Marx, the revolutionary engine of history is a class conflict, the political ideas of the people are determined in accordance with economic interests.

Marx describes the process of transforming the quality into quantity presented by Hegel with various examples in Das Capital. Just as water begins to boil when it reaches a certain temperature, the presence of a small amount of people's assets does not make them capitalist. When the quantity of people's assets exceeds a certain limit, they become a tradesman or industrialist and become advocates of capitalist ideas. Marx also describes how the scale (quantity) creates changes in the structure of a company. As the number of employees increases, new functions such as accounting and sales emerge in companies. The larger the company scale, the greater the diversity and degree of specialization of these functions.

Based on Hegelian-Marxist historicism, historical development as a kind of march that takes place at a forced end. Just as capitalism was born as a result of the internal contradictions of feudalism, communism would be born because of capitalism's inner contradictions. Marx does not express the situation in this clarity, but this implicit message gives morale to the supporters of communism.


The Dialectic Of Nature

The Dialectic of Nature is one of the most important works of Friedrich Engels. It gives a dialectical materialist generalization of the major achievements of natural sciences in 19th century and criticizes metaphysical and idealistic concepts that prioritize the spirit in natural sciences.

In 19th century humanity has witnessed a series of achievements and discoveries in mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry and biology. New facts and laws of nature have been introduced, new theories and assumptions have been adopted, new branches of science have emerged.

Engels lists the three advances in this triumphant march of natural science: the discovery of organic cells, the discovery of the law on energy conservation and transformation, Darwinism.

In 1838 and 1839. J. Schleiden and T. These have proved that the basic building block of the living organism is a cell and have created a complete theory of the structure of the organism. Thus, these two scientists have shown the unity of the organic world.

Between 1842 and 1847 J. R. Mayer, J. P. Joule, W. R. Grove, L. A. Colding and H. Helmholtz found the Law of conservation and transformation of energy and proved its authenticity. As a result, nature has revealed itself as a continuous process of transformation of the universal movement of matter into another form.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published Origin of Species. This work completed the development of the idea of evolution that lasted more than a century and established the foundations of modern biology. The philosophical significance of these inventions is that they have revealed the dialectical nature of natural development in a concise way.

The Basic Principles Of Philosophy

As understood from the above statements, dialectical materialism is not an easy philosophy to grasp. It requires quite a different way of thinking from formal logic and is possible to be misunderstood.

George politzer wrote a book called The Basic Principles of Philosophy, based on his notes at Worker University between 1935 and 1936. Published in 1946, the book is of great interest in France. The book was published in Turkish in 1974 and received with great interest similar to the one in France. The book, which tries to explain dialectical materialism clearly to a workers, aims at propaganda, lacks intellectual depth, but it is useful in explaining Marxist philosophy to the masses. The book describes Marxist philosophy within the framework of the following sample titles.

  1. All things are connected.
  2. Everything changes.
  3. The struggle of opposites is the engine of every change.
  4. Quantitative accumulation leads to a qualitative change.
  5. Matter is prerequisite of consciousness.
  6. The universe is something that can be known.
  7. The spiritual life of society is a reflection of material life.


Stars and Black Holes

Once I learned the dialectical way of thinking, I started to interpret various information I encountered in this systematic. For example, what I learned about how different elements formed within the stars helped me to understand how quantity turned into quality.

Almost 98% of all stars' content consists of hydrogen and helium, the two elements formed during the birth of the Universe's Big Bang. Apart from these, are the heavier elements that occur as a result of nuclear reactions within the stars and scattered into space as a consequence of the deaths of the stars.

According to the model adopted today, stars are formed within a few million years as a result of the collapse of massive clouds of gas and dust. This formation occurs depending on the density of matter in a particular region of space. If the density is not large enough, other space objects, such as meteorites, planets, are formed.

The stars above a certain size form black holes after they die. In a black hole, the laws of physics, known to be invalid, form a kind of singularity.

The density(quantity) of hydrogen or helium elements in a region of space does not only reveal elements of a different quality, but it can lead to a change in quality of the laws of physics that apply in that region over time.

The Dialectical Development Of Technology

Futurist Ray Kurzweil published a book called "Singularity is Near" in 2005. In the book, which became a classic in a short period of time, Kurzweil predicted that technology will reach the singularity stage in 2046.

Unlike many communists who have contributed for historical materialism, Ray Kurzweil is an inventor and businessman. There is no indication that he is interested in Marxist views. Kurzweil, took Hegelian-Marxist historisizm one step further without any reference. Similarly, he emphasized the determinism of historical development and added the idea that the flow of history is accelerating over time.

According to Kurzweil, the exponential increase in information technology would lead artificial intelligence gaining consciousness. Thus, he suggested that a measurable quantity, such as the number of floating transactions per second, would turn into a spiritual nature, such as consciousness.

The novel "The Ultimate Debate", which I now publish in Steemit, is a thought experiment on whether it is possible for a machine produced by man to gain consciousness.

Criticism Of Dialectical Thought

Karl Popper, a science philosopher, criticizes Plato, Hegel and Marx's statualist, historical views in his two-volume book "Open Society and Its Enemies". He argues that Hegel's philosophy influenced the rise of fascism in Germany in the first half of the twentieth century. He stresses that a theory should be falsified more than to be verifiable for scientific acceptance.

Science philosopher and physicist Mario Bunge criticizes Hegelian and Marxist dialectical thinking and calls it “blurry and unscientific” and “a terrible legacy."


It seems tempting to explain everything that is going on in the world in a philosophical frame. Hegelian-Marxist dialectical refers to an important summit of human thought. Recognizing this idea gives us important opportunities to interpret what is happening on the world.

On the other hand, it is a risky approach to consider the history of thought in a limited way around a specific center. Hegelian-Marxist thought is reminiscent of the kind of religion with its inclusiveness. Moreover, it is not easy to interpret this idea and to interpret concepts such as unity of opposites and so on. Such conservative approaches can lay the ground for authoritarian perspectives and lead to the impoverishment of human thought.

In addition, assuming that history is a compulsory development severely reduces the role of individuals in history. Future predictions based on dialectical thinking can be accurate or can lead to massive misconceptions.

Despite all the possible drawbacks, it would be a useful exercise to learn dialectical thinking and try to interpret the world in this way. If there is a universal reality, I think that the closest philosophy to that reality is dialectical materialism.

Thanks for reading.

Image Source:

English Wikipedia "Dialectic" Article
History of Thought: A Critical Review of The Classical Works of Four Thousand Years of Thought, Art and Science History - Orhan Hançerlioğlu
Das Kapital - Karl Marx
The Dialectics Of Nature - Friedrich Engels
Basic Principles of Philosophy - George Politzer
Singularity Is Near - Ray Kurzweil
Open Society and Its Enemies - Karl Popper

page break.PNG

Diyalektik Düşüncenin Dansı

Doğayı, toplumu ve insanı açıklayan ortak bir bilgi çerçevesi var mı? Fizik, kimya, biyoloji, sosyoloji, ekonomi, psikoloji gibi bilim dallarını birleştiren bir bilgi modeline ulaşabilir miyiz? Çok geniş bir alanda uygulayabileceğimiz, az sayıda kelime ile ifade edilebilen böylesi bir bilgi modeline sahip olsaydık dünyayı anlamamız çok daha kolay olurdu. Böylesi bir bilgiye sahip olduğumuzda kendimizi evrenin sırlarını çözmeye yaklaşmış olarak hissederdik.

20'li yaşlarımda bir ara kendimi dünyanın nasıl işlediğine dair büyük bir meraka kaptırdım. Gençliğe has bir acelecilikle önemli olan her şeyi bir an önce öğrenmek istiyordum. Bu bağlamda bilimlerin uzmanlık alanlarına bölünmüş olması hiç hoşuma gitmiyordu. Her bir bilimi ayrı ayrı öğrenmek epeyce zahmetli bir işti. Üstelik ben büyük resmi görmek, bilimlerin birbirleriyle olan ilişkisini anlamak istiyordum. Bu nedenle felsefeyle ilgilenmeye başladım.

Düşünce Tarihi

Çok geçmeden felsefenin epey kafa karıştırıcı bir disiplin olduğunu fark ettim. Adeta yağmurdan kaçarken doluya tutulmuştum. Neredeyse her bir filozofun dünyada olup biten şeylerin nedenleri hakkında farklı görüşleri vardı. Neyse ki böylesi bir problemi yaşayan sadece ben değildim ve bu problemi çözmek üzere yazılmış kitaplar vardı. Araştırmacı yazar Orhan Hançerlioğlu'nun "Düşünce Tarihi: Dört Bin Yıllık Düşünce, Sanat ve Bilim Tarihinin Klasik Yapıtları Üstüne Eleştirel İnceleme" isimli kitabını okudum. İlk kez 1970 yılında yayınlanmış olan bu epik kitapta Kant-Hegel-Marx felsefi çizgisi "gerçek aydınlık" olarak tanımlanıyordu. Yazarın felsefi konularda büyük bir birikime sahip olduğu kitabın her satırından anlaşılıyordu. Ve yazarın bu görüşü siyasi bir tarafgirlik ya da sansasyon merakı yüzünden ileri sürmediğine ikna olmuştum. Orhan Hançerlioğlu'nun entelektüel etiğe bağlı, ciddi bir aydın olduğu anlaşılıyordu. Bunun üzerine diyalektik materyalizm adı verilen felsefi düşünceyi derinlemesine incelemeye başladım.

Gerçekliği argüman, karşıt argüman ve bunların sentezi üzerinden inceleyen diyalektik yöntem ilk kez eski Yunan filozofu Sokrates tarafından kullanılmış. Sokrates bir konuyu tartışmak istediğinde bunu karşısındaki insanlara sorular sorup yanıtlarını alarak ve yanıtları değerlendirerek gerçekleştirirmiş. Böylece argümanının mantıksal sonuçlarını inceleme ve karşıt argümanlar üzerinden tezini etraflı bir biçimde değerlendirme olanağı elde edermiş.

Alman filozofu Immanuel Kant'a göre eski Yunanlarının diyalektiği kullanma biçimi bir argümanın doğruluğunu kanıtlamaya yönelik olduğundan gerçekliğin bulunmasına yardımcı olmuyordu. Kant'a göre gelişim tez, antitez ve sentezden oluşan bir üçlü süreçte oluşuyordu. Antitez teze karşıt olarak üretilen, onunla çelişen tezi ifade ediyordu. Sentez ise tez ile antitez arasındaki karşıtlığı ve gerilimi çözüme kavuşturan nihai çözüm oluyordu.

Hegelci Diyalektik

Hegel diyalektik yöntemi oluşturan üçlü yapıyı daha farklı sözcüklerle ifade etmeyi tercih etmişti: Teori-olumsuzlama-somutlaştırma. Hegel'e göre tez-antitez-sentez formülasyonu tezin neden bir antiteze ihtiyaç duyduğunu açıklamıyordu. Oysa, teori-olumsuzlama-somutlaştırma üçlüsü tezin neden bir antiteze ihtiyaç duyduğunu daha iyi ifade anlatıyordu. Hegel'e göre somutlaştırma, diğer bir deyişle sentez, tamamlanmak için mutlaka olumsuzlamadan yararlanmalı, bu yolculuk sırasında teori ile olumsuzlama arasında bir tür uzlaşma sağlanmalıydı.

Bu anlatım bana bir optimizasyon probleminin çözüm aşamalarını hatırlatıyor. Yapay zeka alanında tüm öğrenme algoritmaları tahmin edilmek istenen değişkene bir tahmini değer atanmasıyla (teori-tez) işe başlar. Sonra bu tahmini değerin kullanılan veri seti için uygun bir sonuç verip vermediği kontrol edilir (olumsuzlama-anti-tez). Yapılan çok sayıda iterasyon sonucunda doğru değer tahmin edilmiş, optimum sonuç elde edilmiş olur. (sentez-somutlaştırma)

Hegel'in ortaya koyduğu bir diğer önemli diyalektik kuralı niceliğin niteliğe dönüşmesidir. Niceliksel (sayısal) değerler belirli bir büyüklüğe ulaştıktan sonra nitelikte bir dönüşüme yol açarlar. Hegel bu durumu suyun ısıtıldığında sıvı halden gaz haline dönüşmesi ile örneklendirir. Su ısıtılmaya başladığında uzunca bir süre herhangi bir nitelik değişimine uğramaz. Isısındaki niceliksel değişiklik suyun niteliğini etkilemiyor gibidir. Su 100 santigrat derecede ulaştığında buharlaşmaya, yani gaz haline dönüşmeye başlar.

Hegel diyalektik yöntemi madde ile ruh arasındaki ilişkiye ve efendi köle ilişkisi gibi toplumsal konulara da uygular. Karşıt gibi görünen bu ikililer arasındaki ilişkileri diyalektik yöntemi kullanarak inceler. Hegel'e göre zihinsel diyalektik süreçler "idea"ların süreç sonunda maddi bir öz kazanmasını sağlarlar.

Marksist Diyalektik

Marx 20. yüzyılda dünyada büyük değişimlere yol açacak olan felsefesini Hegel'in diyalektik yöntemine dayandırır. Hegel'in diyalektik süreçlerden geçerek gelişen tarih fikrini alıp maddeci bir anlayışla yeniden yorumlar. Marx'a göre Hegel'in felsefesi gerçekliği büyük başarıyla resmetmektedir ancak bu felsefe baş aşağı durmaktadır. Hegel ruhun ya da fikirlerin (idea) diyalektik bir süreçten geçerek maddi dünyayı oluşturduğunu ima etmektedir. Marx'a göre madde ruhtan öncedir, maddi dünya fikirlerin, diğer deyişle "idea"ların oluşmasını sağlar.

Marx Das Kapital'de maddi dünyanın insanların fikirlerini nasıl belirlediğini analitik bir berraklık içinde anlatır. Marx'a göre tarihin devindirici motoru sınıf çatışmasıdır, insanların siyasi fikirleri ekonomik çıkarları doğrultusunda belirlenir.

Marx Das Kapital'de Hegel tarafından ortaya konulan niteliğin niceliğe dönüşme sürecini çeşitli örneklerle açıklar. Suyun belirli bir ısıya ulaştığında kaynamaya başlamasına benzer biçimde, kişilerin küçük miktarda varlıklarının bulunması onları birer kapitalist yapmaz. Kişilerin varlık miktarı belirli bir sınırı geçtiğinde bir esnaf ya da zanaatkardan bir sanayiciye dönüşürler ve kapitalist fikirlerin savunucusu olmaya başlarlar. Marx ayrıca ölçeğin(nicelik) bir şirketin yapısında ne gibi değişiklikler yarattığını ayrıntılı bir biçimde tasvir eder. Çalışan sayıları arttıkça şirketlerde muhasebe, satış gibi yeni fonksiyonlar ortaya çıkmaya başlar. Şirket ölçeği ne kadar büyürse bu fonksiyonların çeşitliliği ve uzmanlaşma derecesi o ölçüde artar.

Marx Hegel'in tarihselciliğinden yola çıkarak tarihsel gelişimi zorunlu bir sona doğru gerçekleşen bir tür yürüyüş olarak görür. Nasıl ki feodalitenin iç çelişkilerinin zorunlu bir sonucu olarak kapitalizm doğmuşsa, kapitalizmin yaratığı çelişkiler nedeniyle komünizm doğacaktır. Marx durumu bu netlikte ifade etmez, ancak bu örtülü mesaj komünizm taraftarlarına moral verir.

Doğanın Diyalektiği

Doğanın Diyalektiği, Friedrich Engels'in çok önemli yapıtlarından biridir. Bu yapıt, 19. yüzyıl ortalarında, doğa bilimlerin ulaştığı başlıca başarıların, diyalektik materyalist bir genellemesini verir, materyalist diyalektiği geliştirir ve doğa bilimlerdeki ruhu önceleyen metafizik ve idealist kavramları eleştirir.

  1. yüzyılın başı ve daha çok ortaları, matematikte, gökbilimde, fizikte, kimyada ve biyolojide bir dizi başarıya ve buluşa tanık olmuştur. Yeni olgular ve doğa yasaları ortaya konmuştur, yeni teoriler ve varsayımlar kabul edilmiştir; yeni bilim dalları ortaya çıkmıştır.

Engels, doğa biliminin bu zafer dolu yürüyüşündeki üç ilerlemeyi şöyle sıralar: organik hücrenin bulunması, enerjinin sakınımı ve dönüşümü yasasının bulunması, Darwincilik.

1838'de ve 1839'da M. J. Schleiden ve T. Schwann, bitki ve hayvan hücrelerinin özdeşliğini ortaya koymuşlardır; bu iki bilgin, canlı organizmanın temel yapı biriminin hücre olduğunu kanıtlamışlar ve organizma yapısının eksiksiz bir teorisini yaratmışlardır. Böylece bu iki bilgin, organik dünyanın birliğini göstermişlerdir.

1842 ve 1847 yılları arasında J. R. Mayer, J. P. Joule, W. R. Grove, L. A. Colding ve H. Helmholtz, enerjinin sakınımı ve dönüşümü yasasını bulmuşlar ve gerçekliğini kanıtlamışlardır. Bunun sonucu olarak, doğa, kendisini, maddenin evrensel hareketinin bir biçiminin, bir başka biçime dönüşümünün sürekli süreci olarak ortaya koymuştur.

1859'da Charles Darwin, temel yapıtı Türlerin Kökeni'ni yayınlamıştır. Bu yapıt, bir yüzyıldan fazla süren evrim fikrinin gelişimini tamamlamış ve modern biyolojinin temellerini kurmuştur. Bu buluşların felsefi önemi, doğal gelişmenin diyalektik niteliğini özlü bir biçimde ortaya koymuş olmalarındadır.

Felsefenin Temel İlkeleri

Yukarıdaki anlatımlardan anlaşıldığı üzere diyalektik materyalizm kavranması kolay bir felsefe değildir. Formel mantıktan oldukça farklı bir düşünme biçimi gerektirir ve yanlış anlaşılmaya müsaittir.

George Politzer 1935-1936 yılları arasında İşci Üniversitesi'nde verdiği notlardan yola çıkarak Felsefenin Temel İlkeleri isimli bir kitap yazar. 1946 yılında yayınlanan kitap Fransa'da büyük ilgi görür. Kitap Türkçe'de 1974 yılında yayınlanır ve Fransa'dakine benzer biçimde büyük bir ilgiyle karşılanır. Diyalektik Materyalizmi bir işçinin anlayabileceği netlikte anlatmaya çalışan kitap propaganda amacı taşıdığı için entelektüel derinlikten yoksundur ancak Marxist felsefeyi kitlelere anlatma yolunda faydalı olduğu söylenebilir. Kitapta Marxist felsefe aşağıdaki örnek başlıklar çerçevesinde açıklanır.

  1. Bütün şeyler birbirine bağlıdır.
  2. Her şey dönüşür.
  3. Karşıtların mücadelesi her değişimi motorudur.
  4. Nicelik birikimi niteliğe dönüşüne yol açar.
  5. Madde bilinçten öncedir.
  6. Evren bilinebilir bir şeydir.
  7. Toplumun manevi hayatı maddi hayatının bir yansımasıdır.

Yıldızlar ve Kara Delikler

Diyalektik düşünce tarzını bir kez öğrendikten sonra karşılaştığım çeşitli bilgileri bu sistematik doğrultusunda yorumlamaya başladım. Örneğin farklı elementlerin yıldızların içinde nasıl oluştuğuna dair öğrendiklerim niceliğin nasıl niteliğe dönüştüğünü anlamada bana yardımcı oldu.

Hemen tüm yıldızların içeriğinin neredeyse %98'i, evren’in Büyük Patlama ile doğumu sırasında oluşmuş iki element olan hidrojen ve helyumdan ibarettir. Bunların haricindeki diğer elementler ise, yıldızların içerisindeki nükleer tepkimeler sonucu oluşup, yıldızların ölümleri neticesinde uzaya saçılmış daha ağır elementlerdir.

Günümüzde kabul edilen modele göre yıldızlar, devasa gaz ve toz bulutlarının kütle çekimi etkisi ile kendi içlerine çökmeleri sonucunda birkaç milyon yıl içerisinde oluşmaktadırlar. Bu oluşum uzayın belirli bir bölgesindeki madde yoğunluğuna bağlı olarak gerçekleşmektedir. Yoğunluk yeterli büyüklükte değilse göktaşları, gezegenler gibi diğer uzay cisimleri oluşmaktadır.

Belirli bir boyutun üzerinde olan yıldızlar öldükten sonra kara delikleri oluşturuyorlar. Bir kara deliğin içinde bilinen fizik kuralları geçerliliğini yitiriyor, bir tür tekillik durumu oluşuyor.

Hidrojen ya da helyum elementlerinin uzayın bir bölgesindeki yoğunluğu(niceliği) farklı nitelikteki elementleri ortaya çıkarmakla kalmıyor, zaman içinde o bölgede geçerli fizik kurallarının bile nitelik değiştirmesine yol açabiliyor.

Teknolojinin Diyalektik Gelişimi

Fütürist Ray Kurzweil 2005 yılında "Singularity Is Near" isimli bir kitap yayınladı. Kısa sürede bir klasiğe dönüşen kitapta 2046 yılında teknolojinin tekillik aşamasına ulaşacağı öngörülüyordu.

Tarihsel materyalizme gönül vermiş nice komünistin aksine Ray Kurzweil bir mucit ve iş insanı. Marxist görüşlerle ilgilendiğine dair herhangi bir emare bulunmuyor. Kurzweil kitabında Hegelci-Marxist tarihselci görüşü onlara herhangi bir referans vermeden bir adım öteye götürüyordu. Onlara benzer biçimde tarihsel gelişimin zorunluluğunu vurgularken bir de buna tarihin akışının zamanla hızlandığı fikrini ekliyordu.

Kurzweil'e göre bilgi teknolojilerinde üstel artış yapay zekanın bilinç kazanmasına yol açacaktı. Böylece saniyede yapılan işlem adedi gibi ölçülebilir bir niceliğin, bilinç gibi ruhsal bir niteliğe dönüşeceğini öne sürmüş oluyordu.

Şimdilerde Steemit'te bölüm bölüm yayınlamakta olduğum "The Ultimate Debate" isimli roman insanın ürettiği bir makinenin bilinç kazanmasının mümkün olup olmadığı üzerine yaptığım bir düşünce deneyi sayılabilir.

Diyalektik Düşüncenin Eleştirisi

Bilim felsefecisi Karl Popper iki ciltlik "Açık Toplum ve Düşmanları" eserinde Platon, Hegel ve Marx'ın devletçi, tarihselci görüşlerini eleştirir. Almanya'da yirminci yüzyılın ilk yarısında faşizmin yükselmesinde Hegel'in etkisi olduğunu ifade eder. Bir teorinin bilimsel kabul edilmesi için doğrulanabilir olmaktan öte yanlışlanabilir olması gerektiğini vurgular.

Bilim filozofu ve fizikçi Mario Bunge Hegelci ve Marksist diyalektik düşünceyi eleştirerek onu “bulanık ve bilimden uzak” ve “feci bir miras” olarak adlandırır.


Dünyada olup biten her şeyi bir felsefi çerçeve içinde açıklamak oldukça cazip görünüyor. Hegelci-Marksist diyalektik insan düşüncesinin ulaştığı önemli bir zirveyi işaret ediyor. Bu düşünceyi tanımak dünyaya olup bitenleri yorumlamak konusunda bizlere önemli imkanlar sağlıyor.

Öte yandan, düşünce tarihini belirli bir merkez çevresinde kısıtlı bir biçimde ele almak riskli bir yaklaşım. Hegelci-Marksist düşünce kapsayıcılığı ile tür dini andırıyor. Üstelik bu düşünceyi yorumlamak, zıtların birliği vb kavramları anlamlandırmak hiç kolay değil. Bu türden toptancı yaklaşımlar otoriter bakış açılarına zemin hazırlayabilir ve insan düşüncesinin yoksullaşmasına yol açabilir.

Ayrıca, tarihin zorunlu bir gelişim içinde olduğunu varsaymak bireylerin tarih içindeki rolünü ciddi ölçüde azaltıyor. Diyalektik düşünceye dayalı olarak yapılan gelecek tahminleri isabetli olabileceği gibi kitlesel yanılgılara da yol açabilir.

Bütün olası sakıncalarına rağmen diyalektik düşünceyi öğrenmek ve dünyayı bu biçimde yorumlamaya çalışmak faydalı bir egzersiz olacaktır. Eğer evrensel bir gerçeklik varsa o gerçekliğe en yakın felsefenin diyalektik materyalizm olduğunu düşünüyorum.

Okuduğunuz için teşekkür ederim.

Yararlanılan Kaynaklar:
İngilizce Wikipedia "Dialectic" maddesi
Düşünce Tarihi: Dört Bin Yıllık Düşünce, Sanat ve Bilim Tarihinin Klasik Yapıtları Üstüne Eleştirel İnceleme - Orhan Hançerlioğlu
Kapital - Karl Marx
Doğanın Diyalektiği - Friedrich Engels
Felsefenin Temel İlkeleri - George Politzer
İnsanlık 2.0 - Ray Kurzweil
Açık Toplum ve Düşmanları - Karl Popper

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Nice photo of Lake Bled from Slovenia.


nice photo

nice pic

"Any theory that propounds an opposition between the logical and the empirical, represents a failure to grasp the nature of logic and its role in human cognition. Man’s knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience.

Man is born tabula rasa; all his knowledge is based on and derived from the evidence of his senses. To reach the distinctively human level of cognition, man must conceptualize his perceptual data — and conceptualization is a process which is neither automatic nor infallible. Man needs to discover a method to guide this process, if it is to yield conclusions which correspond to the facts of reality — i.e., which represent knowledge. The principle at the base of the proper method is the fundamental principle of metaphysics: the Law of Identity. In reality, contradictions cannot exist; in a cognitive process, a contradiction is the proof of an error. Hence the method man must follow: to identify the facts he observes, in a non-contradictory manner. This method is logic — “the art of non-contradictory identification.” (Atlas Shrugged.) Logic must be employed at every step of a man’s conceptual development, from the formation of his first concepts to the discovery of the most complex scientific laws and theories. Only when a conclusion is based on a non-contradictory identification and integration of all the evidence available at a given time, can it qualify as knowledge.

The failure to recognize that logic is man’s method of cognition, has produced a brood of artificial splits and dichotomies which represent restatements of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy from various aspects. Three in particular are prevalent today: logical truth vs. factual truth; the logically possible vs. the empirically possible; and the a priori vs. the a posteriori.

The logical-factual dichotomy opposes truths which are validated “merely” by the use of logic (the analytic ones), and truths which describe the facts of experience (the synthetic ones). Implicit in this dichotomy is the view that logic is a subjective game, a method of manipulating arbitrary symbols, not a method of acquiring knowledge.

It is the use of logic that enables man to determine what is and what is not a fact. To introduce an opposition between the “logical” and the “factual” is to create a split between consciousness and existence, between truths in accordance with man’s method of cognition and truths in accordance with the facts of reality. The result of such a dichotomy is that logic is divorced from reality (“Logical truths are empty and conventional”) — and reality becomes unknowable (“Factual truths are contingent and uncertain”). This amounts to the claim that man has no method of cognition, i.e., no way of acquiring knowledge."

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 112–113


I especially liked this passage: "Man’s knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but by the application of logic to experience. All truths are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience". I consider it true from my life experiences. Thank you for your contribution.

nice photo

A nice short compilation. But I dont agree with your conclusions. Hegelian-Marxist thought hasnt caused any impoverishment in human thought. Actually more than a century old experiences showed us that Hegelian-Marxist thought had some significant impact on varies fields and improved the richness of our thinking and knowledge. And also I should mention that 'inclusiveness' cant be something negative when we relate it with an idea, thought or philosophy. On the contrary it is something wee seek for. At this point the more important thing is how the thought became inclusive, by fiction or by scientific data? That is the main case. Hegelian-Marxist thought can be considered not as a philosophy but a 'method' to interpret the universe. Thats why it is not concrete and it is totally open to progress cause it based itself on the scientific data rather than idealistic uncertain speculative concepts.

Also there is no direct relation between Hegelian-Marxist thought and totalitarian or authoritarian examples we see in history. Bad examples cant be attributed to the source, thats something critical for us to conform. And lastly Hegelian-Marxist thought never ignore the individual. On the contrary individuality has a very important role in this method. Especially interpretation of history by Hegelian-Marxist thought show the unwavering relation between society and individual. Maybe the reason for this kind of misunderstanding is because of very frequent emphasizings of society as a whole in the name of defining the methodology of history.

When dialectical materialists talk about materiality, they mean first of all that it is not a certain concrete form of existence, whether it is a certain substance or a certain separately taken attribute of reality as, for example, space or time, but they mean a certain system of interdependent attributes that cause, create, pass one into another, that is, to some extent interdependent. The smallest system of such interdependent attributes is the body, since only the body separates one system of attributes from another, hence matter, materiality is nothing but corporeality in General. Any attribute taken apart outside the system of interrelated attributes, outside the body there is only an abstraction and nothing more, so the construction of something objectively existing outside the corporeality, outside the relationship between the bodies is only the creation of chimeras, delusion. Only in thinking the attributes of reality can exist separately, in themselves, or have some dominant role over other related attributes, therefore such absolutization of abstraction leads to the recognition of the primacy of thought forms with respect to reality, that is, to idealism.

Logic and logical thinking is functional and useful, and we should also take into account that emotion, intuition and reason is just as valuable.

We are emotional creatures, and we can't "logic" our ways through life and our problems; without having some kind of emotional suffering along the way. The brain knows why a habit can exist, but can't logic its way out of the habit, because; the emotion is often the core issue and problem. Food for thought for your thought post. I do appreciate it.

John F. Nash Jr., a mathematician who shared a Nobel in 1994 for work that greatly extended the reach and power of modern economic theory and whose long descent into severe mental illness and eventual recovery were the subject of a book and a film, both titled “A Beautiful Mind” had a super high intellect.

I hypothesize that this was only the intellectual part of his mind, the emotional portion was in partial conflict with it all.

The logical mind can impress new ideas and new logical concepts but they would have to resolve themselves within the subconscious (emotional) mind.

The subconscious mind is emotional at its core, and the logical mind is a mere piece to the puzzle. There are plenty of people who have a logical mind, and have emotional issues. The subconscious is an emotional center that is an interpreter.

I love logic, and your post is awesome, and I am expressing this here for other people on the thread below that we can't logic our way out of everything. We have an emotional subconscious core. The human mind is vast and logical is the neocortex of the brain.

The mammalian part of the brain is our emotion. The reptile brain is our survival mechanism. I have seen the logical mind "shit the bed" when high states of stress occur. It is valuable and should never be discarded, but it is not the only captain that runs the ship of the mind. Don't get me wrong. No where in the post does it say that we can logic our way through life. No arguments there... I am stating here that it is something we should never forget. Love your post. Awesome topic. I love this discussion! Keep up the good posts.



Most people are just using philosophy as a mental box to view life. Just another ideology. Just another label. Just another perception.


Thank you for your contribution. A watched the movie "A beautiful mind". It was impressive. I understand very well what you mean because of my creative writing experience. Science(logic) and art(emotions) complement each other.

A nice short compilation. But I dont agree with your conclusions. Hegelian-Marxist thought hasnt caused any impoverishment in human thought. Actually more than a century old experiences showed us that Hegelian-Marxist thought had some significant impact on varies fields and improved the richness of our thinking and knowledge. And also I should mention that 'inclusiveness' cant be something negative when we relate it with an idea, thought or philosophy. On the contrary it is something wee seek for. At this point the more important thing is how the thought became inclusive, by fiction or by scientific data? That is the main case. Hegelian-Marxist thought can be considered not as a philosophy but a 'method' to interpret the universe. Thats why it is not concrete and it is totally open to progress cause it based itself on the scientific data rather than idealistic uncertain speculative concepts.

Also there is no direct relation between Hegelian-Marxist thought and totalitarian or authoritarian examples we see in history. Bad examples cant be attributed to the source, thats something critical for us to conform. And lastly Hegelian-Marxist thought never ignore the individual. On the contrary individuality has a very important role in this method. Especially interpretation of history by Hegelian-Marxist thought show the unwavering relation between society and individual. Maybe the reason for this kind of misunderstanding is because of very frequent emphasizings of society as a whole in the name of defining the methodology of history.


Thank for sharing your thoughts. You may be right. I am not so sure.


Thanks fir your response

Dialectical thought, well I heard first time about it and quite intriguing to know about it I found a similarity in how the system works and I found it similar to how a democratic government works first tells or ask people about their opinions the people give their opinion whatever they have to think some people go with the government and some people go against the government. And as the government is in power they hear both the sides and decide what is best sometimes they mostly take the views of the negative people and correct based on the compromisation with the people who are with the government

But there is another dimension to the post that you have posted this doesn't only apply to the level of government but it also applies to the world even I am really curious on how to explain or understand this world with all the variety of knowledge that we have at present first of all unity of all the knowledge or Union of all that knowledge is very very important, we have thousands and thousands of years of knowledge experiment that we have is eventually going down to That is to make the world better equal and in easy words saying more understandable so actually each step that the human takes is actually towards the better understanding of the word that eventually all the knowledge in this world is going to be united at the end so there will be no problem of humans not understanding each other nor understanding the nature everything will be solved curse positive and negative if they are in equal amounts they always cancel it Chartered and then it result is always neutral

@muratkbesiroglu your post is too good. When we meet science and life together then something new.

you are an example to follow!

Pictures were really beautiful. It's great to read the whole blog. So do not shorten Thank You. Write more blogs for us.


It is a valuable feedback for me. Thank you for sharing it.

sao nó dài quá và hay vậy

Hi. I really love your stories. I am a Voice Actor and was wondering if you wanted any of them narrated? You can see other stuff Iv done for other members on steemit on my blog.




I would be glad. What is the business model? Do I have to pay for it? You will share it from your account I suppose

Amazing since..

Yine akıcı ve son derece kapsamlı güzel bir paylaşım olmuş. Kişisel gelişimi için her insanın felsefe ile ilgilenmesi ve eğitimini de alması gerektiğini düşünüyorum. Eskiden liselerde felsefe eğitimi vardı ama kaldırıldı. Düşünen toplum istenmiyor tabi.


1980 öncesinde liseden mezun olanlar felsefe eğitimi gördüler. Aralarında bugünün üniversite mezunlarından yüz kat daha olgun fikirlere sahip insanlar var.


Kesinlikle aynı fikirdeyim.

Ellerinize sağlık :)

Sizin eleştirilerinize görüşlerinize ve tavsiyelerinize ihtiyacım var. Dönüşünüzü bekliyor olacam teşekkürler şimdiden :)

So nice bro

best... waiting for next blog

Sizin yazılarınızı inceledikçe kendi eksiklerimi görüp düzeltiyorum , ellerinize sağlık.


Düzeltilenlerin hangi eksikler olduğunu merak ettim☺


Yazının düzeni akıcılığı vesayire.🙂

Tesekurler for sharing this @muratkbesiroglu

I liked this phrase: " When we had such knowledge, we felt as if we were close to solving the mysteries of the universe."

Regarding Hegel ... i think the whole World sits and will remain in this position of Hegelian " thesis-antitesis-synthesis " rule or concept for the rest of the ages ... it's part of the game ... other wise it gets boring :-)

Regards and congrats for the great blog presented


Very informative blog. Thank you

Okumaktan çok keyif aldığım başarılı yazarların kitaplarında okurken içlerinde kaybolduğum sözcüklerle yazmışsın. Okuması çok keyifli ve akıcı olmuş. Ellerine sağlık. Bilgilendirme için ve düşüncelerini paylaştığın için teşekkürler. Benim açımdan çok yararlı oldu.


Teşekkür ederim. Okurken içinde kaybolunan sözcüklerle yazan yazarları okumak bana da çok keyif veriyor. Aklıma Murathan Mungan geldi niyeyse.

I see your photo very calm 😇 @muratkbesiroglu


I am not as calm as the photos 😃


Bro philosophy is good as a subject to learn , however everything that happens in the world cannot be described using philosophy , but yes good efforts from you to get topic to our attention.

What do you think about Carl Jung and synchronicity? My husband and I are always experiencing amazing coincidences very frequently, which are too improbable and sometimes funny because of how obviously the universe seems to be communicating directly with us sometimes.


I red Jung's books narrating collective subconscious. As I was very young I couldn't understand the essence properly but I thought the content was important. I need to focus his work again to comment on the topic.


Yes, I agree, it can be difficult to follow his writings, but this is because he was so intelligent that many people can't understand his messages or misinterpret him. However, as I wrote to you before, the simple concept of "synchronicity" is self-evident, yet it defies and challenges a materialistic philosophy. The fact we can see evidence of synchronicity taking place in our daily lives is proof there is far more to our reality than what many people are willing to admit. Which is the fact there is a much greater Intelligence governing and guiding the creation and fate of the universe from the very beginning, previous to the big bang and until infinity. Many people refuse to accept or believe in God, but whether or not people want to have faith in God, they still can't explain the many miraculous situations we often find ourselves in, and the human ego is too quick to label these as mere coincidences, rather than being thankful for the evidence of divine intervention in our daily lives.

*****Excellent post like always*****


It would be really great a platform where all maths,physucs,chemistry combine snd bring out new language.

@muratkbesiroglu Greetings very good friend this article, but majestic photos, the castle, the bird and the constellation. You are dreaming allusive thousand congratulations ...


Thank you🧐

@muratkbesiroglu in all this article may favorite topic is star and the black holes. I have very much curiosity to know about these topics.


I will consider to write about astronomy. Thanks four your feed back.

Different legends in the past to present AI

Great to read your blogs you brings always different thanks for sharing such different stories i love your blogs keep doing thank you dear.

I(@momina) don't understand your language But, Pictures were really beautiful.


What a beautiful and well-written article. Philosophy is a very interesting course. I believe someday I'll major in that course.
The world is just so vast and so connected that curiosity at a point in time will fly in. Many have tried to unravel the secrets of the universe and sometimes the universe blesses them with a particular knowledge in a field. I guess the search for knowledge about the universe has always pushed us as human beings and it creates a drive that propels us in scientific advancement and in other fields.

This is really very beautiful photograph .. all the colours are beautiful ..
I m loving it ..


I sure about your opnion and i am very happy look this photo because give me calm

You got a 28.77% upvote from @upme thanks to @muratkbesiroglu! Send at least 3 SBD or 3 STEEM to get upvote for next round. Delegate STEEM POWER and start earning 100% daily payouts ( no commission ).

Fantastic work this one, kudos

This is simply an amazing post. Congrats!

the beautiful massage and picture..

Çok dahice bir düşünce ve herkes için çok yararlı.

its amazing combination of dance

Your blogs are always good to read at. It brings a new feeling.

Please read the post: #Life is a dream or dream is life#

Than give me upvote and I have given you an upvote.

Congratulations @muratkbesiroglu!
Your post was mentioned in the Steemit Hit Parade in the following category:

  • Pending payout - Ranked 3 with $ 401

Amazing photography

Posted using Partiko Android

Amazing piece of information. keep up with good work.

Thanks for the information..

hahahahaha so funny

As usual a good written, systematically arranged blog and covered most interesting topics. Especially I love to read Stars and Black Holes. Whole blog is a good source of knowledge all of topics covered are very interesting. I would love to read that kind of blogs in future too. Keep posting .....

blog on science & life always close to my heart thanks for sharing such a wonderful content


Thank you🤠

What a delightful and elegantly composed article. Logic is an exceptionally intriguing course. I accept some time or another I'll study that course.

The world is simply so immense thus associated that interest at a point in time will fly in. Numerous have attempted to unwind the privileged insights of the universe and now and then the universe favors them with a specific information in a field. I figure the look for information about the universe has dependably pushed us as individuals and it makes a drive that impels us in logical progression and in different fields. @muratkbesiroglu

yes this blog is so nice ,and it covers all topic .great sir
here i would like to ask about black hole ,is it exist or not?
i think black hole is nothing,we can see only those things which reflect light so there is nothing totally space and energy.

Nice pictures

Nice pic thanks for sharing