The Dialectic Vs. The Didactic

What is meant by dialectic? There are almost as many definitions of dialectics amongst those that concern themselves with the difference to the didactic concept of truth. In short, "didactic" truth consists of absolutes, such as true/false, right/wrong, heaven/hell or simply mine/yours.

The dialectic is also a concept of opposites, but the process of the dialectic simply requires agreement between two opposing viewpoints; such that there is a concensus amongst the whole group present as to the setting of the truth.

Lets put that another way: didactics are beyond dispute, being absolutes, but 'dialectics' require the group concensus to determine the current setting or motivation with which the dialectic should be "synthesised."

The popular formula coined for the dialectic process is "thesis + antithesis = synthesis".

Just as didactics provide the bedrock of someone being completely confident with their current position, being 100% correct or 100% incorrect, the dialectic requires that everyone concede their position to follow the group consensus. So that by the end of the process neither opposing viewpoint has full force, but a synthesis of the two that to some degree has elements of both is carried by the group as a whole.

No wonder it is said that God takes the role of the Father, and gives out a didactic paradigm, with His words "thou shalt not..." etc. Likewise the serpent in the garden processes Eve to move her off the absolute towards a group concensus; "Hath God said ye shall not eat of every tree in the garden?" The serpent introduced the dialectic paradigm in a setting where God was "not present" and thus made irrelevent, wheras the reality of the absolute truth was such that God was just as relevent as He has always been.

The dialectic process then is one in which group participation is required for the intended result, and people take part because not only is it hard not to go along with the group, it is harder to go on on your own. The dialectic requires that people desire to persist in their relationships with the group and therefore in the process.The didactic position would be to sever the relationship with the group and do what is right over what is wrong. The bible teaches that God says the method of this dialectic process itself is evil, therefore should be avoided.

So many people are oncerned with the rise of this process over the last one hundred years or more: It has been blamed for the breakup of the traditional family and has polarised the christian world, either those christians are full participants or eschew all fellowship with those that are. I am in the second camp when it comes to my faith.

The didactic process in christian terms is to defer all judgement to the scripture, as to what God stated. The dialectic is then to discuss what a group "thinks it means" or to introduce many different bible translations so that the consistency and accuracy of the original text is pulled away from its 100% inerrancy to facilitate the process, or indeed an aberrant translation such as one derived from Westcott and Hort for example.

The dialectic process can only function without the presence of the absolute viewpoint, and those that remain firm or fixed in theirs are excluded. (Or if the group can not be brought into the process the meeting is often closed until it may continue at a later time.)

It must be pointed out that the logical process of the mind - the rationality of thought is a strictly didactic machine. It knows the difference between absolutes, from the chastening influence of the parent (which is to be destroyed by the dialectic process) and experience. The dialectic process is one of the sensual - the senses. The benefit of being part of the group is pleasureable wheras the hardship of going it alone is against pleasure but has the reward of a clean conscience. What the logic states is truth in didactic terms but the dialectic states only a synthesis that may be measured in its success only by the number of people that go along with it.

Both systems have some method of judging between what is true and false. The didactic has its usual methods of logical inference and equivalence, whereas the didactic examines the environment and the senses to see if there is a conflict - that the result could be pain rather than pleasure. Just as the didactic may assume the method of proof by contradiction: Also the dialectic may assume that a synthesis is preferable to either absolute because there is nothing in the environment that will do harm to the senses. The "reasoning system" of the senses is in this manner: that the evaluation of the environment and its consequences will not harm the senses and this may be summarised as "approach pleasure, avoid pain".

Thank you very much to Dean Gotcher of the Institution for Authority Research and his 'diaprax' and 'dragonspeak' tapes sold thorugh Christian Media Network.

Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start