The Dialectic and Absolute Truth

The Hegelian dialectic consists of three parts: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. We went over this in class, but it plays a central role in pretty much every area of Hegel’s philosophical work, so it bears repeating and extended elucidation. So consider the thesis to be something like “the sky is blue” and its antithesis to be something like “the sky is black.” Now, taken at face value, these two statements contradict each other, and if the debaters who issued them believe in their respective statements with an absolute fervor, their discussion isn’t going to move much. However, through conversation, they can each come to understand the other’s viewpoint and perhaps arrive at a compromise. In this case, the conversation would probably include a few qualifications to the statements that would diminish the reasons to believe absolutely in one or the other: “when the sun is out, the sky is a blue color,” and “when the sun is not out and the stars are visible, the sky appears black.” These qualifications reveal that the color of the sky is contingent on light source and—we can deduce—time of day. As a result, we can come to a synthesis: “the sky is blue during the day, and black at night.” This synthesis includes both of the previous claims; rather than negating the claims themselves, it simply negates the contradiction between them.

Now, this is a fairly reductive way to illustrate the dialectic, but it gives a good idea of what Hegel is getting at when he talks about dialectical reason. Moreover, we can see where this line of reasoning can go: the claim “the sky is blue during the day and black at night” can be argued against (what about cloud cover? Light pollution? Geographic location?) and continually revised, moving from general sorts of statements like “the sky is blue” to very specific statements like “in Memphis, TN on days with little cloud cover, the sky is blue between sunrise and sunset.” For Hegel, this sort of progression is indicative of a movement toward “truth,” which refers to knowledge of absolute facts that are necessary to being. It seems that “truth” or “the absolute” is reached when no antithesis can be offered; at this point we will have achieved absolute certainty.

What is interesting to me here is that, for synthesis to be reached, neither the thesis nor the antithesis can be true in an absolute sense: both debaters must be open to revising their statements, providing qualifications that recognize contingencies, hence opening themselves to the possibility of not being completely right. So what happens when we have two claims like “God exists” and “God does not exist” (to make this a bit simpler, consider “God” to be referring to the commonly-accepted Judeo-Christian deity)? Strictly speaking, both cannot be correct. Nor does it seem likely that either debater would give much ground on the issue. So can we arrive at a synthesis? Even if we revised them into statements of belief (i.e. “I believe that God exists”), it doesn’t seem that we could really come out with an answer. This seems indicative of a need to move away from the search for absolutes in favor of a recognition and embrace of contingency. Most of my work centers around this idea, and I’ll be returning to it here over the course of the semester. What do y’all think? Can we really maintain a view that absolute certainty is even possible?