Dialectically thinking would be to consider the issue at hand, and to form multiple positions to interpret our explain the situation, often contradictory or opposing positions.
The banker example has the philosophy cop browbeat the banker with a single line of reasoning. What he could do is take the bankers position himself, flesh it out, and argue both points (and others) to find the most sound position, that is often a nuanced blend of the others.
Can someone explain the difference between “poetic language” and “dialectically coming to the truth”?
Dialectically thinking would be to consider the issue at hand, and to form multiple positions to interpret our explain the situation, often contradictory or opposing positions.
The banker example has the philosophy cop browbeat the banker with a single line of reasoning. What he could do is take the bankers position himself, flesh it out, and argue both points (and others) to find the most sound position, that is often a nuanced blend of the others.
Thanks, great explanation!
So does the Philosophy Internal Affairs guy. Hypocrite.