Dialectical-Algorithmic thinking

[silke]

@Contra could you say some more about how this essay is illustrative of this style of thinking? it's not native for me so i don't pick up on it right away

[Contra]

@Contra could you say some more about how this essay is illustrative of this style of thinking? it's not native for me so i don't pick up on it right away

Ok so I had to reread a bit to conjure up the same thoughts I had when i read it. I think this example encapsulates the method he uses through out:

"There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests."

Here he sets up the dialectic. He gives two different sides to two different aspects of a problem. They don't necessarily have to be diametrically opposed; only constituting two different viewpoints on an issue. The part I italicized is what he focuses on in the next paragraph:

"The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties."

Here, the parts I bolded, are where he explains, through Ni, why either said solution to removing the causes of faction won't work. This is a partial resolving to the dialectic. He doesn't really explain his intuition, he only states it as a fact, which I think is typical of ILIs when they aren't challenged on their intuitions. In the bolded-italicized, You can see, more obviously, where his reasoning conforms to an If-then form even if he didn't literally use the form.

"It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects."

Here is where he fully absolves the dialectic and comes to his solutions. If I remember correctly, he does this through out the essay, but this is the more obvious example. This is structurally and I guess you could say cognitively how I've set up a lot of my own papers so it was weird reading something so similar in something so old.