In the past I've written about both the ancient philosophical method of dialectic and the importance of intellectual and political moderation. Here I'd like to bring these two strands together.
To summarize briefly, in Aristotle's hands dialectic consists of four key steps: upon (i) reaching an impasse, you (ii) survey existing explanations and reputable opinions, (iii) engage in analysis to remove paradoxes and draw distinctions, then (iv) formulate a synthesis that harmonizes the explanations and saves the appearances.
Consider, for example, Aristotle's discussion of societal organization in his Politics. In the ancient Greece of 2400 years ago, there were three primary political philosophies: monarchy (rule by one person, whether king or tyrant), oligarchy (rule by the few, whether true aristocracy or faction), and democracy (rule by the people, whether community or rabble). Whereas most political philosophies attract what Eric Hoffer identified as true believers, Aristotle carefully weighs the positives and negatives of each approach to governance, concluding that the best form of government does justice to each of these three principles. Of note, the U.S. Founders manifested the strong influence of Aristotle when they defined roles for a single President, an somewhat aristocratic Senate, and a more populous House.
Similarly, in his Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics, Aristotle considers three primary ways of life: the life of enjoyment, the life of public virtue, and the life of inquiry. In the end he concludes that the best life for human beings combines elements of all three; in particular, inquiry is deeply enjoyable and presupposes excellence of character. (I'll say much more about this in Complete Thyself, my forthcoming book on Aristotle's conception of human fulfillment.)
Because dialectic typically threads a middle path between extremes, one essential result is an abundance of moderation and a lack of partisanship. Thus dialectic can be a tool for the kind of healthy eclecticism I wrote about the other day, although it might go even farther by leading to a true synthesis of seeming opposites (sometimes referred to as syncretism).
I'm not saying this is easy. Many forces in present-day society (especially in America) lead us toward a downward spiral of angry, emotivistic extremism, not an upward spiral of interpersonal respect and reasonable moderation. Personally, I've found that the best way to avoid these extremes is to root myself in the eternal realities of deep human connection: family, friends, work, love, art, wisdom, community, and the like. In the end, what more do we really have?
(Cross-posted at philosopher.coach.)
FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION