49. Dialectic, Doubt, and the Discovery of Truth

Subscribe in Podcast App | Download Transcript

Lecture Notes

Main Topics #

The Four Reasons for Dialectical Method #

Aristotle gives four reasons in Book III of the Metaphysics for why dialectic must precede demonstrative science:

1. Productive Doubt - One must “doubt well” (διαπορεῖν καλῶς) before discovering. Proper doubt means presenting arguments on both sides of a question.
2. Direction Toward Truth - Without seeing the difficulty (the knot), one doesn’t know where inquiry is going.
3. Recognition of Discovery - One cannot recognize when the knot is untied unless one has first seen it clearly.
4. Better Judgment - Hearing arguments from both sides (like both lawyers in a courtroom) positions one to judge better than hearing only one perspective.

The Knot Metaphor #

Berquist emphasizes Aristotle’s image: the mind “tied up” by contradictory but plausible arguments. Just as one cannot walk forward with feet bound together, the intellect cannot proceed without recognizing and articulating the apparent contradiction. The subsequent discovery is the “untying” (λύσις) of this knot—the resolution that shows why the contradiction was only apparent.

Dialectic vs. Modern Doubt #

Berquist contrasts Aristotelian “doubting well” with modern philosophical skepticism:

• Modern philosophers harbor many doubts but do not doubt well
• Doubting well requires presenting multiple strong arguments on both sides systematically
• The Disputed Questions format (e.g., Thomas’s Quaestiones Disputatae de Veritate) exemplifies proper dialectical method: many objections presented rigorously before the body of the article proposes the solution

The Role of Dialectic in Discovery #

• Dialectic is not merely preparatory to science but essential for genuine discovery
• Thomas uses dialectical method throughout his commentaries on Aristotle and in theological inquiry
• The method applies universally across philosophical domains (natural philosophy, ethics, metaphysics, theology)

Key Arguments #

First Reason: Necessity of Proper Doubt for Discovery #

• Discovery (εὕρεσις) is an “untying” of things previously doubted
• One cannot untie a knot one does not know exists
• Presenting good arguments on both sides reveals the knot: the apparent contradiction shows something hidden in the matter
• Therefore, one must doubt well before discovery can occur

Second Reason: Directionality of Inquiry #

• Those who seek without first doubting are like travelers who don’t know their destination
• When you recognize the knot, you know the direction: toward untying it
• The knot itself provides the direction for inquiry
• Modern philosophers, lacking this method, proceed without clear direction

Third Reason: Recognition of Arrival #

• When you’ve seen the knot, you know when you’ve arrived at truth
• The untying of the knot is recognizable as such: the contradiction disappears, the difficulty resolves
• Without having first seen the difficulty clearly, one cannot know whether a proposed solution is genuine

Fourth Reason: Judicial Perspective #

• Analogy to legal reasoning: a judge who hears both prosecution and defense is better positioned to judge than one who hears only one side
• Both sides present probable arguments with plausible reasoning
• Hearing both sides allows one to weigh evidence more fairly
• This illustrates why dialectic, though proceeding from probable premises, is indispensable

Important Definitions #

Doubt well (διαπορεῖν καλῶς): Not mere skepticism or uncertainty, but systematic presentation of strong arguments on opposing sides of a question, creating genuine intellectual perplexity that points toward where truth must lie.

The knot (ἀπορία/ἡ δυσχέρεια): An apparent contradiction or difficulty arising from equally plausible but seemingly incompatible positions. It signals that something hidden or overlooked requires discovery.

Untying (λύσις): The resolution of an apparent contradiction; the discovery that shows why the contradiction was only apparent or how the truth reconciles the opposing views.

Dialectic (διαλεκτική): Reasoning from probable premises (ἔνδοξα) to explore difficulties; a method essential not only for preparation but for discovery itself.

Examples & Illustrations #

The Tied Game Analogy #

Berquist uses sports terminology: when a game is “tied,” neither side has won. The game remains in this state (no progress) until someone “breaks the tie” (untying occurs), at which point one side advances. Similarly, intellectual inquiry is “tied up” by contradictory arguments until the knot is untied through discovery.

The Prisoner with Bound Feet #

If your feet are bound together, you cannot walk forward. You are stuck in place. Similarly, when faced with equally plausible arguments on both sides, the mind is bound and cannot proceed. Only when the contradiction is resolved can you move forward in understanding.

Heisenberg and Bohr on Quantum Theory #

Berquist recounts how Heisenberg and Bohr worked on quantum mechanics in Copenhagen, initially in near despair because observations seemed contradictory: “Can nature really be as absurd as it seems?” They recognized the knot. Bohr went skiing while Heisenberg remained working; they each developed solutions independently. When they compared solutions, they found compatibility—the knot was untied. Heisenberg’s excitement at seeing the solution was so great he began calculating and made errors; once calmed, his calculations came out perfectly, showing he had genuinely arrived at truth.

Courtroom Analogy #

In a trial, both prosecution and defense present arguments for guilt and innocence respectively. A judge who hears both sides is in a better position to judge than one who hears only the prosecution or only the defense. This mirrors why dialectic, using probable arguments from both sides, leads to better judgment than proceeding from only one perspective.

Notable Quotes #

“It is necessary for those wishing to discover to doubt well.” — Aristotle, Metaphysics III, as cited by Berquist

“One is not able to untie who doesn’t know the knot.” — Aristotle

“If you haven’t seen the knot, you don’t know where you’re going.” — Berquist’s elaboration on Aristotle

“The moderns doubt without doubting well.” — Berquist

“The game is tied up! …and then somebody gets up in the last half of the ninth, it’s a home run, and the game’s untied!” — Berquist, illustrating the knot/untying metaphor through sports language

Questions Addressed #

Why must one doubt before discovering? #

Because discovery is the resolution (untying) of what was previously in question (tied). If you don’t recognize the difficulty (the knot), you have nothing to resolve, and therefore no genuine discovery.

How do modern philosophers differ from Aristotelians in their approach to doubt? #

Modern philosophers entertain many doubts but do not systematically present strong arguments on both sides. Aristotelian dialectic requires presenting probable arguments from opposing perspectives, which creates genuine intellectual perplexity—a productive rather than merely skeptical doubt.

How do you know when you’ve found the truth in dialectical inquiry? #

When the knot is untied: when the apparent contradiction resolves, when opposing arguments are seen to be reconcilable or when one is shown to be truly superior. The resolution itself is recognizable as such—the perplexity disappears.

What is the relationship between dialectic and the Disputed Questions format used by Thomas? #

Thomas’s Quaestiones Disputatae exemplify proper dialectical method: numerous objections (often 10-20) are presented on both sides before the body of the article proposes the solution and replies to the objections. This structure enacts the process of doubting well and then untying the knot.