Dialectic is the Art of Discussing the Truth of Opinions

Dialectic is the Art of Discussing the Truth of Opinions
Dialectic is the art of discussing or investigating the truth of opinions. It is a systematic argument or reasoning that juxtaposes contradictory or opposed ideas intending to resolve the conflict. In dialectical thinking or reasoning, a fundamental principle is that every opinion or idea is composed of opposite sides. Thus, such opinions or ideas can full be understood when their opponent is also understood. The purpose of dialect, therefore, is to try and resolve disagreements through rational discussion. At the core of dialect is two or more people with opposing points of view but seeking the truth on their subject of disagreement by excluding subjective elements like emotional appeal and rhetoric.
Socrates is among the classical philosophers who relied on dialectics in their reasoning or thinking. Socratic dialogues are, therefore, essential illustrations of a dialectic discussion or investigation. They are dialogues that encourage a group to question and reach an agreement in answering a universal question using personal experiences. The participants in a Socratic dialogue share experiences to avoid hypothetical turns. Through shared experiences, the participant's sense of reality is realized, which is vital in resisting totalitarianism. Aside from sharing experiences, participants also seek to be in the opposition's position through imagination, which allows people to think differently rather than think alike. As a result, disagreements are welcome despite the difficulties they cause in conversations because they lead to a more profound understanding of issues. It is based on these traits that Socratic dialogue differs from other conversations. According to Altorf (2016), Socratic dialogue tries to explore experiences together to establish underlying truths. In contrast, other forms of conversation assume that irreconcilable differences are a means to the end of a conversation. However, a Socratic dialogue does not need to end in a consensus.
For example, if a ship sets to sail, armed with a spare for each part, and reaches the destination when each of its parts has been replaced by the spares, some can argue that it is a new ship that docks, while others will argue that the ship is the same that set sail. Through a Socratic dialogue's view, the purpose of such an argument is not to immediately determine who is right or wrong. Instead, the aim is to interrogate open-mindedly what makes each argument valid. Where possible, a consensus that may affect poli...