Note 17. To the Subsection “Dialectical Logic”
According to Akira Seto, the following difficulties arose as a result of the debate on Logic in the fifties:
(i) Difficulty in the Reflection Theory of Logic: It was asserted that the law of identity and the law of contradiction are on the one hand relative, as they are reflections of the relative unchangeability of objective reality, while on the other hand they are absolute as the rules of operation of thought, or the forms of thought. However, the refutation was made that if the law of identity and the law of contradiction are merely relative reflections of reality, then they can naturally have only relative validity.
(ii) Difficulty in the Operation Theory of Logic: Formal logic is the logic of operation in the sense that it is not concerned with the truthfulness of thinking, but with the validity of thinking. Therefore, it was asserted that the law of identity and the law of contradiction are not reflections of reality but they are purely the laws and norms of thinking. However, to recognize independent laws of thinking without any relationship to existence would imply losing the materialistic foundation, falling into Kantian a priorism. Contemporary Epistemology and Dialectic (in Japanese) (Tokyo: Sekibunsha, 1976), 234-237.
The difficulty pointed out in my book refers to part (ii) above. As a method of solving the two difficulties above, Seto suggests that we should recognize that the two contradictions in the law of contradiction, namely, the dialectical contradiction and the contradiction in the formal logic are originally different in nature. However, to regard the two contradictions as essentially different would be to lose the materi-alistic foundation. After all, the problems are not solved at all, as Seto himself points out: “This does not solve all problems…. A question is raised as to the reason why the situation has arisen that the two essentially different contradictions are expressed in the law of contradiction at the same time” (Ibid., 250).