Dialectic as the Process of Unfolding Contradictions: A Critique of the Foundations of Western Rationality and the Approach of Transcendent Philosophy

Tavana, Mohammad Ali; Hashemiasl, Seyed Yazdan

doi:10.30465/os.2026.54792.2112

Dialectic as the Process of Unfolding Contradictions: A Critique of the Foundations of Western Rationality and the Approach of Transcendent Philosophy

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Mohammad Ali Tavana ¹

seyed yazdan hashemiasl ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

² PhD Student, Department of Political Science, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran

10.30465/os.2026.54792.2112

Abstract

Introduction
Dialectic has undergone profound transformations over twenty-five centuries, evolving from Socratic dialogue to Hegelian logic of contradiction and ultimately to Adorno's critique of instrumental reason. This paper addresses a critical rather than merely historical question: Do these transformations indicate a structural crisis within Western rationality? The hypothesis posits that dialectic in the Western tradition is trapped in an irresolvable duality between closed teleology (Hegel) and the dead-end of anti-teleology (Adorno). The main thesis is that this crisis can only be resolved by adopting the model of "infinite openness" found in Mullā Ṣadrā's Transcendent Philosophy, based on substantial motion (al-ḥarakah al-jawhariyyah) and the gradation of being (tashkīk al-wujūd). This thesis is established in three stages: (1) revealing the internal deadlocks of Western dialectic through critical analysis; (2) presenting a tripartite model (ontological, methodological, teleological) as a tool for comparative analysis; and (3) demonstrating how gradation of being transforms contradiction from "antagonism" to "difference in levels," offering a way out of the duality. The concept of "openness" refers to the gradual actualisation and intensification of contradiction, rooted in Husserl's phenomenology, Heidegger's hermeneutics, and Adorno's negative dialectics.
Materials & Methods
The method employed is "comparative-critical analysis," drawing from three main sources: the Frankfurt School's critique of instrumental reason, critical hermeneutics, and comparative methodology. Unlike genealogical approaches emphasising historical ruptures, this method focuses on identifying recurring patterns in confronting contradiction. Three features characterise this research: (1) comparative formulating three fundamental questions: At which layer does contradiction unfold? What is the method? What is the end? (2) critical each historical stage is understood as an "opening" of contradictions; and (3) self-reflexive acknowledging the risk of imposing Western frameworks on Islamic philosophy. To mitigate this, the paper draws on primary texts from Mullā Ṣadrā and uses Western concepts only as "analytical tools." The concept of "openness" is operationalised at three levels: cognitive (revealing hidden presuppositions), practical (managing contradictions dynamically), and existential (gradual movement from imperfection to perfection).

Discussion & Result
Critical analysis reveals that Western dialectic is trapped in an irresolvable duality: closed teleology in Hegel and Marx, where final synthesis absorbs all differences, and the dead-end of anti-teleology in Adorno, where rejection of totality leads to passivity. The paper presents the TSF model (Teleological-Substantive-Formative), which distinguishes "confrontational dialectics" from "gradational dialectics." In the ontological dimension, Western dialectic locates contradiction in the conceptual-logical or social-historical layers, while Ṣadrā locates it in existence itself. In the methodological dimension, Hegel uses determinate negation that erases differences, Adorno uses the constellation method respecting differences without direction, while Ṣadrā employs synthesis of reason, intuition, and revelation. In the teleological dimension, Hegel offers a closed end (Absolute Spirit), Adorno offers an anti-end, while Ṣadrā offers a "procedural end" (Divine Proximity), providing direction without closure. The key finding is that substantial motion demonstrates that contradiction flows in the heart of existence and never culminates in a final synthesis. The gradation of being preserves contradiction as difference in levels, avoiding both Hegelian violence and Adorno's passivity. Innovations include: the tripartite TSF model; the three-way comparison of Hegel, Adorno, and Ṣadrā; and the distinction between confrontational and gradational dialectics.
Conclusion
The findings confirm that Western dialectic is trapped in an irresolvable duality between closed teleology and anti-teleological dead-end. In contrast, Mullā Ṣadrā's Transcendent Philosophy offers "infinite openness" that remains faithful to contradiction while escaping this impasse. The main innovations are: distinguishing confrontational from gradational dialectics, and presenting the TSF model enabling systematic comparative analysis. Practical implications can be pursued in political philosophy, philosophy of science, and applied ethics. Limitations include: interpreting Ṣadrā through Western categories, absence of collective action in the model, language and translation issues, and neglect of other non-Western traditions. Future research suggestions include: comparing substantial motion with Whitehead's process philosophy, comparing Divine Proximity with Bloch's "Not-Yet-Being," applying the TSF model to contemporary socio-political conflicts, and comparing gradational dialectics with Deleuze's dialectics of difference. The paper concludes that Islamic philosophy is a living source for the unfolding of contradictions. The TSF model is not a final answer but a question-generating apparatus opening space for dialogue.

Keywords

Dialectic

Process of Opening Contradictions

Critique of Western Rationality

Mulla Sadra

Āqāsī, P., & Afshār Kermānī, ʿA. (2021). Bodmanandī-ye modrak be onvān-e moqaddame-ye ṣiyānat-e dhāt dar Mulla Sadrā va Hegel [Embodiment of the perceiver as a prerequisite for the preservation of the self in Mullā Ṣadrā and Hegel]. *Ḥikmat va Falsafeh (Wisdom and Philosophy)*, 17(68), 1-28. [in Persian]

Ḥasanzādeh Āmulī, H. (2007). *Ittiḥād-e ʿāqel va maʿqūl* [The union of the intellect and the intelligible]. Qom: Būstān-e Ketāb. [in Persian]

Ibn ʿArabī, M. (2008). *Fuṣūṣ al-Ḥikam* (M. Khwājū, Ed.). Tehran: Mowlā Publications. [in Persian]

Karīmī Khūzānī, M., et al. (2021). Aṣl-e tażād dar jahān az manẓar-e Mullā Ṣadrā va Hegel [The principle of contradiction in the world from the perspective of Mullā Ṣadrā and Hegel]. *Majalleh-ye Āmūzehā-ye Falsafeh-ye Eslāmī (Journal of Islamic Philosophy Teachings)*, 16(28), 211-235. [in Persian]

Nouri, M. (2016). Critique of the Frankfurt School on Enlightenment and its evaluation from the perspective of Richard Rorty. Fundamental Western Studies, 7(2), 123-143. https://journals.ihcs.ac.ir/article_2454.html [in Persian]

Qurbani, Z., & Shahnazari, J. (2015). The role of gradation in the union between intellect and intelligible. Journal of Philosophical Theological Research, 16(3), 29-52. doi: 10.22091/pfk.2015.41 [in Persian].

Ṣadr al-Mutaʾallihīn, M. ibn Ibrāhīm (Mullā Ṣadrā). (1981). *Al-Ḥikmah al-Mutaʿāliyah fī al-Asfār al-ʿAqliyyah al-Arbaʿah* [Transcendent Philosophy in the Four Intellectual Journeys] (Vols. 1-9). Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth. [in Persian]

Ṣadr al-Mutaʾallihīn, M. ibn Ibrāhīm (Mullā Ṣadrā). (1989). *Al-Shawāhid al-Rubūbiyyah* [Divine Witnesses] (Vol. 9). Mashhad: Markaz-e Nashr-e Dānishgāhī. [in Persian]

Ṣadr al-Mutaʾallihīn, M. ibn Ibrāhīm (Mullā Ṣadrā). (n.d.). *Ḥāshiyah ʿalā Ilāhiyyāt al-Shifāʾ* [Gloss on the Metaphysics of The Healing]. Tehran: Bīdār Publications. [in Persian]

Adorno, T. W. (1973). *Negative Dialectics* (E. B. Ashton, Trans.). London: Routledge.

Antil, R. K., & Biswal, R. (2023). From dialectic to critical theory: Study of Hegel & Marx to Adorno & Horkheimer. *International Journal of Law Management & Humanities*, 6(3), 1658-1667.

Aristotle. (1984). *The Complete Works of Aristotle* (J. Barnes, Ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990). *The Logic of Practice* (R. Nice, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Brandom, R. (2019). *A Spirit of Trust*. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buck-Morss, S. (1977). *The Origin of Negative Dialectics*. New York: Free Press.

Derrida, J. (1982). *Margins of Philosophy* (A. Bass, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Diogenes Laertius. (1925). *Lives of Eminent Philosophers* (R. D. Hicks, Trans., Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Farabi, A. N. (1968). *Iḥṣāʾ al-ʿUlūm* (A. González Palencia, Ed.). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.

Foucault, M. (1977). Nietzsche, genealogy, history. In D. F. Bouchard (Ed.), *Language, Counter-Memory, Practice* (pp. 139-164). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Gadamer, H.-G. (1989). *Truth and Method* (J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall, Trans.). New York: Continuum.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1969). *Science of Logic* (A. V. Miller, Trans.). New York: Humanities Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1977). *Phenomenology of Spirit* (A. V. Miller, Trans.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Heidegger, M. (1962). *Being and Time* (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). New York: Harper & Row.

Horkheimer, M. (1974). *Critique of Instrumental Reason* (M. J. O'Connell, Trans.). New York: Seabury Press.

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2002). *Dialectic of Enlightenment* (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Husserl, E. (1983). *Ideas About a Pure Phenomenology* (F. Kersten, Trans.). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Kahn, C. H. (1979). *The Art and Thought of Heraclitus*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kirk, G. S. (1954). Heraclitus and the Logos. *The Classical Quarterly*, 4(1-2), 5-18.

Koselleck, R. (2002). *The Practice of Conceptual History* (T. Presner, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Marcuse, H. (1941). *Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory*. New York: Oxford University Press.

Marx, K. (1993). *Grundrisse*. London: Penguin

Muslih, M., Syamil, M., & Kusuma, T. Y. (2025). Mullā Ṣadrā's philosophical concept: Integration of reason, intuition, and revelation in transcendent philosophy. *Afkar: Jurnal Akidah & Pemikiran Islam*, 8(2), 150-170. https://doi.org/10.31943/afkarjournal.v8i2.1306

Nurkhalis, N. (2011). Pemikiran filsafat Islam Mulla Sadra [Mullā Ṣadrā's Islamic philosophical thought]. *Substantia: Jurnal Ilmu-Ilmu Ushuluddin*, 13(2), 175-190. https://doi.org/10.22373/substantia.v13i2.4822

Pinkard, T. (1994). *Hegel's Phenomenology*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Plato. (1997). *Complete Works* (J. M. Cooper, Ed.). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.

Rizvi, S. H. (2009). Mullā Ṣadrā and process philosophy. In *Islamic Philosophy and the Challenge of Modernity* (pp. 105-125). London: I.B. Tauris.

Siderits, M. (2003). Comparative philosophy and the problem of translation. *Philosophy East and West*, 53(2), 229-247.

Suhrawardi, S. (1999). *The Philosophy of Illumination* (J. Walbridge & H. Ziai, Trans.). Provo: Brigham Young University Press.

Wang, R. R. (2014). *The Chinese Way of Thinking and Comparative Philosophy*. London: Routledge.

Weber, R. (2014). Comparative philosophy and the tertium: Comparing what with what, and in what respect? *Dao: A Journal of Comparative Philosophy*, 13(2), 151-171.

Whitehead, A. N. (1978). *Process and Reality*. New York: Free Press.