The case of bipartisan thinking is about reconciling two extreme viewpoints. It tries to absorb the strength of each standpoint while negating its inherent limits. Deeply influenced by the Aristotelian dialectics of affirmation and negation, Marx developed bipartisan thinking in dialogue with the pre-existing philosophical systems. Marx tried to reconcile materialism with idealism early on in his life but called his project a new materialism. He improvised his new materialism by synthesising the binary conflicts between rationalism and romanticism, positivism, and hermeneutics. The failure to comprehend his logic of affirmation/negation has led many critics and followers to conclude that Marx’s approach is partisan, arrogant, universal, closed and science-like. Though a few scholars have noticed that Marx’s discourse is open, one may discern that his discourse is open to learning from multiple sites of knowledge: real history, sensibility, natural being and social being, and so on. His search for bipartisan thinking goes on seamlessly, which leaves behind valuable lessons for posterity.
Arun Kumar Patnaik (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: