That is why Marx argued that if phenomena and essence coincide, science is not needed. Therefore, it is necessary to be critical of the study of accumulated knowledge in order to fruitfully apply the dialectical method. Earlier definitions that hinder dialectical thinking appear in contradictions that seem obvious. The contradiction between the world, directly experienced by people as an empirically given reality and the dialectical method, as a socio-historical perception of this reality, not only in the thesis, but also in fact from the angle of praxis.

As something that is done objectively, as a whole, but from whose cause we can participate as conscious subjects. The dialectic then appears as "disorder", "indiscipline", "uncertainty" and, above all, "fear". Therefore, between a revolutionary ideology that intends to think about reality as dialectical, through Marxism, there is an abyss, and on the other hand, the difficulty of revolutionaries to think in this dialectic and, especially, to think about this dialectic.

In order to abolish capitalism and transform the world in a human direction, organic mediators, parties, unions, associations, agreements, tactics, strategies, disciplines, hierarchies are needed to potentiate the action of classes, segments and individuals. A subject who intends to change the world in a revolutionary direction cannot simply announce the clauses of the universal dialectic in a solemn and kind tone. For if it is, as we have seen, the fact that natural reality itself is in independent motion, and before our activity and consciousness, the human meaning of transformation can only be given by us, our consciousness and organized action.

In this process, by virtue of specific mediators that potentiate our action, we are subject and object, means and goal, cause and effect. If we are not like the idealists in philosophy, who usually believe in historical evolution based on the almost linear development of the ethical-cultural dimension of society, and not just "contemplative" revolutionaries, we must be included in the structures of organized action. Moreover, knowing that this necessity suggests an unusual radicalism within capitalism that does not spontaneously sponsor an organic basis for the practice resulting from its destruction and replacement by socialism.

This organic basis for the expanded reproduction of revolutionary theory and practice must be freely set by the subject, since Lenin was intuitively interested in his vanguard party thesis. However, revolutionary people, even when they are restored to an organic totality, from the point of view of immediacy, become objects rather than subjects, means rather than ends, consequences rather than causes. That is, the spontaneous thought that comes from the structures of collective action, including the Leninist vanguard party, in the immediacy of its self-perpetuating relations, is always partial, adaptive and integrated.

And more seriously, it completely coincides with socially-given common sense. The subject is overcome in the middle of the road: he organically united himself to transform the world and transform himself, and he became a fixed element, not a critical one, not a reflexive one that does not even modify itself. The universal dialectic becomes a mystical and distant horizon. Its function in it is mediated by thought that imitates greatness through formal discourse, but in content it is partial, petty, utilitarian and manipulative.

And in organic reproduction, he himself, being manipulated, becomes a manipulator: order, power, hierarchy, discipline and forms become ends, and are not reduced to the means that they were born. This is what we can call the vicious circle of bureaucratic thinking. But just like everyday life is not an inevitable alienated aspect of life unless it remains in its aggressive spontaneity, much less the structures consciously created for revolutionary practice adamantly deny its purpose.

Now we can synthesize some more common features dialectical method, which are not explicit enough. Dialectics proposes to reveal the "object in itself" of the object. This implies two aspects that are related. First, he points out that dialectics wants to reveal the internal object, the movement and connections that come from its interior and constitute its concreteness. Second, the dialectic does not believe that objects are unknowable, that is, they contain an intimate secret that can never be revealed.

Dialectic believes in the full possibilities of knowledge, although it considers truth as an endless process, which has its own criterion in practice. Dialectics presupposes the existence of a universal and structured relationship. So his point of view is wholeness. Reality is perceived as a specific aggregate, that is, something spontaneous as a whole, endowed with a certain internal structure.

Dialectics includes two simultaneous, opposing and complementary attempts: to separate and analyze the perceived totality, then rationally combine and combine the parts into a specific totality covered by the concept. Dialectic disputes the so-called "principle of identity": it says that the matter is not only "what it is", but also "its other", which is not. Now, if reality is really dialectical, the thing must at every moment also be its negation.

For dialectics, there is no insurmountable gap between quantity and quality, since each is constantly changing for the other. These are two categories that imply two persons or two moments of movement, that is, accumulation and rupture, evolution and revolution. Things in their movement contain a process of internal differentiation, which necessarily manifests itself as contradictions. These are sources of energy for wholeness in their development and transformation. But the opposites are united, reality is the "unity of opposites", since it is from this unity that the structure of the totality arises.

Movement and transformation lead to the overcoming, and not to the complete disappearance of what has ceased to exist. As the poet said, "everything remains a little." Indeed, we have already seen that there is something within the flow itself that gives connection and concreteness to successive moments of transformation.

In short, the dialectical method is a kind of "torment of the spirit", although it is a desired and conscious torment. He asks himself, at what point does birth announce that which disappears? Thought can to some extent predict what is born by understanding the totality of the phenomenon in its early development and its current contradictions. Thus, there is some real unexpected surprise that can never be fully foreseen and understood before the appearance. And even then the understanding is relative and temporary, as we do not fully know that the new will go away, trying to become old and inferior.

Otherwise, a brilliant philosophy could once and for all realize reality in all its manifestations. Perhaps not coincidentally, humor usually involves overt contradiction or surprise, that is, the production of an entirely new and unpredictable meaning in a familiar or everyday context. Unpredictable growth from predictable. Surprise interrupted the routine. A new one that hasn't even been announced and therefore creates embarrassment for the characters and critical laughter in the viewer or reader. In this sense, laughing at oneself can be a manifestation of really wisdom, or at least a vague dialectical disposition indicated by a hidden self-critical accessibility.

In any case, dialectics as a method is not only "torment of the spirit." Understanding this and contributing to its construction in the sense of humanization through history is a lofty task that implies a legitimate satisfaction: that which comes from the struggle that the subject undertakes to transform reality, building himself in the process.

Principles of philosophy of law. Professor Zellal, in an interesting article in El-Watan entitled "Already Acquired Mother Tongue Not Learned in School". From a scientific point of view, as the name suggests, darijah already purchased should not be considered. The child learns alone darija, which allows him to structure his space-time, and then his ability to abstract. The child by nature seeks novelty, which fills him with joy. At 6 years old, the child leaves the language to join the rules of writing.

Therefore, he must tell stories that will develop his cognitive feelings, and then he can create beautiful theses for himself that will subdue his environment. Relearning what has already been learned is thus a regression, a delay in the normal development of the child. Professor Zellal supports his argument by referring to the French example where the child does not learn stalemate because it has already been acquired.

Professor Zellal's thesis is interesting, except that in France we don't study pato because it doesn't exist. On the other hand, the French language is not very far from the true French, i.e. from written French. Despite this, the three items to pass high school- mathematics, history and French. Mathematics is the basis of science, logic.

History to know where we come from and the French to express it all. On the other hand, in Algeria there is a gap between Darij and Arabic, as it is taught in school or listened to in a twenty-hour diary. It would be a mistake to ignore this. This gap is not only the result historical facts, especially colonization, but also the result of the hospital school.

We were recruited by a call center as agents of a bilingual English clientele are a must so we were recruited for our knowledge Arabic. The company had a staff that spoke a total of 46 languages, you could hear all the languages, small world, it was exciting. We had a task to call clients from Arab countries, especially from the Persian Gulf; That's where most of the recipes come from. The Arabic language group included Egyptians, Lebanese, Palestinians, Algerians, Tunisians and Moroccans.