What is so good about diamat and so bad about Aristotelian logic?

It provides you a more objective perception of matter.

How?

By using a dialectical method.

So you hope.

I have no hope.

The superiority of diamat is based in dogma

But it gives us more agile thought method.

So?

It is good for the evolution.

Keep going.

For revolution too.

You see you're reasons will infinitely regress.

You have no reason, it is dogmatic belief.

Reason is subjective.

Just like diamat.

Yes, it is a subjective form of objective.

But you cannot explain why.

It is better than other logic.

Not very logical.

Because it gives more options. Other logic is X = X. Our logic is complex. X is H and also P and will become K.

And this makes it more or less true?

Our logic is made to reflect matter in most pure form possible.

No, it is based on your abstraction of matter.

Yes.

That is the same thing.

An abstraction is not objective.

It can be objective.

More or less.

Unlikely.

It always is. Some people have better understanding of reality, some not. Some more objective.

By random chance, sure. But because they hold diamat over Aristotelian logic? That is not clear since diamat is based on an abstraction (about logic) also.

Switching to so simple logic would be like switching from Russian to English. It is terrible to use much less agile language.

Even worse to use less agile logic.

Here we go again with the infinite regress. 'Agility' makes is more or less true?

Agility makes it more suitable to reflect matter.

Does it?

yes

You have an argument for that or are we just being dogmatic again.

I'm speaking from experience this time.