No.8006
As a fellow high school dropout, I feel you. Fear not, though. Philosophy is made out to be esoteric, but if you really look at the ancients who wrote on it, they were figuring things out for the first time. They didn't have received pedagogy to tell them what to think, in the manner that they themselves prescribed for future generations. If you see it like that, rather than some imperious dictate from on high to tell you what you're supposed to think, it's a much more approachable topic.
First off, if someone speaks of "dialectics" they are usually a pseud and shouldn't be trusted. It's mostly from people saying words that impress the sense but don't really say anything. So to explain dialectic and what it does, you have to step back and consider a world where you didn't have ready-made definitions in language, and you had to discern what a word means. Stupid people do this all of the time when trying to describe an unfamiliar word by relating it to other words and ideas, that the participants in this conversation understand. We may not know for instance what a "dog" is, if we never encountered such a creature. But, if you speak to someone with familiarity on the subject, they will describe a dog as an animal with four legs, of various breeds. Or, they could point to a photograph and say "this is a dog", and expect you to be able to see it, recognize it, and store it in your knowledge.
Basically, "dialectic" is a way to establish language from prior conditions that are understood by someone. Anyone who speaks of dialectics "creating" anything doesn't know what they're talking about. Dialectic allows someone to expound on an idea that otherwise wouldn't be communicable.
So you ask, where do the primary ideas that allow this dialogue come from? That's the great question, because you couldn't take it for granted that there is some natural force that simply made it so by decree or asserted what the world is. The beginning of this inquiry formally for most people is religion or theology, or some spiritual understanding of the world that is intuitive. Even if people aren't particularly religious and consider themselves realists, they are asking ultimately a question of what, if anything, can be trusted for genuine information about the world. Since this is obviously about information rather than "raw knowledge", this is ultimately about the ways humans (or any other entity capable of language) understands the world.
So, a human child typically starts off with some knowledge that is more or less "inborn", which are very simple things. They attain by contact with other humans and the world further knowledge. How this happens is not immediately important, but it is something the child can ask and has to ask eventually—how they know what they know. Even without an understanding of metaphysics or epistemology or logic, some cruder form of such is fashioned out of necessity to describe the world by entities that think or interact with the world. The child, as an infant, did not willfully choose to be born or sense any of this. The infant is at first an animal, and it has no "necessary" impulse guiding any of this. Usually though, the animal is nurtured by its mother or some condition. This is very basic animal sociality. If not this, the animal finds its way in the world, mostly by instincts that ultimately reduce to a basic want for food. Human infants will seek food if they are hungry, cry for attention, and that sort of thing. Part of the child learning language is that the mother speaks to it, plays games with it, and she would be the first point of contact for learning things. If not the mother, than some other entity would be the one doing this. Children that grow up without this dialogue and affection will turn out very differently, and we have ample evidence in the literature for this. None of this information from the mother is pedagogically fed as undigested information. The infant doesn't have any built-in language in that sense. It is instead synthesizing that language based on these interactions, these dialogues, and its knowledge of the world. The infant's upbringing is not purely linguistic. It is like any animal operating in a world where it has real requirements like food. The non-linguistic parts though are not "dialogues" in the same way that the games and language learning are. They are interactions, and in some way the infant is becoming part of the world they are in, and the world is in some way affected by the infant. The infant and child learn very early that their actions have consequences, and there is no way to wipe clean history. Something that is broken remains broken and will not be automatically repaired by some force that makes the world settle in place.
I can go on in this vein, but by the time a child starts asking existential questions about the universe itself, its ultimate origin, and this usually starts around the age of 7 because any child that encounters this thing called society is going to see there are much bigger humans that know a lot more about the world than it does. Sometimes it starts earlier, sometimes a little later, but even if the child were segregated from society, it would see there is a world with consequences and it will have to learn, however it can, how to adapt to the world.
The modern German ideology is about interdicting this dialogue and snuffing it out. The Greeks, who had varying thoughts on the topic, saw dialogue as an exchange that encouraged growth of knowledge, or possibly a way to bullshit others. Dialectic has a very limited purview, because most of the universe isn't linguistic. It is mechanical for the most part, and if you really get into asking what the world is, all of existence is necessarily mechanistic, including whatever impulse created the universe (or you assume the universe always existed and will always exist in some way, but this itself implies a "creation" outside of time as we know it). Dialogues in any language are, out of necessity, causal in the manner language requires, because language is necessarily a temporal event rather than a trans-historical one. In all of this, we hold the dialogue with the assumption that the universe at a basic level is not linguistic at all; that any language we use to describe it is a tool for our purposes, and the facts of the universe are independent of any representation we express in any way. This is explicitly stated in Aristotle's writing on logic, and what Hegel is attempting to corrupt and degrade.