It is not by accident that I have called my work here 'Hegel's Hotel'. I view Hegel as the greatest single influence on my philosophical perspective and work.
Either directly -- or indirectly through Perls and Gestalt Therapy, through Freud and Psychoanalysis, through Jung and Jungian Psychology, through Berne and Transactional Analysis, through Nietzsche and 'The Birth of Tragedy' -- Hegel has taught me to think dialectically.
In the newest version of 'Introducing Hegel' -- a great series of books for introductory and advanced philosophy students alike, this one written by Lloyd Spencer, 1996, 2006 -- it states on the back cover:
'George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is one of the greatest thinkers of all time. No other philosopher has had such a profound impact on the ideas and political events of the 20th century.'
(And his influence is not slowing down in the 21st century -- my addition.)
.....................................................................................
Having said this, it is important to recognize some points of divergence between Hegel's philosophy and DGB Philosophy.
Before I start, it must be stated that I have the evolutionary advantage, if you will, of having access to a great number of 'post-Hegelian' and 'anti-Hegelian' thinkers -- mainly philosophers and psychologists -- since Hegel died in 1831. Included in these are: Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, Freud, Jung, Adler, Perls, and more... More philosophical-psychological food to be processed -- or as Lloyd Spencer writes -- 'grist for the excerpt mill' (Introducing Hegel, pg. 9). Now let's look at some of our disagreements.
...................................................................................
1. Absolute Knowledge
You will never see the two terms 'Absolute Knowledge' thrown together in DGB Philosophy except in quoting Hegel. There is no DGB Idealism in these two terms. I simply don't use them. For DGB Philosophy, all knowledge is relative and subject to change. This does not mean that there is not some knowledge that is better than other knowledge. For example, the concept of 'bi-lateral, two-directional, causality' is generally a superior concept to 'unilateral, one-directional causality' but even here context can, and usually does, mean everything. Also, everything is subject to change (Heraclitus, Korzybski, Perls, Gestalt Therapy).
No generalization is right all the time. That is why they are called generalizations. Stereotypes are particularly dangerous types of generalizations that can, and often do, cause more human pain than they are worth. From human stereotypes comes human discrimination -- and reverse discrimination -- where individuals are judged by the stereotypes they are branded by, not by their individual differences. From discrimination comes preferential treatment, unfair treatment, and unequal rights -- the anti-thesis of democracy.
Back to the theme of absolute knowledge. Man is imperfect. Man's epistemology (knowledge) is imperfect. It doesn't matter how many times we run it through the 'dialectic grist mill' -- or not -- it always will be. Every thesis will open up new anti-theses or counter-theses. Every conflict-resolution will open up new conflicts. Every problem-solution will open up new problems. Every cure will have a new side-effect. Again, these are all generalizations but I believe generally good ones. Do you really think that we have less problems today than when Hegel was philosophizing? To be sure, our knowledge is better and greater. But does anyone really not think that it won't be much better in another 200 years? And another 200 years after that? That is, assuming that we have not completely self-destructed from global warming, polluting the world, and/or war.
There are still an infinite number of life mysteries regarding ourselves, our biological, chemical, and psychological make-up, and the make-up of the world around us. Nobody in our lifetime is going to see 'Absolute Knowledge'. We are far more likely to see 'Absolute Destruction' (due to man's narcissistic greed and power-mongering).
...................................................................................
2. Historical Determinism
I am not a 'hard-line historical deteminist'; maybe a 'soft-line historical determinist'. I play the dialect between historical determinism and historical existentialism/freedom.
Example One: When America (Bush, Congress, etc.) thumbed its nose at the United Nations, and was going invade Iraq with or without the UN's approval, I wrote an essay saying that this was a big political mistake. Disregarding the fact that the epistemology ('weapons of mass destruction' and 'national security') used to justify the war turned out to be false, I felt that the principle -- and action -- of 'international unilateralism' put into play by the U.S. was gross hypocrisy from a country that was trying to preach and teach 'international democracy'. Not to mention the fact that it created a huge international 'tide reversal' from other countries empathizing with the U.S. and supporting their chase of Al Queda and the Taliban -- to other countries turning against the U.S. for their gross United Nations and multi-national disrespect, and turning away from their chase of Al Queda and the Taliban in order to start another war.
Now Bob Dylan is purported to have said -- if we are to trust the 'epistemological validity' of the movie, 'I'm Not There' -- that he didn't believe that any of his songs was capable of generating social change. If he's right about that -- and certainly Dylan wrote some wonderful political protest masterpieces such as: The Times They Are a Changin, Blowin in the Wind, Masters of War, God on Our Side, Hattie Caroll, Emmitt Til, Hard Rain's a Gonna Fall, It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding, Balland of a Thin Man, Subterranean Homesick Blues...and many, many more --then how can I possibly believe that any of my political protest essays is going to do any better? That one day my essays will only be 'blowin in the wind' with far less fanfare than anything Dylan wrote.
My answer to this sense of 'political protest futility' is this: If only one person puts only one sandbag on the bank of the Mississipi River to prevent a flood, it is not going to do any more than 'one sandbag' of good. However, if a thousand different people each put one sandbag on the bank of the river it is going to do considerable more good at stopping a flood. Even more so if you have a thousand people each putting ten sandbags on the bank of the Mississippi River -- particularly at its most dangerous points -- and so on as you increase the number of people contributing to the process, and the more each person contributes.
We may or may not look back at the first contributer (usually we do) -- a Jackie Robinson or a Martin Luther King -- and say, 'Gee, what a wonderful process that that man or woman started...'
History usually takes more than one person to turn a tide of political change but it usually takes one or two brave and/or insightful people to start the process -- Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin... There is usually a combination of historical individualism, courage, and existential freedom, combined with 'the almost deterministic drive of the dialectic and the democratic will of the people to compensate for and correct political/legal/economic/philosophical/scientific errors and injustices of any type.
One person doesn't usually generate social and/or political change all by him or herself. Put together a group of people united in the same direction, each making their own individual contributions to the group, and more power and momentum starts to establish itself. This is how you get the beginning of political parties and/or poltical lobbyist groups. Once the 'cause' spreads to 'hundreds or thousands of people' change is likely going to come -- unless you have a strong, military dictatorship holding them back. And eventually, the dictatorship will topple -- particularly if it is not supporting the 'will of the people'.
Anaxamander -- the second oldest Greek philosopher -- was astoundingly astute. He had incredible insight into the dynamics of 'power dialectics' -- of 'cosmic justice'. In his own way, Anaxamander said: 'What goes around, comes around.' -- and who amongst you, doesn't at least partly believe in that prophetic piece of wisdom.
History -- human history -- continues to move forward using a combination of individual freedom and willpower in conjunction with historical determinism, the will of the people, the drive of the dialectic -- and cosmic justice.
-- dgb, Aug. 4th, 2008.
