I do not profess to be a Hegelian scholar -- not by a long shot. The deeper I go into Hegel and Hegelian thinking, the more sophisticated my arguments will likely get relative to what I am arguing about. But I'm on a time clock here. The time clock is my life. Hegel is a very complicated -- and sometimes frustratingly abstract and convoluted -- thinker.
I don't wish to spend the rest of my lifetime focusing and specializing only on Hegel. And I have said this before -- I do not wish to take my arguments into the furthest reaches of philosophical outer space to the point where you, my most esteemed readers, cannot understand me anymore than either you or I can understand Hegel at his abstract worst.
Hegel -- not unlike many other philosophical geniuses, and/or geniuses from other fields -- created a philosophy that could be, and was, profoundly revolutionary one moment (such as in his articulation of the nature of 'dialectical thinking' or 'dialectical logic) and bizarrely abstract, obtuse, convoluted, and/or self-contradictory another moment. (such as in probably his most controversial and profoundly stupid meaningless statement of his career: 'The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.' How is that for white-washing, sugar-coating, and sucking up to Prussian Kings?).
One has to ask oneself: How can a thinker of Hegel's stature argue on the one hand that, 'The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.', and on the other hand argue in 'The Philosophy of Right' that moral subjectivism is a bad thing because it can be used to justify any crime. (Lloyd Spencer, Introducing Hegel, pg. 102)?
No kidding -- Sherlock. And what, Mr. Hegel, do you think about the inherently self-contradictory logic between your statement of supposed wisdom -- 'The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.' -- as compared to your other statement in another context is supposedly equal or better wisdom ('The Philosophy of Right') that 'moral relativism' is a bad thing. Explain this apparent self-contradiction, will you please, Mr. Hegel? Obviously, you can't because you are dead. So if any of your most beloved students -- of which I partly claim to be one -- can pick up this apparent self-contradiction in your logic, and explain it way, like snow melting off the ground in spring, then, by all means, please pick up the dialectic here in your absence. I, personally, remain quiet because I see no way of explaining this self-contradiction away.
There are ways of seemingly justifying this Hegelian eye-sore. I will take up the task of my potential Hegelian protagonists and protectionists. We can justify it on the ground of 'historical determinism' and/or 'teleological determinism' -- the logic would run something like this: If you think in terms of where reality has come from and/or where it is going, then the present reality becomes a 'justified, rational, necessary reality'. But it still boils down to moral-ethical relativism, which in effect is moral-ethical white-washing -- and hogwash. The present reality -- no matter how corrupt and criminal it may be -- is 'dialectically justified' on the basis that it is a 'temporary phase of dialectical evolution' -- and 'rationally necessary for this ongoing evolution'. Again -- hogwash -- and justification for sitting on your hands and doing nothing about individual, social, legal, economic, political, and environmental moral-ethical transgressions, improprieties, corruptions, crimes...
We could also sit here forever and play 'cat and mouse definition games'. This is what Hegel meant by 'rational' and this is what Hegel meant by 'real'. No, he didn't -- he meant this. And so on.
The deeper we dive -- or the higher we soar -- into this verbal conundrum, the more mixed up and confused we will get. Word and mind games that will take us nowhere except on a magic carpet ride. It's like bobbing for apples and trying to grab the apple with your tongue. It might be a fun game to play at a halloween party when you're drunk and in mixed company but if you are serious about grabbing the apple, it is not going to happen -- unless you use your hands and/or your teeth.
And so it is with Hegel. If you want to make practical sense of Hegel -- as with any philosopher that delves too much in the abstract, then you have to use your hands and your teeth to clear away the abstractions, the conundrums, the self-contradictions, the word play, and the mind-games. Otherwise, you will be bobbing for apples for a long, long time -- about as long as it will take man's Spirit, or God's Spirit, or the Universe's Spirit to totally enlighten itself with 'Absolute Knowledge'. Try totally enlightening yourself with 'Absolute Balderdash' -- and you will be closer to the truth.
This brings me to my last point and Hegel's last 'self-contradiction' that I will talk about here.
Firstly, let me be clear on this point: I am a huge proponent of the value of dialectic thinking -- and that's what 'Hegel's Hotel' is -- it is an evolving philosophical treatise that is built from dialectic thinking -- thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. My philosophy used to be called 'Gap Philosophy' -- it philosophizes in the 'gaps'. 'DGBN' stands for 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging Negotiations'.
However, this having been said, dialectical thinking is simply one important means to an end -- and that end is 'more functional, pragmatic, practical knowing (epistemology), being or living (ontology), and becoming (teleology)'.
Dialectic thinking and negotiating does not always work. Sometimes it might bring us to an impasse, a stalemate. Othertimes, it just may not be the type of logic and/or thinking that we should be using in a particular context. Maybe we should be using Aristolean-Kierkgaardian 'either/or' logic. Or Bush's infamous 'unilateral logic'. (If the United Nations does not want to support us in our invasion of Iraq, then we will go it alone -- unilateralism -- or we will lead an 'army of the willing'.)
If you choose to use Aristotlean-Kierkgaardian 'either/or' logic, then you might think something like this: Either you can be married or you can be single -- but you can't be both. You can't 'have your cake and eat it too'.
If you are a 'unilateral thinker', you might argue something like this: I don't care what my husband or wife thinks or feels; I will do what I want, regardless. (Such a person is not likely to have a very long marriage unless he or she has a very submissive, subservient husband or wife. Similarily, international political unilateralness is not particularly good for international diplomatic relations -- when you are looking for foreign support and help down the road, don't expect it to be there after you have basically 'dissed' and 'dismissed' the countries that you are now asking for support and help from.)
Now 'dialectical thinkers' are always looking for different ways in which they can 'have their cake and eat it too'.
But here too, we need to differentiate between different types of dialectical thinkers, such as:
1. 'Unilateral dialectic thinkers': Here we apply and practise dialectic thinking within ourselves. For example, I read Adam Smith and/or Ayn Rand, and then I read Karl Marx and/or Erich Fromm, and then I try to find a 'working synthesis' between 'Smith's and Rand's ideal Capitalism' vs. 'Marx's and Fromm's ideal socialism'. Or going back to my first example, I try to 'split the difference between being married and being single -- and still keep my wife.' And there is many different potential places that this type of dialectical thinking could take either you or me as we try to creatively balance such things as: narcissism (sexual drive, security...), empathy, altruism, morals, ethics -- and staying married.
2. 'Bilateral dialectical thinkers': Here two different thinkers sit down and try to work out a conflict resolution to whatever the disagreement or conflict is. I probably wouldn't recommend this for most married couples who want to stay married unless you are both very open-minded and liberal. Discussions about past, present, and/or future potential 'infidelity encounters' don't usually go over too well with the husband or wife. I tried this type of discussion once and let's just say that I probably will never try to do it again -- not with someone I am intimately involved with.
It's probably a good thing that God/Nature generally starts to lower the sex drive around 50 to 60; otherwise, it's scary to think how much more biological, psychological, and philosophical chaos could be thrown into the lives of 'civilized' people. So much for wisdom -- and peace of mind - in old age. Nursing homes out of control. Kids with changing grandfathers and grandmothers -- and not just because their fathers and mothers, or step-fathers and step-mothers, were changing. I'm trying partly to be humorous here but underneath the partly intended humor is an incredible amount of human and family pain, pathos, traumacy, and tragedy.
You want to talk about biological, psychological, and philosophical contradictions. There is no greater human contradiction -- at least for many if not most people -- between the drive, or shall we say, 'ethical restraint', to be 'monogomous' vs. the drive to be 'non-monogomous'.
For some, this may be a 'no-contest' conflict -- one way or the other; but for others -- like myself -- it may be a lifelong biological, psychological, and philosophical -- conflict/problem. If, some day, some philosopher finds a good working biological-psychological-philosophical dialectical conflict resolution to this problem that results in a better type of 'self and social homeostatic balance' than the one we currently have relative to this issue, such a philosopher would deserve to become a millionare. Because right now, the co-relation between: marital infidelity, possessiveness and jealousy, family instability, domestic violence, and family self-destruction -- has got to be huge.
Finally, to finish my last point. Dialectical thinking and logic has no boundaries, no limit to where it can take us. Even on one conflict issue, different dialectical thinkers could -- whether it be one, two, three, or a hundred people working together to resolve the same conflict-issue -- could probably come up with a virtually endless combination of workable or non-workable conflict-solutions/resolutions on this particular issue. Plus there are an infinite number of possible conflict issues out there in the real or imagined world we have to live in.
Thus, the potential 'end solutions' -- and their 'negation' -- and their 'counter-negation' and their endless number of potential integrations/syntheses are as infinite as the universe itself. Never will their ever be any arrival at 'Absolute Knowledge' because, according to dialectic logic, even 'Absolute Knowledge' would have to be subject to its own negation -- and further integration.
Conclusion: Dialectical thinking is incompatible and contradictory with any talk of 'Absolute Knowledge'. So once again, 'Absolute Knowledge' is a non-contributing factor in the evolution of DGB Philosophy.
That is enough for today on this subject matter. Have a great dialectical day. And may you work your way through your unsuccessful dialectic integrations -- to get to your successful ones that hopefully will make you happy.
-- dgb, Aug. 10th, 2008.
See DGB Philosophy, German Idealism
