A good philosopher needs to be able to move in and out of the dialectic. He or she needs to be able to see both sides of an argument, the 'goods', the 'bads', and the 'uglys' of opposing perspectives -- both theoretical and applied.
A distinction can be made between: 1. a 'Creative-Constructive-Idealistic-Grand Narrative Philosopher' who aims to paint a broad, idealistic, visionary picture -- a picture of hope and optimism for the future of a person and/or a nation: 2. a 'Deconstructive-Post-Modern Philosopher' who aims to punch holes, emphasize the weaknesses and pathologies, think in terms of 'processes and anti-processes rather than theories, structures, and creative constructions, and tear down the arguments and/or the policies of the Constructive-Grand Narrative Philosopher/Politician/King/Leader (without or without the counter-proposal of an alternative structure or construction being posited. It is generally easier to tear down than to build up -- unless you risk being imprisoned, tortured, and/or executed for going against the Ruling Party Status-Quo and Establishment, but it should be emphasized that both aspects of 'human culture-building, tearing down, and re-building' are absolutely necessary components of a properly functioning and growing evolutionary culture/government/corporation/organization/society).
A third type of philosopher is the 'Integrative or Synthesizing Philosopher' who aims to integrate and harmonize two or more opposing theories, and/or the disagreements between a Constructive Philosopher (and/or the Philosophical Party he or she belongs to) and a Deconstructive one.
This is all a simple extension of Classic Hegelian Dialectic Theory and 'The Classic Hegelian Evolutionary Life Cycle' that includes everything from Philosophy, Politics, History, Economics, Medicine, Psychology, to all other aspects of human life and culture.
Put another way, there are: 1. 'Thesis Philosophers', 2. 'Anti-Thesis Philosophers' and 3. 'Integrative Philosophers'. These may be used as simple 'teaching-classification devices' and/or ways of tracking the theoretical direction of actual philosophers/psychologists/kings/leaders as compared with the Classic Hegelian model of the evolutionary cycle.
It is not unusual for a philosopher to practise elements of all three of these forms of philosophy at the same and/or different times in his or her career of philosophizing.
Philosophy provides the underlying foundation for all other aspects of human culture and human living. For some people, the particular philosophy that underlies his or her character may be more clearly focused in his or her awareness, and/or articulated in his or her speech. For others, it may be much more covert, non-congruent, beyond awareness, and unarticulated.
It is not unusual for a person's particular philosophy to be full of 'working hypocrisies and double standards' -- indeed, this is probably more the rule than the exception when it comes to understanding human behavior. How many of us can say that we have never violated The Golden and/or Silver Rule of 'Reciprical Ethics' --
'Don't Do Unto Others What We Would Not Want Them To Do Unto Us' -- at some glaringly apparent different points in our life?
It is at least a partly unfortunate and tragic aspect of human behavior and human existence that 'Personal Narcissism Often Over-rules Personal Ethics'.
In the arena of human behavior, ethics is often an uphill battle. Like exercise and personal workouts, reciprocity ethics becomes easier with practise and habit -- especially when it is nurtured, encouraged, supported...
Unbridled, unethical narcissism in contrast more generally involves 'downhill cruising and coasting'...Thomas Hobbes, Arthur Schopenhauer, 'Animal Farm', 'Lord of The Flies'...
Part of this 'downhill cruising and coasting' can be fun and exciting -- nobody in their Dionysian-Narcissistic Mind (Ego State) wants to completely eliminate or even minimize all the highs and lows, the spontaneity, the impulsiveness, the pleasures, the conflicts and the tragedies, of human romance and sexuality.
But unbridled, unethical narcissism -- especially the worst of the worst -- inevitably ends in human destruction and self-destruction.
A hospital. A jail. A bankruptcy. A divorce-court. A morgue. You get the picture.
There is plenty of 'good' and 'bad' in human behavior and human nature. Over and over again, we see human narcissism (selfishness, greed, pride, love, lust, jealousy, possessiveness, envy, anger, rage, hate, power, revenge...) overpower human ethics, morals, character, and integrity.
Human narcissism is a huge factor in human behavior and human nature -- and in this regard, human ideology, philosophy, politics, and religion rarely touch the day-to-day corrupt and non-corrupt, toxic and non-toxic, pathological and healthy, influence and effect of human narcissism. It doesn't matter if you, or I, or we, are Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, religious or non-religious, Capitalist or Socialist -- you and I and we cannot escape the positive and/or negativeinfluence of narcissism on human behavior and human nature.
One might say that 'human narcissism' is at least partly -- if not largely -- ingrained in our genes, in our DNA makeup.
Ayn Rand would -- and has -- called it 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.
In contrast, Erich Fromm has called the 'darker, negative side of human narcissism and its resulting effects on human character and culture in a Capitalist society' -- 'the pathology of normalcy' (See Erich Fromm, The Sane Society).
So there you have it -- the 'opposing polarities, contradictions and paradoxes of Good and Bad Value Associated with 'Ethical, Humanistic-Existential Capitalism In Control' on the one hand -- and Narcissitic, Unethical Capitalism Out of Control' on the other hand. (Think of The Wall Street Financial Collapse.)
Take your choice between an Adam Smith and/or Ayn Rand 'Idealistic, Visionary, Constructive' view of Ethical Capitalism;
Versus a 'Marxian and/or Frommian Post-Modern Deconstruction of 19th century Narcissistic Capitalism (Marx) or 20th century Narcissistic Capitalism (Fromm).
DGB Philosophy works, negotiates, and integrates the 'democratic-dialectic' between these two twin economic-philosophical polarities -- that is, between Adam Smith and Ayn Rand Idealistic, Visionary Capitalism, and The 'Marxian-Frommian Deconstructive Critiques' of both 'Theoretical Capitalism' and 'Empirical, Reality-Bound' Capitalism as we see it today.
In this regard, DGB Philosophy aims to distinguish between the 'good', the 'bad', and the 'ugly' of modern-day, 21st century North American Capitalism.
DGB Philosophy aims to distinguish between: 'Dialectically and Democratically Divided, Alienated and Alienating, Top-Heavy, Narcissistic Capitalism' on the one hand; vs. 'Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential, Ethical, Win-Win Capitalism' on the other hand.
If Sarah Palin wants to go back and speak in front of The GOP and tell her party where they failed, as well as telling her party, where they need to idealistically move to, this is the place she needs to start.
However, I do not think that Sarah Palin:
1. Is aware of the type of philosophical distinction I am making here;
2. Is able to talk about the type of distinction I am making here with any kind of philosophical depth and passion;
3. Cares about this distinction to any depth of her self and soul.
In short, Sarah Palin needs to address her own ethical problems before she tries to address America's.
Philosphically and politically speaking, right now -- Obama and The Democrats are leagues ahead of where the American Republican Party needs to get to, and/or get back to.
The Republican Party needs to 're-enlighten' itself in the philosphical visions of America's founding fathers, as well as evolve to where American Capitalism and American Foreign Policy needs to get to, from a more 'ethical-dialectic-democratic' form of American Republicanism; not the type of narcissistic, unilateral, imperialistic Republicanism that America has seen for the last eight years.
The Republican Party can be a much better American Political Party than it is right now. But it needs to go back to its roots and re-establish these roots; not base a political campaign on trash-talking, fear-mongering, nation dividing, and racism. This may have worked in the past. But is America at its worst; not its best. At bottom level, The American Republican Party needs to re-establish and re-build its ethics and integrity and the ethics and integrity of 1. Republican Domestic and Foreign Politics; and 2. Republican Capitalism. It needs to regain the trust and respect of the American people.
Time will tell. Obama still has to show that he can 'execute effective, productive, meaningful American government action' as well as he can carry a speech. He has 'talked the talk'. Now he has to 'walk the walk'.
And I will develop my views and Idealistic Vision of American Capitalism as we move along here.
-- dgb, Nov. 15th, 2008, modified and updated Dec. 13th, 2008.
