For the record, I am going to re-write this essay to try to obtain more clarity -- for myself, my readers, and my first full-fledged 'dialectic-democratic' adversary from 'Living Outside The Dialectic' -- Ms. Niki Rapaana (who calls herself 'the tent lady' from Alaska).
I'm not sure that my efforts here are going to achieve anything -- you get two philosophers debating with each other who are accustomed to writing and talking in their own conceptuology and own terminology, built from the historical context of their own experiences, readings, and resulting ideas -- and its like two people trying to talk to each other in totally different languages. Even worse sometimes when the same words are used with different inferred and implied meanings.
At some point, you have to ask yourself whether the expended time and energy is worth the results -- or non-results -- two people still stuck inside their own respective philosophical worlds and not being able to find a bridge between these two worlds, and/or not wanting to. Personal narcissism and egotism reigns supreme.
'Communitarianism'. Is this even something I want to write about? It would not have normally been something high -- or even low -- on my writing priority list, unless it was to write about something that may go by that name.
I do not mind using the word 'Centralist'. In fact, I would definitely say that DGB Philosophy is a Centralist Philosophy. For example, in ideal terms, I would consider myself to be:
1. An Integrative Socialist-Capitalist (probably not as Socialist as Obama is showing to be...I do believe in running a budget in the black, not the red...and going deeper and deeper and deeper into the red...);
2. An Integrative Conservative-Liberal and/or an Integrative Republican-Democrat (same idea as above);
'DGBN' as well as standing for the initials of my name also stands for:
1. Dialectic-Democratic Gap-Bridging Negotiations;
2. Dialectic-Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism.
.......................................................................
Now I have two negative images here -- or at least partly negative images (call them negative steretypes if you wish) that come to my mind when I think of 'Communitarianism' and 'Anti-Communitarianism'.
If by 'Communitarianism' the implied meaning is 'Collectivism' -- then I want to do with neither because I do not want to be associated with Collectivism which brings to mind the idea of 'Group Think' (with individual ideas and rights being wiped out of existence by the 'Collective Group' which may not even be a 'Participatory or Representative Democracy' but rather a 'Ruling Elite'). I have no interest -- DGB Philosophy has no interest in -- supporting a cause like this.
Now if by 'Anti-Communitarianism' -- and I mean no disrespect here, Ms. Niki Rapanna, but what may be good, or pleasurable, for you, may not be good or pleasurable for me -- if by 'Anti-Communtiarianism', the implied meaning is living in a tent in Alaska -- particularly in the winter -- I pass. I will take my warm townhouse in Newmarket, Ontario, thank you very much.
On a more abstract level, I can embrace Romantic Philosophy -- fully respect and ebrace Nature and all its splendour and beauty -- without necessarily embracing 'Anti-Communitarianism'?
So what else is 'Anti-Communitarianism'? I will write again what I wrote the last time I wrote this essay.
'Anti-Communitarianism' is not 'living outside the dialectic'. It is living on one polar edge(as in close to the North Pole) of a recently evolving dialectic. Here the apparent 'new dialectic' is the dialectic between a previous Hegelian synthesis -- like say, 'Socialist-Capitalism' or 'Republican-Democratism' -- and whatever the opposite (or anti-thesis) is to this synthesis. It would seem that the Hegelian dualism and/or dialectic that is thus being set up here is between 'Communitarianism' and 'Anti-Communitarianism'. Or so Ms. Rapaana would have us believe?
Do I have it right this time, Niki?
Still pretty abstract...but maybe we're getting somewhere on the interpretive part of this discussion if not the evaluative part.
If Hegel was a 'political collectivist', I do not support this element of Hegel's philosophy and/or behavior. Rousseau was a political collectivist. I think Plato was in the Republican...Was Marx a political collectivist? I'm not sure about this. In some ways, Marx was very much an 'individualist' in terms of what he saw happening in the 'specialization of labour' and the resulting work alienation of workers. Can we blame Marx for the political atrocities of Lenin and Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. I think not. But we will save that investigation for another time.
DGB Philosophy is a Centralist Philosophy but it is not a 'Collectivist Philosophy' nor is it a 'Communitarian Philosophy'.
Nor is DGB Philosophy an 'Anti-Communitarian' Philosophy.
I am living -- and philosophizing -- outside of this dialectic.
There you go, Niki, no rhetorical trash-talk against you. (Maybe a couple of friendly jabs.)
Now can you do the same?
-- dgb, April 22nd, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
..................................................................................
