From a DGB perspective, 'the dialectic' is all about difference, opposition, opposites, opposite perspectives, dualism, dualing dualisms, dialogue, discussion, debate, rhetoric....and about attempting to 'integrate', 'conquer', and/or 'set oneself apart from' these differences, these human conflicts, self and social.
This is what I mean, and what DGB Philosophy means, when I use the term dialectic.
Thus, when someone says that 'I am living outside the dialectic' -- I ask myself, 'How is this possible?' We all must live within the dialectic in some fashion, regardless of what we believe or don't believe, and how we choose to live our life or don't choose to live our life.
Thus, for someone, in this case you Ms. Niki, from your philosophical blogsite, 'Living Outside the Dialectic', to say that you are living outside the dialectic, for me, as a 'post-Hegelian-dialectic-democratic-humanistic-existential philosopher' to read and/or hear this is about as nonsensical as someone saying: 'I am living my life outside of life.' Indeed, even this too, by definition, would also involve a real or imagined dialectic. Living life outside life would seem to imply its dialectic polarity or opposite -- death.
Having said this, I fully realize that different philosophers from different philosophical blogsites are fully used to using their own language and terminology in the way that they do -- and just believe that the whole world of blogsite readers who visit your philosophical blogsite are all of a sudden, in the space of a few minutes, going to understand all of the terminology and inter-connected language that you use -- as if in an 'Enlightenment' flash from God.
Having had some degree of experience with building my own network of blogsites here at 'Hegel's Hotel', I know for sure that readers, unless they are experienced philosophical readers who for example, already have a background in Hegelian language and logic, are not going to fully understand everything I say in the space of a few essays, let alone a few paragraphs.
Probably the best piece of advice I got about writing the essays that I have on Hegel's Hotel about three or four years ago was from my dad. He basically said to me -- and my dad is an intelligent man -- 'Simplify your language, David. Simplify your language. I keep reading these essays that you write and your words just keep spinning around in my head without delivering any meaning to me. I still don't know what Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy is all about.'
My dad said that to me about three or four years ago when I was just starting up Hegel's Hotel. I think that since then -- and to be sure I have been far from perfect in this regard -- I have done my best to simplify my language, to acknowledge that some of my readers may be newcomers to the subject of philosophy- psychology and they need to be able to understand what I am writing about.
This is actually the first time in my three years of writing on Hegel's Hotel that I have actually tried to get into a serious, professional debate with a writer from another philosophical blogsite. I know how quickly these kind of debates can turn into a useless waste of time if tempers rise, unprofessional language starts getting used which at its worst -- I call 'trash-talking'. It is no different than in a heated sports match, a heated political and/or legal debate, or an underlying philosophical debate. People get locked into their own respective points of view, like a horse with blinders on -- they get into these 'Us' vs. 'Them' rhetorical battles (or worse) -- and all attempt to 'intelligently understand each other' come to a grinding halt. You might as well stop the debate right there and then because nothing of any positive significance is likely to be gained from any further 'blind and deaf verbal toxicity'... One plus one continues to equal one plus one. There is no sense talking about 'two' except an 'alienated two' that wish to progress no further than one plus one equally one plus one. No mutual understanding. No arrived at area of 'commonality' and 'compatibility' and dare I say it -- 'unified community'.
I can look 'Communitarianism' on the internet and post it in two minutes....
...............................................................................
From Wikipedia...the free encyclopedia...
Communitarianism, as a group of related but distinct philosophies, began in the late 20th century, opposing in its opinion exalted forms of individualism while advocating phenomena such as civil society. Not necessarily hostile to social liberalism or even social democracy, communitarianism emphasizes the need to balance individual rights and interests with that of the community as a whole, and that individual people (or citizens) are shaped by the cultures and values of their communities.[1]
Contents [hide]
1 Terminology
2 Origins
3 Philosophical communitarianism
4 Ideological communitarianism
4.1 Communitarian political philosophy
4.1.1 Social capital
4.1.2 Positive rights
4.2 Comparison to other political philosophies
4.2.1 Authoritarianism
5 Communitarian movement
5.1 Influence in the United States
6 Criticism
7 See also
8 Notes
9 External links
9.1 Critical communitarianism
9.2 Communitarian organizations
9.3 Opposition
9.4 Articles on communitarianism
[edit] Terminology
Though the term communitarianism is of 20th-century origin, it is derived from the 1840s term communitarian, which was coined by Goodwyn Barmby to refer to one who was a member or advocate of a communalist society. The modern use of the term is a redefinition of the original sense. Many communitarians trace their philosophy to earlier thinkers. The term is primarily used in two senses:
Philosophical communitarianism considers classical liberalism to be ontologically and epistemologically incoherent, and opposes it on those grounds. Unlike classical liberalism, which construes communities as originating from the voluntary acts of pre-community individuals, it emphasizes the role of the community in defining and shaping individuals. Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently recognized resp. grounded in liberal theories of justice.
Ideological communitarianism is characterized as a radical centrist ideology that is sometimes marked by leftism on economic issues and moralism or conservatism on social issues. This usage was coined recently. When the term is capitalized, it usually refers to the Responsive Communitarian movement of Amitai Etzioni and other philosophers.
[edit] Origins
Early communitarians begun from analyses of classical republicanism, usually ancient Greek and Classicist writers. Since the beginnings of 1990's they incorporated post-modern cocept of civil society. Soon they started to treat Tocqueville as their primary ancestor. Thus they engaged in direct clash with neo-liberal theory since Tocqueville was liberal not republican theorist, giving new impetus to their work[2].
[edit] Philosophical communitarianism
Communitarian philosophers are primarily concerned with ontological and epistemological issues, as distinct from policy issues. The communitarian response to John Rawls' A Theory of Justice reflects dissatisfaction with the image Rawls presents of humans as atomistic individuals. Although Rawls allows some space for benevolence, for example, he views it merely as one of many values that exist within a single person's head.
Communitarians claim values and beliefs exist in public space, in which debate takes place. They argue that becoming an individual means taking a stance on the issues that circulate in the public space. For example, within the United States debate on gun politics, there are a number of stances to be taken, but all of these stances presuppose the existence of a gun politics debate in the first place; this is one sense in which the community predates individualism. Similarly, both linguistic and non-linguistic traditions are communicated to children and form the backdrop against which individuals can formulate and understand beliefs. The dependence of the individual upon community members is typically meant as descriptive. It does not mean that individuals should accept majority beliefs on any issue. Rather, if an individual rejects a majority belief, such as the historic belief that slavery is acceptable, he or she will do so for reasons that make sense within the community (for example, the Judeo-Christian conception of the imago Dei, or reasons deriving from secular Enlightenment humanism) rather than simply any reason at all. In this sense, the rejection of a single majority belief relies on a deep tradition of other majority beliefs.
The following authors have communitarian tendencies in the philosophical sense, but have all taken pains to distance themselves from the political ideology known as communitarianism, which is discussed further below.
Alasdair MacIntyre – After Virtue
Michael Sandel – Liberalism and the Limits of Justice
Charles Taylor – Sources of the Self
Michael Walzer – Spheres of Justice
Christos Yannaras – A Greek philosopher and theologian whose ideas tend to view communitarianism from a theological and ontological perspective.
[edit] Ideological communitarianism
[edit] Communitarian political philosophy
[edit] Social capital
Beginning in the late 20th century, many authors began to observe a deterioration in the social networks of the United States. In the book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam observed that nearly every form of civic organization has undergone drops in membership exemplified by the fact that, while more people are bowling than in the 1950s, there are fewer bowling leagues.
This results in a decline in "social capital", described by Putnam as "the collective value of all 'social networks' and the inclinations that arise from these networks to do things for each other". According to Putnam and his followers, social capital is a key component to building and maintaining democracy.
Communitarians seek to bolster social capital and the institutions of civil society. The Responsive Communitarian Platform described it thus[3]:
"Many social goals . . . require partnership between public and private groups. Though government should not seek to replace local communities, it may need to empower them by strategies of support, including revenue-sharing and technical assistance. There is a great need for study and experimentation with creative use of the structures of civil society, and public-private cooperation, especially where the delivery of health, educational and social services are concerned."
[edit] Positive rights
Central to the communitarian philosophy is the concept of positive rights, rights or guarantees to certain things. These may include state subsidized education, state subsidized housing, a safe and clean environment, universal health care, and even the right to a job with the concomitant obligation of the government or individuals to provide one. To this end, communitarians generally support social security programs, public works programs, and laws limiting such things as pollution.
A common objection is that by providing such rights, they are violating the negative rights of the citizens, rights to not have something done for you. For example, taking money in the form of taxes to pay for such programs as described above deprives individuals of property. Proponents of positive rights, by attributing the protection of negative rights to the society rather than the government, respond that individuals would not have any rights in the absence of societies, and are thus obligated to give something to it. Some have viewed this as a negation of natural rights. However, what is or is not a "natural right" is a source of contention in modern politics; for example, whether or not universal health care can be considered a birthright, or how far the government can go to protect the environment.
Alternatively, some agree that negative rights may be violated by a government action, but argue that it is justifiable if the positive rights protected outweigh the negative rights lost. In the same vein, supporters of positive rights further argue that negative rights are irrelevant in their absence. Moreover, some communitarians "experience this less as a case of being used for others' ends and more as a way of contributing to the purposes of a community I regard as my own"[4].
[edit] Comparison to other political philosophies
Communitarianism cannot be classified as being wholly left or right, and many theorists claim to represent a sort of radical center. Liberals in the American sense or social democrats in the European sense generally share the communitarian position on issues relating to the economy, such as the need for environmental protection and public education, but not on cultural issues. Communitarians and conservatives generally agree on cultural issues, such as support for character education and faith-based programs, but communitarians do not support the laissez-faire capitalism generally embraced by American conservatives.
[edit] Authoritarianism
Some people have argued [5] that communitarianism's focus on social cohesion raises similarities with nationalistic communism, or various forms of authoritarianism, although supporters contend that there are substantial differences between communitarianism and authoritarianism.
Authoritarian governments often embrace extremist ideologies and rule with brute force, accompanied with severe restrictions on personal freedom, political and civil rights. Authoritarian governments are overt about the role of the government as director and commander. Civil society and democracy are not generally characteristic of authoritarian regimes. For the most part, communitarians emphasize the use of non-governmental organizations in furthering their goals.
[edit] Communitarian movement
This article's external links may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.
The modern communitarian movement was first articulated by the Responsive Communitarian Platform, written in the United States by a group of ethicists, activists, and social scientists including Amitai Etzioni, Mary Ann Glendon, and William Galston.
The Communitarian Network, founded in 1993 by Amitai Etzioni, is the best-known group advocating communitarianism. One of the network's many initiatives to reach out to a broader public is the transnational project Diversity within Unity, which advocates a communitarian approach towards immigration and minority rights in today's diversifying societies. The project is endorsed by a diverse and international group of supporters, including current Dutch prime-minister Jan-Peter Balkenende from the Christian Democratic Appeal, Rita Süssmuth from the Christian Democratic Union; the Hungarian dissident and philosopher György Bence; the renowned British political scholar David Miller, and many more.[6]
A think tank called the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies is also directed by Etzioni. Other voices of communitarianism include Don Eberly, director of the Civil Society Project and Robert Putnam, author of Bowling Alone.
[edit] Influence in the United States
Reflecting the dominance of liberal and conservative politics in the United States, no major party and few elected officials advocate communitarianism. Thus there is no consensus on individual policies, but some that most communitarians endorse have been enacted.
President Bill Clinton was open about his support for much of Amitai Etzioni's philosophy, though whether this reflected on his actual policy program is debatable. It has also been suggested that the "compassionate conservatism" espoused by President Bush during his 2000 presidential campaign was a form of conservative communitarian thinking, though he too failed to implement it in his policy program. Cited policies have included economic and rhetorical support for education, volunteerism, and community programs, as well as a social emphasis on promoting families, character education, traditional values, and faith-based projects.
Dana Milbank, writing in the Washington Post, remarked of modern communitarians, "There is still no such thing as a card-carrying communitarian, and therefore no consensus on policies. Some, such as John DiIulio and outside Bush adviser Marvin Olasky, favor religious solutions for communities, while others, like Etzioni and Galston, prefer secular approaches." [1]
[edit] Criticism
There has been very little systematic criticism of ideological communitarianism, if only because its exact premises and policy consequences are difficult to pin down. Those wary of it tend to be individualist thinkers who argue that communities are already naturally most benefitted when everyone is free to act in their individual self-interest and that self-described communitarians are actually stealth collectivists; or, more plausibly, that the main effect of well-intentioned communitarian rhetoric is to provide cover for collectivists with a much farther-reaching and harsher agenda than most communitarians intend.[citation needed]
Conversely, many on the Left would see communitarianism as a nostalgic form of communism.[citation needed]
Liberal theorists such as Simon Caney[7] disagree that philosophical communitarianism has any interesting criticisms to make of liberalism. They reject the communitarian charges that liberalism neglects the value of community, and holds an "atomized" or asocial view of the self. If they are correct in this, then communitarian doctrine reduces to little more than traditionalism and cultural moral relativism.
According to scholar Peter Sutch, the principal criticisms of communitarianism are:
That communitarianism leads necessarily to moral relativism.
That this relativism leads necessarily to a re-indorsement of the status quo in international politics, and
That such a position relies upon a discredited ontological argument that posits the foundational status of the community or state.[8]
However, he goes on to show that such arguments cannot be leveled against the particular communitarian theories of John Rawls, Michael Waltzer and Mervyn Frost.
[edit] See also
Christian democracy
Civics
Civil religion
Collectivism
Communalism (South Asia)
Communalism before 1800
Identity politics
Public sphere
Radical center
Republicanism
Social conservatism
Singaporean communitarianism
Third Way
Earlier theorists
Martin Buber
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
Niccolò Machiavelli
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Alexis de Tocqueville
Contemporary theorists
Benjamin Barber
Gad Barzilai
Robert Bellah
Amitai Etzioni
Alexander Lee
Costanzo Preve
Robert Putnam
Jose Perez Adan
Michael Walzer
[edit] Notes
^ CPN - Tools
^ Zaleski, Pawel (2008). "Tocqueville on Civilian Society. A Romantic Vision of the Dichotomic Structure of Social Reality". Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte (Felix Meiner Verlag) 50.
^ The Communitarian Network, Responsive Communitarian Platform Text.
^ Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice, 143.
^ Simons, R. (1996) A Community of Freedoms. Aust. Q. 68(1): 31-42
^ List of sponsors of the 'Diversity in Unity" platform: http://www.gwu.edu/~ccps/dwu_endorse.html
^ 'Liberalism and communitarianism: a misconceived debate'. Political Studies 40, 273-290
^ Peter Sutch, Ethics, Justice, and International Relations, p.62
[edit] External links
Look up communitarianism in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
[edit] Critical communitarianism
Gad Barzilai, 2003,Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press
Critical communitarianism combines epistemology, theories of sociopolitical power, theories of identities, and human rights studies. It offers to look into non-ruling communities in order to better comprehend state-society relationships. Theoretically, it shifts the attention from the state as the sole venue of political power and drills into theorizing state-society relations through looking into alternative and challenging locations of political power. Consequently, it invites new insights into the classical questions of what are the boundaries between state and society; what is a 'collective' good, and where and how human beings are shaping their consciousness, identities and practices. Normatively, it generates normative questions about relative morality and encourages us to empower cultural relativism and yet to acknowledge the existence of some cosmopolitical values. Empirically, it fosters empirical studies that examine internal conflicts, institutions, and power struggles within non-ruling communities in the context of local, regional, and global forces. Accordingly, it challenges the domination of liberalism and liberal jurisprudence as the hegemonic paradigm for explication, theorization, and substantiation of human virtues. Instead, it invites to include liberalism alongside elements of communitarianism as relative ways to both challenge symbolic power and to foster protection of non-ruling communities in order to achieve justice and peace.
[edit] Communitarian organizations
Communitarian Policy Institute
The Communitarian Network
The Italian Communitarian Network
Asociacion Iberoamericana de Comunitarismo AIC
Casa Pueblo Puerto Rico
Foundacion Cabo San Francisco
U'wa Town Hall Center of Communitarian Development
Sustainable Communitarian Development in the Sierra La Laguna Biosphere Reserve
MONTE AZUL COMMUNITARIAN ASSOCIATION
The Buenos Aires Association of Communitarian Development
Center for Global Justice
International Society for MacIntyrean Philosophy
Christian Socialist Party USA
[edit] Opposition
Bruce Frohnen - author of The New Communitarians and the Crisis of Modern Liberalism (1996)
Charles Arthur Willard - author of Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy, University of Chicago Press, 1996.
Anti-Communitarian League
Dr. Edward Younkins
Dr. Kelly Ross Ph.D.
Dr. Madeline Cosman Ph.D., JD
[edit] Articles on communitarianism
Some potentially useful references, transported from the Sourcewatch, which also links additional articles of relevance to this topic:
GW Bush, a Communitarian?
Communitarianism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Daniel Bell
Articles on communitarianism ((ita icon))
"Communitarianism", Infed Encyclopedia.
Fareed Zakaria, The ABCs of Communitarianism. A devil's dictionary, Slate, July 26, 1996.
Robert Putnam, Communitarianism, National Public Radio, February 5, 2001: "The term 'Third Way' was used to describe President Clinton's form of liberalism. Now 'Communitarianism' is being used in the same way to describe President Bush's form of conservatism. They're both an attempt to create a middle ground...an alternative to the liberal-conservative paradigm."
"Civil Practices Network"
Political ideologies
Anarchism · Christian democracy · Communism · Communitarianism · Conservatism · Fascism · Feminism · Green politics · Liberalism · Libertarianism · Nationalism · Social democracy · Socialism
This page was last modified on 11 April 2009, at 00:37 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
..............................................................................
DGB...continued...
So where do I go with this? Nowhere. Not right now anyway. I don't wish to argue a subject which:
1. I don't know much about except what I have just read here.
2. I don't have a huge amount of interest in -- and that, at this time, is not high on my value priority list.
However, I will return to some of the particular dynamics, Ms. Niki, of our somewhat 'heated tit for tat' (no sexism or sexuality intended). Right now, I am responding to a paragraph aimed at me from your last mini-article at the top of your cover page, 'Living Outside The Dialectic'.
...........................................................................
From the blogsite, 'Living Outside the Dialectic', by Niki Raapana
On a related note, here's David over at Hegel's Hotel using his superior Hegelian miseducation to show how many different ways he can insult me. Some of his names for me are pretty funny really, besides all the normal slander (see above), I'm labled everything from "trash talking" to a religious fanatic. He admits he knows nothing about communitarianism but thinks anti communitarianism and communitarianism are basically the same thing! http://hegelshotel-mostrecentpapers.blogspot.com/2009/03/hegels-hotel-dgb-philosophy-is-not.html
(DGB editorial: For the record, Ms. Niki, if you go back to my last essay, I don't think you will find anywhere in the essay that I labeled you as a 'religious fanatic'. Why would I? I had no reason to. Now relative to 'trash-talking', that is a different matter. 'If the shoe fits, then wear it!' As for me allegedly finding all these different ways of insulting you -- I didn't insult you -- I insulted your own seeming arrogancy, your own seeming sense of superiority, and your own style of insulting other writers/philosophers. So I guess we could say that that is like 'The pot calling the kettle black!')
................................................................................
And no, I do not believe 'communitarianism' and 'anti-communitarianism' are the same thing. Speak against me if you wish -- preferrably in a rational and professional manner -- but don't speak for me, don't put words in my mouth that don't belong to me.
My argument is that 'communitarianism' can mean a thousand different things to a thousand different 'intellects' -- and it means nothing in an intellectual discussion or debate until two individuals discussing the concept, first discuss -- and come to an agreement, on a pragmatically and functionally concrete level, as to what is meant by the term 'communitarianism' in the context of the 'here and now philosophical debate'.
If I offer this DGB 'dialectical definition of 'Communitarianism':
'Dialectic-Democratic-Humanistic-Existential Communitarianism in the context of Hegel's Hotel means a state of homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance where there is both room for individual diversity in the context of a partly unified, partly disagreeing social and political community on all levels of existence -- municipal, regional, federal, international -- where neither community values, rights, freedoms, and responsibilities come to dominate individual values, rights, freedoms, and responsibilities -- nor the reverse.
If I use this as my working definition of 'communitarianism' within Hegel's Hotel, then at this moment, and not before, using this language, and no one else's, I am fully ready to declare myself a 'post-Hegelian, dialectic-democratic-humanistic-existential communitarian' -- nothing more, nothing less.
Even still -- I neither like the term 'communitarianism' or its reverse, 'anti-communitarianism'. This is an argument i was at least partly 'dragged into'. Without you venturing into Hegel's Hotel, Ms. Niki Raapani, I would have gladly stayed away from this type of argument. But now that I am here, I will make the best and the most of it.
Now using this 'DGB' definition and dialectic-democratic, humanistic-existential rendition of 'Communitarianism'...
If you, Niki, wish to take the opposite side of the argument I have just set up here, and wish to declare yourself an 'anti-DGB-Hegel's-Hotel-dialectic-democratic-humanistic-existential-communitarian' -- try saying this all at once! -- then we have an argument, and I will respond in this fashion.
If by declaring yourself in such fashion, you mean that you 'metaphorically spit on anyone who doesn't agree with your language, your terminology, your meaning, your philosophy -- and that includes me and my network of philosophical opinions, then I say, 'That is fine, Ms. Niki, you do your thing and I will do mine. We are at a dialectic-democratic impasse here with this argument and are stuck here. Stuck in the dialectic mud -- even if you declare yourself as 'living outside of the dialectic mud'. If this is the situation, then plain and simple, it doesn't make any sense for us to try to proceed any further with this argument.
However, Ms. Niki, if as an 'anti-Dialectic-Democratic-Communitarian', you say to me: 'David, I live in a tent in Alaska -- and I love the way I am living my life' -- I say: 'All the power to you, Niki. Go girl. Do what you want to do. That is what I believe life should be all about -- within reasonable community boundaries. Obviously, the further you live away from other people, the less you probably have to worry about 'clashing boundaries'.
Unless you want to enter into a 'Blogsite War'. Which you at least partly have, Ms. Niki. I didn't even know that you existed until you 'borrowed' one of my essays for your blogsite -- presumably to flog, and/or state your philosophical disdain for something that didn't fit within your very tight 'Anti-Communitarian Philosophical Box'.
My beef with you then can be summarized as this: Don't pretend that you understand my Hegel's Hotel philosophy blogsite -- and stereotype it in with a thousand and one other philosophies out there that may or may not use the name that you try to dialectically and divisively 'lump under one label' -- 'Communitarianism' -- and then verbally spit on it when you don't have a clue what you are verbally spitting at -- except for some obscure, abstractified, label. What you are essentially doing is 'building straw philosophical houses from other philosophers blogsites, label it, stereotype it, denigrate and discrimite against it. and 'blow the house down'.
Wow! What a rhetorical accomplishment! Pick a real debating partner, Ms. Niki -- which you at least partly have. One that is alive and breathing and capable of giving you a good, real argument back in your face -- not a self-contrived 'weak duckling'. Or a duck that is lumped together in the same pond with a thousand and one other ducks -- and pronounced to be exactly the same -- for no other reason than the fact that you can't -- or choose not to -- recognize their individual differences.
Hegel once said that any theory, any philosophy, any characteristic, carried too far to the extreme will result in self-destruction.
And so it is with you, Ms. Niki. From my admittedly very limited knowledge of you, in dealing with you, I see your philosophical hypocrisy as this:
You set yourself up as being some philosophical champion of 'individual rights' and 'individual freedoms'...and yet the more you champion these rights, the more you tend to totally denigrate the philosophies of others -- and their individual rights and freedoms. Your greatest strength -- your protectionism of individual rights and freedoms -- is also your greatest weakness as you try to rhetorically steamroll over the philosophical rights and freedoms of others.
Readers accuse you of 'arrogance', 'attitude' and 'trash-talking' on your blogsite because that's what you do -- and that is how you present yourself to your reader. You present yourself as being 'philosophically -- epistemologically, ethically, and morally -- far above the madding crowd.'
People -- meaning your readers, or at least many of them -- get turned off of your writing by your arrogance, your attitude, your 'superiority complex' and your 'holier than thou' arguments -- including your inferred 'conspiracy theories' --before they even get past the first paragraph. Rather than wanting to delve deeper into your philosophical work and your lifestyle, they 'exit stage right'. And come back at you with harsh words if you have attacked their various blogsites before you even fully understood -- or tried to understand -- what you were attacking.
Tit for tat.
You trash-talk my blogsite. I'll trash-talk yours.
Back to elementary school again -- and schoolyard fights.
You look for philosophical enemies. You find them -- or so you believe. You trash them. And then you play the 'victim', the 'martyr' the 'self-defender' when they come back at you with harsh words. I don't call that self-defense. I call it a 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. 'You reap what you sew.' In the words of the now infamous Reverend Jeremy Wright -- 'Your chickens have come back to roost' 'What goes around, comes around'.
Need I go on.
Don't pick some fictitious debating partner from 'high in the sky' -- play the part of your adversary, yourself -- and 'declare yourself a winner in a debate where you have played both yourself and your adversary' We see that done in politics all the time. The Republican Party stereotypes the 'perceived and/or embellished weakest link' of the Democrat Party -- and then trashes the 'Democrat Party' on the basis of this 'straw house argument'. Same with the Democrat Party and what they do back to The Republican Party. Negatively stereotype your debating partner -- then flog this negative stereotype. Woopee, I won the debate!!!
To end on a more positive note...
I just brought up another one of your websites...
...................................................................
from the internet....see niki raapana....
What does it mean to live outside the dialectic?
It means looking at all the options & then choosing a course of action that appeals to your sensibilities.
It ultimately means living up to, and with, as much of the courage of your convictions as you can muster.
Welcome to the Tent Lady's ongoing research project.
Here you will find information about:
Rebuilding Community - Community "visionings"
Sustainable Development - UN Local Agenda 21
World Heritage Sites, Buffer Zones, and Scenic Byways
The Wildlands Project & Wilderness Designations
Importing and Exporting Democratic Ideals
Grant funded research and development incentives
Global-to-local community updates and regional progress reports are posted offsite at:
www.nikiraapana.blogspot.com
My blog features up-to-date, local coverage of:
USA-United Nation's Local Agenda 21 integration progress, the Wildlands Project,
case law & legal balancing acts, revised local codes, upcoming meeting/seminar schedules,
occassional live, on-the-scene coverage of sustainable planning meetings that includes
document research, analysis, opinion pieces, and outside reports from various sources.
My Community Outreach includes:
Gathering local perspectives on ongoing efforts to achieve Local Agenda 21 goals in Alaska.
Global to local research on how the plan is progressing in other states and throughout the world.
Beginning in October, 2007. (An international group blog will be added for this purpose.)
Blog comments from visitors around the globe are welcome, and very much appreciated.
Please feel free to share information about your community's sustainable development efforts.
........................................................................
Ms. Niki, I have absolutely no problem in terms of the meaning of your ideas here on this website; indeed, I quite like and support them. Meaning i support the ideals that you are philosophically and life-style wise -- chasing.
Indeed, I imagine that there are probably thousands, indeed millions, of people who would support your ideas here. Again,
............................................................................
What does it mean to live outside the dialectic?
It means looking at all the options & then choosing a course of action that appeals to your sensibilities.
It ultimately means living up to, and with, as much of the courage of your convictions as you can muster.
............................................................................
Except excuse me if I don't agree with what you are labelling this philosophy as -- 'living outside the dialect'.
To me, you are not 'living outside the dialectic'; rather, you are living one side of a philosophical dialectic that seems to take you just about as far away from civilization as you can get.
In classic Hegelian terminology:
Thesis: Civilization....practically everyone else except Niki Raapana and your fellow 'anti-communitarians'...
Anti-thesis: 'Anti-civilization', 'anti-communitarianism'....Niki Raapana...A person, not unlike the rest of us, who is trying to come to terms with the debilitating effects of 'self and/or social alienation' See Doestevsky, Kierkegaard, Nietsche, Camus, Sartre...and 'romantic philosophy-wise', ...Rousseau...
How is this movement away from urban civilization to be considered 'living outside the dialectic'?
It's not.
'Living outside of civilization' -- yes. (Although it is obvious, Niki, that you still like social contact -- even if it is negative -- a tremendous amount of your energy is channeled into your blogsite(s) each and every day and puts you into different contact situations with different people all over the earth. Socially, you are no hermit -- just a partial hermit declaring your social and political protest against the violation and transgression of individual rights by governments claiming its for the 'good of community'. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But you have a worthy argument -- assuming this is indeed your argument -- and you have my full support on it. I'm not quite ready to live in a 'tent' yet...been there, done that. I like the amenities of my townhouse. Anyways, if you want to rhetorically and dialectically step into Hegel's Hotel, to steretype it and denigrate it, then expect that I in turn, will return the favor, and do my best to 'deconstruct' your own particular brand of 'anti-communitarianism' -- i.e. specifically, the 'inflammatory, transgressing, hypocritical, anti-community' part of it.)
'Living outside the dialectic' -- no.
Ms. Rapani, you are dead square in the centre -- or at least on one extreme polar edge -- of a philosophical dialectic of your own making.
Good luck!
On a side note. I have been to Alaska once as a young teenager traveling with my family. Up Alberta to Dawson Creek. Up the Alaska Highway, blown tire and all. Great scenery! Great wildlife! Over to Haines, Alaska, and onto the car ferry. Out into the Pacific Ocean. Whale watching. Great stuff! Beautiful mountains and more awesome scenery. A borderline hurricane that almost sent my younger brother flying overboard when my dad and him shouldn't have been on deck in the first place. My brother rescued at the last moment by my reaching dad, and brought inside. An almost traumatic tragedy and disaster in the middle of the 'most perfect holiday'.
Life is precarious and precious.
Let's live life that way but not in the wrong way -- not as if we are walking on eggshells, or over bombs (unless you are living and/or working in Pakistan, Afghanastan, or Iraq) -- but rather as a 'dialectic-democratic engagement between ourselves and our fellow man' in a way that allows us both to understand, appreciate and respect our individual differences; as well as a 'dialectic-existential engagement between ourselves -- using our sensibilities including our senses, our intellect, and our emotions as our 'bridge' -- and the beauty of all life, and in particular, all nature.
-- dgb, April 15th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
