I operate within a predominantly Hegelian paradigm. That should not come as much of a surprise for those you who may have read any of my other essays and/or those of you who can see Hegel's name plastered all over the title of my network of blogsites.
Classic Hegelian Philosophy can easily be viewed as a brand of historical determinism.
The swinging pendulum theory: one person or group of people advance a particular philosophy, and either through power, intimidation and/or coercion - or alternatively through some brand of negotiaition, compromise and/or consent (some form of democracy) - proceed in a particular direction until this particular brand of philosophy runs its course, and exposes its particular weakness or weaknesses which inevitably must happen because every brand of philosophy focuses on one direction of movement while ignoring or marginalizing another.
Every particular philosophy has its own 'darker side of the moon'. The only philosophy that it can be argued that doesn't is Hegel's dialectic philosophy because it anticipates the historical movement from 1. thesis; to 2. anti-thesis; to 3. synthesis. And start all over again at a new stage of evolution. In classic Dialectic Hegelian evolution theory, this progression in terms of swinging back and forth between opposite bi-polarities towards some sort of 'dialectic balance' in the middle is anticipated. Thus, we can say that Hegel advanced a particular philosophical brand of historical determinism.
However, I myself, have trouble with this 'non-modified brand of Hegelian Idealism.' So did/do a lot of philosophers. To name almost a handful of them: Marx, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche.
Marx turned to dialectic materialism rather than dialectic idealism. According to Marx's view on things - which has a lot of validitiy (Marx understood the full ramifications of human and Capitalist narcissism - although he didn't realize that Sociaists and Communists could be just as narcissistic) - to repeat, according to Marx's perspective on things, 'Who's getting the money, especially within a Capitalist system, controls how and why things are done; not some sort of idealistic philosophy which generally turns out to be a sham, a false, deceitful philosophical ideology. The only thing that Marx got wrong really was that the leaders and goverments who adopted Marx's only idealistic ideology on Socialism and Communism (meaning primarily Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung) turned out to be far worse in this state of affairs than anything the West had to offer. Thus, at least one major conclusion can be made from this:
Narcissism is a human trait, and dominant behavior that is completely independent of economics and economic philosophy. It is certainly tied to economics but can be equally found in Liberalism and Conservatism, Republicans and Democrats, Capitalists and Socialists, Western leaders and Eastern leaders, Church and non-Church.
Obviously, these are broad generalities that do not adequately explain the presence of love, altruism, empathy, sympathy, and caring in human behavior.
But the idea of narcissism being dominant in human behavior does bring us to the ideas of Schopenhauer who said essentially the same thing - that narcissism rules all human behavior, indeed all life and death processes. And life is more cruel and ugly than not. A more or less Cultural Darwinian rendition of 'Survival of The Fittest' - and watch behind your back because you don't always know who is ready to plunge - or has already plunged - the proverbial knife into your back. Corporate and Government Politics 101 - East and West.
So Marx didn't like Hegel's brand of philosophical idealism - thus, he turned it upside down and made it Dialectic Materialism. The exchange of one brand of historical determinism for another.
Schopenhauer didn't like Hegel's 'Perfect Formula' leading to 'Absolute Knowedge'. Life is basically lived in the gutter - and any 'rosy picture and/or story' to try to justify this state of affairs is nothing but balderdash, mythology, and cover up. A 'pretty disguise' to hide man's 'Lord of The Flies' existence. The best thing you can do according to Schopenhauer is:
1. Take up Buddhism and 'not want' (Gee, that is an easy thing to do!);
2. Go to a theatre and see a good Greek Tragedy and vicariously live all your raw emotions about life. (Call that 'catharsis'.)
3. Go to an art gallery and enjoy some good art paintings.
Aside from this, 'Life is the pits', according to Schopenhauer. 'There are no cherries.' (Just illusions which he called 'representations'.)
Schopenhauer is considered by many to be the Father of Irrationalism (Maybe Hobbes, the Cynics, the Skeptics, the Stoics...all beat him to the punch...) Schopenhauer's philosophy seeped into Nietzsche's first book, 'The Birth of Tragedy'. And it partly seeped into Existentialism in general. If you hear someone say that Existentialism believes that 'Life is irrational, absurd...', well, consider that to be the Schopenhauer influence with existentialist writers like Doestevsky, Camus, and Kafka all adding their particular brand to the same idea.
Then there was Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard hated both Hegel's Collosal Abstractionism - and Hegel's Historical Determinism.
'Life is analyzed backwards but lived forwards.' is one of Kierkegaard's most famous quotes.
Meaning that we determine our own future; it is not determined for us.
Meet the counter-thesis or anti-thesis to Historical Determinism - Historical Existentialism.
Individual existentialism. Individuals and groups with strong wills - clash. And one person - or one group of people - comes up on top, either forcefully, or democratically.
No one can tell who this is going to be until it happens. Man determines his own fate - existentially. Choices and behaviors can change the direction of history. Nothing is written in stone. Nothing is determined. Did anybody know what the outcome of Word War 11 was going to be until that outcome became apparent? No.
Some elements of historical and cultural and economic and psychological determinism all have their respective effects on human character and human behavior. But in the end - choice matters. Individual and collective decisions matter. Voting matters. Democracy matters. And no one can forsee what the outcome of these individual and collective choice are going to be - until they happen.
This is the critical counter-punch to historical determinsm. Call it historical existentialism.
-- dgbn, June 10th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism
-- Dialectic Gap Bridging Negotiations...are still in process...
