Here is one I just wrote for Helium...
Every philosophy that stands the test of time can generally -- if we look long and hard enough at it -- be seen to reflect at least a part of ourselves in some respect, either as a Dominant -- Often Used -- Paradigm (DP) within ourselves, or a more secretive, covert 'Shadow-Paradigm' (SP). Even this distinction is too 'either/or', too Aristotlean in its approach, as it blinds us to the possibility of other 'Bi-Polar Paradigms' such as the 'Realistic Paradigm' (RP) vs. the 'Idealistic Paradigm' (IP) or the 'Rational' (RaP) vs. 'Empirical' Paradigm' (EP) or the 'Enlightenment Paradigm (EnP) vs. the 'Romantic Paradigm (RoP) or the 'Humanistic Paradigm (HP) vs. 'Existential Paradigm (ExP)....And who says that our different paradigms all have to be 'bi-polar' and yet how can it be any different? All words, all concepts, all theories, all paradigms are defined in great part by their 'polar opposite paradigm'... We think that each of these polar opposite paradigms contradict each other, that they are mutally exclusive from each other, and yet we are fooled because we have all been deeply taught in Aristotelean logic that states that 'A' is 'A' and 'B' is 'B' and never the two should meet. A and B are identified, each in their own right, and each relative to be distinguished from each other by their seemingly mutually exclusive characteristics and properties.
In other words, it is impossible to by 'historically determined' and 'historically free' at the same time.
We have been taught -- by Aristotlean Logic -- to believe that 'freedom' and 'determinism' are mutually exclusive paradigms.
Pick a theory or paradigm -- ''freedom' or 'determinism' -- and argue for or against it. That is what we have been taught throughout elementary school, and middle school, and high school, and university... It is deeply ingrained in our brain...and we cannot 'free' ourselves from this Aristotlean paradigm because we have never been taught anything different...we have never been taught how to step outside of this 'Aristolean, either/or, right or wrong, mutually exclusive paradigm'...
Indeed, it can be generally stated that a person can never 'see' and 'free' themselves from a paradigm until someone teaches them how to see and use a different and opposing paradigm...with different gains and benefits...that need to be balanced against lost gains and benefits by jumping from the one paradigm from the other...
Indeed, we can all say that we are 'historically determined' by a paradigm until we become aware of the fact that we are thinking inside a paradigm -- inside a conceptual box -- and we only start to become free of this paradigm once we start to learn 'the properties' of the opposing paradigm, and how to properly use this latter paradigm. This has become known as 'thinking outside the box'...
This is why G.W. Hegel is arguably the most revolutionary philosopher in the history of Western philosophy. He taught us how to think outside the Aristotlean box, the Aristotlean paradigm. Unfortunately, most of his work, including his philosphical classic 'The Phenomenology of Spirit (Mind)' was so obscure that there was only about 1 percent of the population that could read his work and understand what he was saying. Which is why we have books like 'Introducing Hegel...' For 'semantic translation' purposes to a reading audience that has an IQ of less than 180. I include myself in the latter category.
Even Hegel relished in 'historical determinism'. He refused to historically predict anything...and later in his career even tried to stay clear of the 'value judgment fitting game'....'This is bad.' This is good.' Perhaps partly because he had the Prussian aristocracy looking after his welfare as long as he said the right thing, or didn't say the wrong thing...(this is only a speculative guess on my part...but let's put it this way, if you are a philosopher and you are being paid by someone who has a partisan, vested interested in what you do and don't say, well, at this point you cease to be a 'true philosopher' (because your opinion can be bought).
And yet Hegel had already achieved his greatness by creating the paradigm of 'dialectic logic' to compete with the stagnancy of the aforementioned Aristotlean, structural, either/or, logic.
Remember what was said above: Everyone is historically determined by a 'dominant internal paradigm' (DP) unless or until they/we can see beyond this self-restricting and constricting paradigm.
For example, we are all partly restricted and constricted by 'the right and wrong paradigm' in situations where 'right and wrong might not be mutually exclusive and/or the best way to approach the issue...
And we are all partly restricted and constricted when -- in typical Aristotlean fashion -- we take the 'domestic violence' issue and immediately demand the distinction between 'victim' and 'victimizer' -- and we coddle the 'victim' and we stereotype and ostracize the 'victiimizer' -- in typical Aristotlean fashion -- and we fail to see that our so-called 'victim' can also at the same time be a 'victimizer' and our so-called 'victimizer' can also at the same time be a 'victim'. This is the essence of 'dialectic logic' -- seeing and evaluating issues more dynamically as opposed to statically and stereotypically... A can influence B and B can influence A -- and slowly or quickly their so-called distinctions and stereotypes can start to overlap and merge into each other. This can also be called 'dialectic wholism' or 'dynamic wholism' as opposed to 'either/or reductionism'.
Whenever and wherever there is social and/or sexual intercourse at work, there is also 'dialectic logic' at work -- and/or play.
The dialectic paradigm demands that we not only look at A and B separately in their real or alleged mutual distinctions but also that we look at how A and B interact with each other, affect each other, influence each other -- and sometimes merge together in what become 'shared characteristics' (or shared characteristics in their offspring).
In the court of domestic violence, sometimes it is best that we throw out the categories of 'victim' and 'victimizer' altogether and instead start to look at the categories of 'instigator' and 'retaliator'. (It seems that most sports have graduated to 'dialectic logic' whereas our courtrooms still hang onto at least partly outdated reductionistic Aristotlean logic...)
To be sure, sometimes the distinction between 'victim' and 'victimizer' may be very clear cut. But 'context' should determine this -- and every case should be evaluated differently -- not every case going through a cookie-cutter legal system and courtroom where the 'victimizer' and 'victim' is classified within 20 minutes of the police getting to the scene of the alleged domestic violence, as defined by 1000 lobbyist groups that have manhandled our politicians and dictated 'specialist-over-protectionist' changes in the law... and the idea, the democratic ideal, of 'equality of the sexes'... Both sexes need to be held equally accountable for their actions inside and outside the home -- and one sex shouldn't be overly protected by 'making the first call', 'water power', the fact that there are children in the house, and/or by 1000 lobbyst groups that outnumber the other sex by about the same number of soldiers as Custer was outnumbered by the Indians at Little Big Horn...
This too is a form of historical -- and political-legal -- determinism.
Historical 'freedom' demands that 'unconscious, dominant individual, cultural, legal, economic, political, religious, national, and global paradigms be firstly brought to conscousness, analyzed and evaluated rationally-empirically, humanistic-existentially, assertively and compassionately in contrast to its bi-polar opposite paradigm...
We have the Democrats who are focused on creating jobs...This is their first priorty as asserted by Obama the other day...
We have the Republicans who are focused on reducing the national debt...
Looked at from an Aristolean 'either/or' perspective, the question becomes: Which should be America's number one priority? Pick the one or the other.
Looked at dialectically, the question instead becomes:
How can we both increase American jobs and reduce the national debt at the same time?
Gee, here's a brainwave...
How about reverse the free trade agreement?
The minute we become conscious of a paradigm,
And are capable of stepping outside of it,
Are capable of more fully understanding and seeing the benefits of the opposite paradigm...then utilizing this opposing paradigm...
And perhaps integrating these two opposing paradigms creatively somewhere in the middle...
That is the point at which we all -- either individually and/or collectively,
Become less historically determined,
And more historically free...
-- dgb, Jan. 26th, 2011,
-- david gordon bain
