I do not profess to be a Hegelian scholar -- not by a long shot. The deeper I go into Hegel and Hegelian thinking, the more sophisticated my arguments will likely get relative to what I am arguing about. But I'm on a time clock here. The time clock is my life. Hegel is a very complicated -- and sometimes frustratingly abstract and convoluted -- thinker.
I don't wish to spend the rest of my lifetime focusing and specializing only on Hegel. And I have said this before -- I do not wish to take my arguments into the furthest reaches of philosophical outer space to the point where you, my most esteemed readers, cannot understand me anymore than either you or I can understand Hegel at his abstract worst.
Hegel -- not unlike many other philosophical geniuses, and/or geniuses from other fields -- created a philosophy that could be, and was, profoundly revolutionary one moment (such as in his articulation of the nature of 'dialectical thinking' or 'dialectical logic) and bizarrely abstract, obtuse, convoluted, and/or self-contradictory another moment. (such as in probably his most controversial and profoundly stupid meaningless statement of his career: 'The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.' How is that for white-washing, sugar-coating, and sucking up to Prussian Kings?).
One has to ask oneself: How can a thinker of Hegel's stature argue on the one hand that, 'The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.', and on the other hand argue in 'The Philosophy of Right' that moral subjectivism is a bad thing because it can be used to justify any crime. (Lloyd Spencer, Introducing Hegel, pg. 102)?
No kidding -- Sherlock. And what, Mr. Hegel, do you think about the inherently self-contradictory logic between your statement of supposed wisdom -- 'The real is the rational, and the rational is the real.' -- as compared to your other statement in another context is supposedly equal or better wisdom ('The Philosophy of Right') that 'moral relativism' is a bad thing. Explain this apparent self-contradiction, will you please, Mr. Hegel? Obviously, you can't because you are dead. So if any of your most beloved students -- of which I partly claim to be one -- can pick up this apparent self-contradiction in your logic, and explain it way, like snow melting off the ground in spring, then, by all means, please pick up the dialectic here in your absence. I, personally, remain quiet because I see no way of explaining this self-contradiction away.
There are ways of seemingly justifying this Hegelian eye-sore. I will take up the task of my potential Hegelian protagonists and protectionists. We can justify it on the ground of 'historical determinism' and/or 'teleological determinism' -- the logic would run something like this: If you think in terms of where reality has come from and/or where it is going, then the present reality becomes a 'justified, rational, necessary reality'. But it still boils down to moral-ethical relativism, which in effect is moral-ethical white-washing -- and hogwash. The present reality -- no matter how corrupt and criminal it may be -- is 'dialectically justified' on the basis that it is a 'temporary phase of dialectical evolution' -- and 'rationally necessary for this ongoing evolution'. Again -- hogwash -- and justification for sitting on your hands and doing nothing about individual, social, legal, economic, political, and environmental moral-ethical transgressions, improprieties, corruptions, crimes...
We could also sit here forever and play 'cat and mouse definition games'. This is what Hegel meant by 'rational' and this is what Hegel meant by 'real'. No, he didn't -- he meant this. And so on.
The deeper we dive -- or the higher we soar -- into this verbal conundrum, the more mixed up and confused we will get. Word and mind games that will take us nowhere except on a magic carpet ride. It's like bobbing for apples and trying to grab the apple with your tongue. It might be a fun game to play at a halloween party when you're drunk and in mixed company but if you are serious about grabbing the apple, it is not going to happen -- unless you use your hands and/or your teeth.
And so it is with Hegel. If you want to make practical sense of Hegel -- as with any philosopher that delves too much in the abstract, then you have to use your hands and your teeth to clear away the abstractions, the conundrums, the self-contradictions, the word play, and the mind-games. Otherwise, you will be bobbing for apples for a long, long time -- about as long as it will take man's Spirit, or God's Spirit, or the Universe's Spirit to totally enlighten itself with 'Absolute Knowledge'. Try totally enlightening yourself with 'Absolute Balderdash' -- and you will be closer to the truth.
This brings me to my last point and Hegel's last 'self-contradiction' that I will talk about here.
Firstly, let me be clear on this point: I am a huge proponent of the value of dialectic thinking -- and that's what 'Hegel's Hotel' is -- it is an evolving philosophical treatise that is built from dialectic thinking -- thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis. My philosophy used to be called 'Gap Philosophy' -- it philosophizes in the 'gaps'. 'DGBN' stands for 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging Negotiations'.
However, this having been said, dialectical thinking is simply one important means to an end -- and that end is 'more functional, pragmatic, practical knowing (epistemology), being or living (ontology), and becoming (teleology)'.
Dialectic thinking and negotiating does not always work. Sometimes it might bring us to an impasse, a stalemate. Othertimes, it just may not be the type of logic and/or thinking that we should be using in a particular context. Maybe we should be using Aristolean-Kierkgaardian 'either/or' logic. Or Bush's infamous 'unilateral logic'. (If the United Nations does not want to support us in our invasion of Iraq, then we will go it alone -- unilateralism -- or we will lead an 'army of the willing'.)
If you choose to use Aristotlean-Kierkgaardian 'either/or' logic, then you might think something like this: Either you can be married or you can be single -- but you can't be both. You can't 'have your cake and eat it too'.
If you are a 'unilateral thinker', you might argue something like this: I don't care what my husband or wife thinks or feels; I will do what I want, regardless. (Such a person is not likely to have a very long marriage unless he or she has a very submissive, subservient husband or wife. Similarily, international political unilateralness is not particularly good for international diplomatic relations -- when you are looking for foreign support and help down the road, don't expect it to be there after you have basically 'dissed' and 'dismissed' the countries that you are now asking for support and help from.)
Now 'dialectical thinkers' are always looking for different ways in which they can 'have their cake and eat it too'.
But here too, we need to differentiate between different types of dialectical thinkers, such as:
1. 'Unilateral dialectic thinkers': Here we apply and practise dialectic thinking within ourselves. For example, I read Adam Smith and/or Ayn Rand, and then I read Karl Marx and/or Erich Fromm, and then I try to find a 'working synthesis' between 'Smith's and Rand's ideal Capitalism' vs. 'Marx's and Fromm's ideal socialism'. Or going back to my first example, I try to 'split the difference between being married and being single -- and still keep my wife.' And there is many different potential places that this type of dialectical thinking could take either you or me as we try to creatively balance such things as: narcissism (sexual drive, security...), empathy, altruism, morals, ethics -- and staying married.
2. 'Bilateral dialectical thinkers': Here two different thinkers sit down and try to work out a conflict resolution to whatever the disagreement or conflict is. I probably wouldn't recommend this for most married couples who want to stay married unless you are both very open-minded and liberal. Discussions about past, present, and/or future potential 'infidelity encounters' don't usually go over too well with the husband or wife. I tried this type of discussion once and let's just say that I probably will never try to do it again -- not with someone I am intimately involved with.
It's probably a good thing that God/Nature generally starts to lower the sex drive around 50 to 60; otherwise, it's scary to think how much more biological, psychological, and philosophical chaos could be thrown into the lives of 'civilized' people. So much for wisdom -- and peace of mind - in old age. Nursing homes out of control. Kids with changing grandfathers and grandmothers -- and not just because their fathers and mothers, or step-fathers and step-mothers, were changing. I'm trying partly to be humorous here but underneath the partly intended humor is an incredible amount of human and family pain, pathos, traumacy, and tragedy.
You want to talk about biological, psychological, and philosophical contradictions. There is no greater human contradiction -- at least for many if not most people -- between the drive, or shall we say, 'ethical restraint', to be 'monogomous' vs. the drive to be 'non-monogomous'.
For some, this may be a 'no-contest' conflict -- one way or the other; but for others -- like myself -- it may be a lifelong biological, psychological, and philosophical -- conflict/problem. If, some day, some philosopher finds a good working biological-psychological-philosophical dialectical conflict resolution to this problem that results in a better type of 'self and social homeostatic balance' than the one we currently have relative to this issue, such a philosopher would deserve to become a millionare. Because right now, the co-relation between: marital infidelity, possessiveness and jealousy, family instability, domestic violence, and family self-destruction -- has got to be huge.
Finally, to finish my last point. Dialectical thinking and logic has no boundaries, no limit to where it can take us. Even on one conflict issue, different dialectical thinkers could -- whether it be one, two, three, or a hundred people working together to resolve the same conflict-issue -- could probably come up with a virtually endless combination of workable or non-workable conflict-solutions/resolutions on this particular issue. Plus there are an infinite number of possible conflict issues out there in the real or imagined world we have to live in.
Thus, the potential 'end solutions' -- and their 'negation' -- and their 'counter-negation' and their endless number of potential integrations/syntheses are as infinite as the universe itself. Never will their ever be any arrival at 'Absolute Knowledge' because, according to dialectic logic, even 'Absolute Knowledge' would have to be subject to its own negation -- and further integration.
Conclusion: Dialectical thinking is incompatible and contradictory with any talk of 'Absolute Knowledge'. So once again, 'Absolute Knowledge' is a non-contributing factor in the evolution of DGB Philosophy.
That is enough for today on this subject matter. Have a great dialectical day. And may you work your way through your unsuccessful dialectic integrations -- to get to your successful ones that hopefully will make you happy.
-- dgb, Aug. 10th, 2008.
See DGB Philosophy, German Idealism
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Faceoff: Kant Vs. DGB Philosophy: Sorting Out The Difference Between Man's Subjective-(Phenomenal) World and His Objective-(Noumenal) World
This essay was written about 9 months ago and I have just finished re-reading it and modifying it to keep it current with my ongoing, evolving thought process.
-- dgb, Aug. 9th, 2008.
...............................................................................
Kant's first challenge was to 'epistemology'. Some might say that Kant, in effect, destroyed epistemology. At least, he seriously deflated the epistemology balloon -- which included the balloon of science, sensory awareness, empiricism, and reason.
Epistemological optimism which before Kant or at least before Hume reigned supreme --took a huge double hit from Hume, the supreme skeptic, and then Kant who wasn't much less skeptical -- with Kant throwing the final epistemological 'knockout punch' in the form of what he called the 'noumenal world' which was 'the essence' of the world outside ourselves that in effect was 'unknowable' because it was above and beyond the capacity of our senses to 'know' this noumenal world. What Kant was in effect pointing to was the limitation of our senses relative to what might also be called 'objective knowledge'. All we could/can 'know' was/is our 'phenomenal world' which is the 'world-as-it-appears-to-us-through-our-own-private-senses (and logic and judgments)' -- i.e. our own privately construed 'subjective world'.
What Kant did that drove many a philosopher to the brink of insanity and/or suicide was he created a 'black and white epistemological dualistic world' where the 'black (man's subjective, phenomenal world) could not know the white (the objective, noumenal world) because the latter was outside the domain and power of man's senses.
However, Kant was wrong here. Kant's epistemological mistake was that he looked at the world 'dualistically' -- but not 'dialectically'. There is a huge epistemological difference. By looking at he world dualistically in terms of a black and white division between our 'subjective, phenomenal world of appearances' vs. the 'real, objective, but unknowable, noumenal world', Kant gave the impression to many that epistemology was in essence and effect -- useless and a waste of time -- since it was powerless to know and understand the 'real objective, noumenal world'.
This does not happen if you look at epistemology -- and the dualistic division of these two worlds (phenomenal and noumenal) -- dialectically as well as dualistically. 'Dialectically' implies that the two worlds -- our subjective, phenomenal world and the objective, noumenal world -- touch and make contact with each other; indeed, they often collide with each other and are at least partly intertwined with each other.
Furthermore, there is an imperative, survival relationship between the two. Our subjective, phenomenal world has to 'structurally represent our objective, noumenal world accurately' -- at least accurately enough in order for us to survive.
There are many different degrees of errors possible between the two worlds -- i.e., between our subjective, phenomenal world misrepresenting our objective, noumenal world. These errors can range from the most unimportant and benign to the most critical in terms of our survival. Misrepresentations of our subjective, phenomenal world relative to our objective, noumenal world can in some critical situations be the difference between life and death. Some may live where others die -- based simply on the degree of difference between an accurate representation of a significant life danger vs. a non-representation or misrepresentation of the same.
A four year old might properly understand the significant danger of an approaching car whereas a two year old might not.
One person might significantly represent the danger of running a car in a closed garage whereas another might not. One person might better represent the danger of a sheet of ice on a highway whereas another might not. One person might better represent the significance of the danger of a sheet of ice on his own driveway whereas another might not.
I dispatch 'mobility' vans and cars for a living, and the day before Christmas we had a customer who died from a heart attack after he slipped on a patch of ice on his own driveway. He was a 69 year old dialysis patient in dire health straits as it was. He had told our driver a week before Christmas that he would be lucky to make it to Christmas. Combine his weak health with an ice storm the previous night, and insufficient precautions the morning after the ice storm -- he was being escorted at the time but still slipped and fell -- and you had the recipe for a tragic accident.
When we think 'dialectically inside the epistemological dualism' in terms of 'a structural similarity between the two' and/or a 'structural, dialectical integration between our subjective, phenomenal and objective, noumenal worlds -- then we bypass the Kantian Epistemological Crisis that had seemingly every philosopher around his time having anxiety attacks because according to Kant 'knowledge of our objective, noumenal world' was impossible. Kant in effect had created a dualistic epistemological barrier that became in effect, an unbeatable epistemological monster.
In trying to modify the extreme empiricism of David Hume, Kant took epistemology to an even worse place than David Hume. Philosophers were bedazzled and befuddled by the skeptical extremism of David Hume; they were terrified by the implications of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
Philosophy, even to this day, has not fully recovered from the dualistic -- 'never the two should meet' -- epistemology of Kant. In the Post-Hegelian, Dialectical Philosophy of yours truly here, man's subjective and objective worlds meet all the time -- with both good and bad results -- the latter like when a Siberian tiger allegedly jumps a huge moat and massive fence at a zoo (unless it found another way out) -- and kills at least one person in the process, seriously injuring two others.
The most dangerous part of our own phenomenal, subjective world is our own private assumptions on what can and can't happen in the real, objective, noumenal world around us. False assumptions, generalizations, inferences, interpretations...can kill us...and/or others. We need to continually upgrade and update our epistemological structures and processes -- like I am this essay -- in order to keep our ideas, our concepts, our work...fresh, in tune with our objective-(noumenal) world and relevant.
Our very survival is dependent on us subscribing to this most important epistemological theme. The better our knowledge is -- i.e., the more structurally similar it is to the objective, noumenal world that we live in -- the better is our chance for a longer and more fruitful survival. I follow Ayn Rand's philosophy and Epistemology of 'Objectivism' here -- as well as Alfred Korzybski's philosophy of General Semantics. We will talk more about this at a later date.
Good epistemology involves a constant dialectic exchange between our subjective, phenomeanl world and our objective-noumenal one in a way that is not harmful to our very existence. The whole point of knowledge is to ward off dangers before they hit us and hurt us. Good epistemology is vitally important to our survival.
Kant's black and white-either/or epistemology has been pushed aside by DGB Philosophy for other subjectively interpreted 'better' brands of epistemology (Korzybski, Hayakawa, Rand...in my opinion).
This does not mean that Kant's work was not important; indeed, it was. 'The Critique of Pure Reason' was one of the two or three most revolutionary books in the history of Western philosophy. It stimulated philosophers to look inward at the scope and quality of man's 'internal, subjective perceptual-interpretive-evaluative machinery'. But in doing this, Kant overstated his case, even though it was supposed to be an integration of 'rational' and 'empirical' points of view. And at first, the philosophers of the time didn't know how to deal with this overstatement -- until the overcompensating 'anti-thesis' philosophies started rolling in -- Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer -- that all in their own way tended to re-emphasize a Spinozian-like monistic (wholistic) world.
Hegel's was the best of the three post-Kantian philosophies because it trumpeted the idea of a 'dualistic-dialectic-wholism' -- a constantly evolving integration between monism (wholism) and dualism -- that still monistically resulted in Hegel's idealistic dream of a 'one in all' philosophy that unfortunately, wove itself eventually when combined with other major influences (too many to get into here but let's start with Fichte, Nietzsche, a cultural compensation to being humiliated by Napoleon, cultural anti-Semitism, cultural egotism and Nationalism, Hitler...) -- into 'Nazism'. I don't think Hegel would have supported Nazism but who knows for sure; certainly, Nietzsche wouldn't have and didn't -- he was against German Nationalism and the 'herd mentality'.
Anyways -- it's not that we can't 'know' our 'objective, noumenal world' -- because we can. Rather, we can never 'know' our objective, noumenal world -- perfectly -- because of the limitations of our subjective sensory and our logical-evaluative machinery is not perfect; in fact, partly gets worse with age.
Even as I read what I have written here, I am squinting without having a set of reading glasses on. Twenty years ago this would not have been the case. At one time I had 20/20 vision. Not now. My senses are now more limited and imperfect than they were 20 years ago. But I can still read what I've written -- give or take a few spelling mistakes when I don't have my glasses on.
So my philosphical perspective relative to Kant's epistemology is basically this: Kant 'struck out' on the basis of overstatement.
And anyone who believes the full extent of Kant's overstatement is 'striking out' too because they are missing the imporance of 'dialectic interaction' and 'the importance of accurate subjective representation' of 'objective-noumenal truth'.
"Mr. Kant, you were brilliant but you were also too much of an 'anal-retentive, perfectionist' for your own good and for the good of those around you -- who took you too literally and too much to heart for their own good."
Our objective, nomenal world does not demand that we are perfect. It simply demands that we are more right than wrong -- particularly on the important things that could/can cost us our lives if we are wrong.
That is why God/Nature gave us the subjective, sensory-logical-evaluative machinery that we have. To understand our objective-noumenal world reasonably accurately if not perfectly -- because that is what keeps us alive.
dgb, Dec. 27-28th, 2007, updated Aug. 9th, 2008.
See...DGB Philosophy: German Idealism
-- dgb, Aug. 9th, 2008.
...............................................................................
Kant's first challenge was to 'epistemology'. Some might say that Kant, in effect, destroyed epistemology. At least, he seriously deflated the epistemology balloon -- which included the balloon of science, sensory awareness, empiricism, and reason.
Epistemological optimism which before Kant or at least before Hume reigned supreme --took a huge double hit from Hume, the supreme skeptic, and then Kant who wasn't much less skeptical -- with Kant throwing the final epistemological 'knockout punch' in the form of what he called the 'noumenal world' which was 'the essence' of the world outside ourselves that in effect was 'unknowable' because it was above and beyond the capacity of our senses to 'know' this noumenal world. What Kant was in effect pointing to was the limitation of our senses relative to what might also be called 'objective knowledge'. All we could/can 'know' was/is our 'phenomenal world' which is the 'world-as-it-appears-to-us-through-our-own-private-senses (and logic and judgments)' -- i.e. our own privately construed 'subjective world'.
What Kant did that drove many a philosopher to the brink of insanity and/or suicide was he created a 'black and white epistemological dualistic world' where the 'black (man's subjective, phenomenal world) could not know the white (the objective, noumenal world) because the latter was outside the domain and power of man's senses.
However, Kant was wrong here. Kant's epistemological mistake was that he looked at the world 'dualistically' -- but not 'dialectically'. There is a huge epistemological difference. By looking at he world dualistically in terms of a black and white division between our 'subjective, phenomenal world of appearances' vs. the 'real, objective, but unknowable, noumenal world', Kant gave the impression to many that epistemology was in essence and effect -- useless and a waste of time -- since it was powerless to know and understand the 'real objective, noumenal world'.
This does not happen if you look at epistemology -- and the dualistic division of these two worlds (phenomenal and noumenal) -- dialectically as well as dualistically. 'Dialectically' implies that the two worlds -- our subjective, phenomenal world and the objective, noumenal world -- touch and make contact with each other; indeed, they often collide with each other and are at least partly intertwined with each other.
Furthermore, there is an imperative, survival relationship between the two. Our subjective, phenomenal world has to 'structurally represent our objective, noumenal world accurately' -- at least accurately enough in order for us to survive.
There are many different degrees of errors possible between the two worlds -- i.e., between our subjective, phenomenal world misrepresenting our objective, noumenal world. These errors can range from the most unimportant and benign to the most critical in terms of our survival. Misrepresentations of our subjective, phenomenal world relative to our objective, noumenal world can in some critical situations be the difference between life and death. Some may live where others die -- based simply on the degree of difference between an accurate representation of a significant life danger vs. a non-representation or misrepresentation of the same.
A four year old might properly understand the significant danger of an approaching car whereas a two year old might not.
One person might significantly represent the danger of running a car in a closed garage whereas another might not. One person might better represent the danger of a sheet of ice on a highway whereas another might not. One person might better represent the significance of the danger of a sheet of ice on his own driveway whereas another might not.
I dispatch 'mobility' vans and cars for a living, and the day before Christmas we had a customer who died from a heart attack after he slipped on a patch of ice on his own driveway. He was a 69 year old dialysis patient in dire health straits as it was. He had told our driver a week before Christmas that he would be lucky to make it to Christmas. Combine his weak health with an ice storm the previous night, and insufficient precautions the morning after the ice storm -- he was being escorted at the time but still slipped and fell -- and you had the recipe for a tragic accident.
When we think 'dialectically inside the epistemological dualism' in terms of 'a structural similarity between the two' and/or a 'structural, dialectical integration between our subjective, phenomenal and objective, noumenal worlds -- then we bypass the Kantian Epistemological Crisis that had seemingly every philosopher around his time having anxiety attacks because according to Kant 'knowledge of our objective, noumenal world' was impossible. Kant in effect had created a dualistic epistemological barrier that became in effect, an unbeatable epistemological monster.
In trying to modify the extreme empiricism of David Hume, Kant took epistemology to an even worse place than David Hume. Philosophers were bedazzled and befuddled by the skeptical extremism of David Hume; they were terrified by the implications of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
Philosophy, even to this day, has not fully recovered from the dualistic -- 'never the two should meet' -- epistemology of Kant. In the Post-Hegelian, Dialectical Philosophy of yours truly here, man's subjective and objective worlds meet all the time -- with both good and bad results -- the latter like when a Siberian tiger allegedly jumps a huge moat and massive fence at a zoo (unless it found another way out) -- and kills at least one person in the process, seriously injuring two others.
The most dangerous part of our own phenomenal, subjective world is our own private assumptions on what can and can't happen in the real, objective, noumenal world around us. False assumptions, generalizations, inferences, interpretations...can kill us...and/or others. We need to continually upgrade and update our epistemological structures and processes -- like I am this essay -- in order to keep our ideas, our concepts, our work...fresh, in tune with our objective-(noumenal) world and relevant.
Our very survival is dependent on us subscribing to this most important epistemological theme. The better our knowledge is -- i.e., the more structurally similar it is to the objective, noumenal world that we live in -- the better is our chance for a longer and more fruitful survival. I follow Ayn Rand's philosophy and Epistemology of 'Objectivism' here -- as well as Alfred Korzybski's philosophy of General Semantics. We will talk more about this at a later date.
Good epistemology involves a constant dialectic exchange between our subjective, phenomeanl world and our objective-noumenal one in a way that is not harmful to our very existence. The whole point of knowledge is to ward off dangers before they hit us and hurt us. Good epistemology is vitally important to our survival.
Kant's black and white-either/or epistemology has been pushed aside by DGB Philosophy for other subjectively interpreted 'better' brands of epistemology (Korzybski, Hayakawa, Rand...in my opinion).
This does not mean that Kant's work was not important; indeed, it was. 'The Critique of Pure Reason' was one of the two or three most revolutionary books in the history of Western philosophy. It stimulated philosophers to look inward at the scope and quality of man's 'internal, subjective perceptual-interpretive-evaluative machinery'. But in doing this, Kant overstated his case, even though it was supposed to be an integration of 'rational' and 'empirical' points of view. And at first, the philosophers of the time didn't know how to deal with this overstatement -- until the overcompensating 'anti-thesis' philosophies started rolling in -- Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer -- that all in their own way tended to re-emphasize a Spinozian-like monistic (wholistic) world.
Hegel's was the best of the three post-Kantian philosophies because it trumpeted the idea of a 'dualistic-dialectic-wholism' -- a constantly evolving integration between monism (wholism) and dualism -- that still monistically resulted in Hegel's idealistic dream of a 'one in all' philosophy that unfortunately, wove itself eventually when combined with other major influences (too many to get into here but let's start with Fichte, Nietzsche, a cultural compensation to being humiliated by Napoleon, cultural anti-Semitism, cultural egotism and Nationalism, Hitler...) -- into 'Nazism'. I don't think Hegel would have supported Nazism but who knows for sure; certainly, Nietzsche wouldn't have and didn't -- he was against German Nationalism and the 'herd mentality'.
Anyways -- it's not that we can't 'know' our 'objective, noumenal world' -- because we can. Rather, we can never 'know' our objective, noumenal world -- perfectly -- because of the limitations of our subjective sensory and our logical-evaluative machinery is not perfect; in fact, partly gets worse with age.
Even as I read what I have written here, I am squinting without having a set of reading glasses on. Twenty years ago this would not have been the case. At one time I had 20/20 vision. Not now. My senses are now more limited and imperfect than they were 20 years ago. But I can still read what I've written -- give or take a few spelling mistakes when I don't have my glasses on.
So my philosphical perspective relative to Kant's epistemology is basically this: Kant 'struck out' on the basis of overstatement.
And anyone who believes the full extent of Kant's overstatement is 'striking out' too because they are missing the imporance of 'dialectic interaction' and 'the importance of accurate subjective representation' of 'objective-noumenal truth'.
"Mr. Kant, you were brilliant but you were also too much of an 'anal-retentive, perfectionist' for your own good and for the good of those around you -- who took you too literally and too much to heart for their own good."
Our objective, nomenal world does not demand that we are perfect. It simply demands that we are more right than wrong -- particularly on the important things that could/can cost us our lives if we are wrong.
That is why God/Nature gave us the subjective, sensory-logical-evaluative machinery that we have. To understand our objective-noumenal world reasonably accurately if not perfectly -- because that is what keeps us alive.
dgb, Dec. 27-28th, 2007, updated Aug. 9th, 2008.
See...DGB Philosophy: German Idealism
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
The Pathology of Unbridled (Toxic) Narcissism -- Addiction, Destruction, Self-Destruction, Exploitation...
We've seen it in baseball -- the steroid scandal of the past few years.
We've seen it in government -- just pick a scandal -- how about the 'Ad-Scam' scandal of the Liberal Government in Canada a few years back.
We've seen it with the owners of large corporations -- just look back to the Conrad Black trial. Or the owners of the large oil companies -- either in the Middle East or in America.
We've seen it in history -- just name your time period. How about the overthrowing of the French government and aristocrats in the French Revolution. Or the Americans overthrowing the British government in The American Revolultion.
We've seen it in philosophy -- Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli, Schopenhauer, or how about Ayn Rand and 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.
Try as we might, we can't escape the 'drive of human narcissism'. Some people are less narcissistic than others. Some religions are less narcissistic than others. They all try to at least partly condemn human selfishness but most religions get caught up in narcissistic drives themselves. Budhism seems to be better than most but perhaps they go too far the other way)
We all need a certain percentage or degree of narcissism in lives -- call it self-awareness, sensory awareness, staying in touch with our feelings, staying in touch with what we want, self-assertion, a certain amount of hedonism (pleasure-seeking).
The human mind and body is programmed to pursue pleasure and happiness.
This is not the problem of narcissism that I come back to again and again.
The problem of narcissism that I come back to over and over again is 'unbridled narcissism' -- narcissism out of control. Too much narcissism turns into exploitation and human exploitation can occur in any type of economic and/or political system -- Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Feudalism, Dictatorship, Democracy...
Too much narcissism -- and resulting exploitation -- can happen in any kind of religious and/or atheist system.
So let me count two ways in which narcissism can be, and is, pathological.
Narcissism is pathological to the extent that it leads to destruction and/or self-destruction. (Violence, drug addiction, any kind of addiction, abuse of one's own body and/or someone else's...)
Narcissism is pathological to the extent that it leads to social, sexual, economic, political, and/or legal exploitation.
In Canada, we all want a piece of the Canadian Pie, the Canadian Dream...
Same with America...or visa versa.
Corporate owners and shareholders want their share of the Canadian and/or American Pie.
Managers, supervisors, white collar workers, blue collar workers...they all want their share of the Canadian and/or American Pie.
The goal of Capitalism is to 'stretch your/our limits as far as you can' -- let the market determine your value. What people are willing to pay you -- that is what you are worth.
But somewhere in here is also the need for 'homeostatic balance' -- we can see this in sports franchises: the more out of line with the 'salary cap' -- and the total salary of the team -- one individual's salary becomes, the more this salary is going to create a problem of 'homestatic balance' relative to the team salary as a whole.
Corporation owners are for the most part going to strive for as much of the Canadian and/or American Pie that they can get in the Capitalist-Market system that they are working in. To a certain extent, the market determines the 'homestatic balance' of people's individual incomes and salaries. If I can't get the salary I want in this organization, then perhap the organization down the street is willing to pay me closer to what I want. Same with free agents in whatever the particular sport is -- baseball, hockey, football, soccer, with individual rules governing each sport and each league.
In corporations, there is a reason that 'unions' came into existence; there was too much worker exploitation with almost all of the power in the hands of the corporate owners and very little power in the hands of the individual workers. So individual workers started to group together, form unions, the unions were legalized by particular governments, and the workers gained more collective and individual power -- and rights. Less corporate exploitation.
But this gave rise to the phenomenon of 'union exploitation' -- either against the workers in the union, and/or against the company that the union was/is involved with.
The one underlying principle of all of nature and all of human activity is the principle of homeostatic balance -- and the interactive process of: one bi-polarity; a second bi-polarity; and the dialectic interchange between them. Thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis striving for that ever-allusive and ever-changing homesotatic balance.
A relationship, a marriage, is dialectically stable until something throws instability into the relationship, into the marriage, and either a confrontation ensues, or it doesn't, but either way, the relationship, is thrown into instability, thrown into uncertainty. Will the relationship re-stabilize -- or completely unstabilize to the point of one party or the other withdrawing from the relationship.
The 'power dialectic' and/or the 'democratic dialectic' is always taking another swing, one encounter at a time, one moment at a time, and if resentments, conflicts, and/or instabilities are not processed, negotiated and resolved, then they build up over time until the relationship collapes.
Marriages collaps from self-destruction, and/or needs simply not being met any more. Unions either work or they don't work -- if they don't work, they are usually tossed aside at the end of the contract. If the union works to well in the workers' favor and the company's needs are not fulfilled, then the company could collapse from self-destruction. Same with governments -- they either achieve a good enough homeostatic balance with the people of the country, that the people want to re-elect the government and the leader of the government -- or if the government has failed in the eyes of the people, then the government collapses and/or is thrown out of power at the end of its election term, or in some cases, in a revolution.
If you live in the fast lane, you generally die in the fast lane. Marriages that try to live in the fast lane don't usually last. Marriages trying to live in the slow lane may not last either. Boredome -- a lack of new and exciting stimulation -- is another human reality connected to narcissism. This is both a good and a bad thing. Good in that it propels people together. Bad in that it tears people apart.
The successful marriage probably generally requires a combination of fastballs, curve balls, and change of paces. But don't ask me. I have never been married -- at least in the technical, formal, sense of the word. I guess I don't trust marriage.
Maybe I don't trust myself.
For the most part, I certainly don't trust corporations. How many ethical companies are out there? What is the percentage of ethical corporations out there compared to unethical ones? 5 or 10 per cent maybe?
To be sure, corporations need to stay in business or everyone employed by the company loses. But some times you just have to shake your head at some of the unethical things that are done. Customers are gouged. Unethical marketing practises and promises. I'm not talking about making a product or service 'sexy'. I'm talking about blatant lying, blatant cheating, blatant stealing. Collusion, Conflict of interest. Networking in back offices. Lobbying behind the scenes. Feeding. Two people or groups of people are 'fattened up' with contracts or money or both -- while a third party, or a third, fourth, and fifth party, are all left out in the cold to starve or suffer.
I remember back in the mid 90s when there was a whole mess of government down-sizing. I was a part of it. My job, my department was declared 'redundant'. They had brought in a computer to do my job.
That's fine. You can't stop technology and technological 'advances' (human evolution?), good and/or bad in its consequences.
The company I worked for didn't have unionized white collar workers -- and many of these workers lost their jobs -- while unionized drivers and blue collar workers were barely touched. The white collar workers had voted down a union just the year before as management continued to promise them the same benefits as the blue collar, unionized workers and drivers -- without the union dues. And as it happened a year later -- without the union protection. Many middle managers were eliminated as well as white collar administration workers.
Again this was all fine and good -- not for the workers who lost their jobs of course although many of them got decent to very good severance settlements -- but if the country was so far in debt that it needed to elminate these jobs in order to help eliminate some of the government's -- and country's debt -- then so be it.
But the final touch was the final coup de grace. All the top managers voted themselves 'nice fat raises' to reward themselves for all the people they had cut and all the money they had saved the company while the remaining white collar adminiatration workers were left with twice as much administration work to do and no such fat raises, indeed, no raises at all. And of course, the down-sized workers had no jobs left.
What do we call this? Law of the jungle? Survial of the fittest? Lord of the Flies? Schopenhauer's world? Or management feces running downhill? Which is not to say that in the case of human narcissism, feces can't defy the law of gravity and roll uphill too. With human narcissism -- anything is possible -- and likely.
I mean no disrespect for those corporate ownere who are fair and who treat their employees and customers well -- who treat their employees with respect, as being human. Too be sure, there are some good fair owners and companies out there.
But for the rest, what do we say?
Is there any limit to human greed? Is there any limit to human cheating and/or exploitation. Drivers for companies being nickeled and dimed, short-changed, charged back, charged late fees, made to do runs that they don't get paid for, or don't get paid enough to cover their time and/or expenses, charged for administration fees, charged for dispatch fees, left to deal with rising gas expenses with no compenstations from the companies that employ them and/or contract them. Contracting them is better than employing them -- less responsibility and accountability. Besides, contractors you don't have to pay benefits. Same with part-timers. Part-timers you can pay less wages for a certain time with no benefits. Advantage company. Let's make every Canadian and/or American employee a contractor and/or a part-timer. Less expense for the business and/or government.
Drivrs being paid $400 to $500 -- doesn't sound too bad if you can't get anything else -- until you hear it's on a seventy or eighty hour work week. What's that? About $5 per hour? No taxes paid. Got to pay your taxes. What's that bring it down to -- $3 an hour? That is slave labour. Mexico couldn't make it any cheaper.
And meanwhile, we parade ourselves around as being leaders in human rights and democracy. Democracy goes deeper than just voting our leader -- or at least it should. We think that we are 'humanistic' and 'democratic' but down underneath the surface of things we still have to ask ourselves how much of this is a fascade and a charade. As time goes by, is real government and corporate power being held in the hands of fewer and fewer people?
We don't believe that we have 'sweat shops' in Canada or America. Only in Mexico. Or China. Or Taiwan. We do have our sweat shops here and if an unethical company can't get away with one, then they have another alternative. Close down there manufacturing company here and open it up somewhere else in the world -- like Mexico, China, or Taiwan. They allow sweat shops there.
Now all we need is 'free trade'. Bring more and more of the cheap goods in from foreign countries with dirt cheap wages and no tariffs. The Narcissistic Capitalists love it. They call it 'Globalization'. And since the Narcissistic Capitalists -- are connected to the Government Lobbyists (if they aren't the same people) -- and the Government Lobbyists are giving the politicians money to help them stay in power -- and be wealthy also -- who cares about all the unemployed workers who are being flushed down the drain. That too -- is Capitalism -- we say. Maybe it is high time we took a hard look at Capitalism and where it is taking us -- and at least sort out the difference between 1. Narcissistic, Exploitive Capitalism; and 2. Ethical, Humanistic-Existential Capitalism. We need some new rules in the government about what ethical, Capitalist companies can and can't do. And enforce these laws. The Better Business Bureau and the Labour Board dont' really cut it. They can't see the real faces of human exploitation.
First and foremost, we all need to be our own ethical control boards. And at least partly police each other.
Rules are easy to bend and/or break to achieve narcissistic ends.
But sometimes the social and family cost is horrific.
We all need to know where to draw the line on our narcissistic drives.
A homeostatically balanced and stable society demands it.
Look at the collapse of the Roman Empire if you want to examine the factors leading to the opposite.
Or look at all the ethical transgrssions that are committed by the people you work with -- above you, beside you, and below you.
And sometimes we all need to take a very good look in the mirror.
-- dgb, August 6th, 2008.
......................................................................
Post-Script
In case we are not clear on some or all of these points:
In this essay I wrote yesterday, I think I was going after corporate narcissism more than anything -- the type I see around me every day.
I don't want to turn anyone into a social prude or prune.
I want everyone to have fun, be happy, be in touch with their senses, pursue pleasure and the American and/or Canadian Dream -- within reason without self and/or social toxic consequences.
On the opposite side of things, I will take some religions and religious preachers to task -- just as Nietzsche did -- for being too anti-narcissistic, too anti-human. One does not need to be a slave to one's own moral-ethical code in order to live a balanced, narcissistic-altruistic life.
I just despise corporate and government corruption, exploiting others to climb higher on the corporate narcissistic ladder, and I hate to see families destroyed because of men and women who have no brakes when it comes to their outside socializing.
Aside from that, you can never completely stop the drive of narcissism -- and love, and lust -- from crossing boundaries where sometimes we just don't expect it. Unless, you are old enough to say that nothing surprises relative to love and sex.
Sometimes, despite all of our most ethical efforts, nature simply has the last word.
And what more can I say about that. Nothing.
My message is simply to treat others with dignity and respect relative to working with them, if you own a company, paying your workers their due share, and what is fair labour value, rather than copping another extra couple of bucks for yourself and/or your company that stretches outside the realm of fairness into the realm of unbridled (toxic) narcissism.
There's a lot of hard-working people out there just trying to pay their bills and feed their families. It pains me to see many of these people taken advanatage of by corporate narcissism -- owners squeezing and shaking every last dollar out of their employees in order to load up their own coffers.
To be sure, businesses have to survive but whe are not talking about business survival here. We are talking primarily about owners exploiting workers that are not unionized. I'm not a big union fan but there is a good reason unions came into existence in many companies.
People shouldn't have to become slaves at their work, enrage themselves, and/or dmean themselves in order to keep a job that they need to feed their families but which doesn't pay them fairly.
Have a great -- balanced narcissistic -- day.
-- dgb, Aug. 7th, Aug 8th, 2008.
See DGB Philosophy: Narcissism
We've seen it in government -- just pick a scandal -- how about the 'Ad-Scam' scandal of the Liberal Government in Canada a few years back.
We've seen it with the owners of large corporations -- just look back to the Conrad Black trial. Or the owners of the large oil companies -- either in the Middle East or in America.
We've seen it in history -- just name your time period. How about the overthrowing of the French government and aristocrats in the French Revolution. Or the Americans overthrowing the British government in The American Revolultion.
We've seen it in philosophy -- Thomas Hobbes, Machiavelli, Schopenhauer, or how about Ayn Rand and 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.
Try as we might, we can't escape the 'drive of human narcissism'. Some people are less narcissistic than others. Some religions are less narcissistic than others. They all try to at least partly condemn human selfishness but most religions get caught up in narcissistic drives themselves. Budhism seems to be better than most but perhaps they go too far the other way)
We all need a certain percentage or degree of narcissism in lives -- call it self-awareness, sensory awareness, staying in touch with our feelings, staying in touch with what we want, self-assertion, a certain amount of hedonism (pleasure-seeking).
The human mind and body is programmed to pursue pleasure and happiness.
This is not the problem of narcissism that I come back to again and again.
The problem of narcissism that I come back to over and over again is 'unbridled narcissism' -- narcissism out of control. Too much narcissism turns into exploitation and human exploitation can occur in any type of economic and/or political system -- Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Feudalism, Dictatorship, Democracy...
Too much narcissism -- and resulting exploitation -- can happen in any kind of religious and/or atheist system.
So let me count two ways in which narcissism can be, and is, pathological.
Narcissism is pathological to the extent that it leads to destruction and/or self-destruction. (Violence, drug addiction, any kind of addiction, abuse of one's own body and/or someone else's...)
Narcissism is pathological to the extent that it leads to social, sexual, economic, political, and/or legal exploitation.
In Canada, we all want a piece of the Canadian Pie, the Canadian Dream...
Same with America...or visa versa.
Corporate owners and shareholders want their share of the Canadian and/or American Pie.
Managers, supervisors, white collar workers, blue collar workers...they all want their share of the Canadian and/or American Pie.
The goal of Capitalism is to 'stretch your/our limits as far as you can' -- let the market determine your value. What people are willing to pay you -- that is what you are worth.
But somewhere in here is also the need for 'homeostatic balance' -- we can see this in sports franchises: the more out of line with the 'salary cap' -- and the total salary of the team -- one individual's salary becomes, the more this salary is going to create a problem of 'homestatic balance' relative to the team salary as a whole.
Corporation owners are for the most part going to strive for as much of the Canadian and/or American Pie that they can get in the Capitalist-Market system that they are working in. To a certain extent, the market determines the 'homestatic balance' of people's individual incomes and salaries. If I can't get the salary I want in this organization, then perhap the organization down the street is willing to pay me closer to what I want. Same with free agents in whatever the particular sport is -- baseball, hockey, football, soccer, with individual rules governing each sport and each league.
In corporations, there is a reason that 'unions' came into existence; there was too much worker exploitation with almost all of the power in the hands of the corporate owners and very little power in the hands of the individual workers. So individual workers started to group together, form unions, the unions were legalized by particular governments, and the workers gained more collective and individual power -- and rights. Less corporate exploitation.
But this gave rise to the phenomenon of 'union exploitation' -- either against the workers in the union, and/or against the company that the union was/is involved with.
The one underlying principle of all of nature and all of human activity is the principle of homeostatic balance -- and the interactive process of: one bi-polarity; a second bi-polarity; and the dialectic interchange between them. Thesis, anti-thesis, and synthesis striving for that ever-allusive and ever-changing homesotatic balance.
A relationship, a marriage, is dialectically stable until something throws instability into the relationship, into the marriage, and either a confrontation ensues, or it doesn't, but either way, the relationship, is thrown into instability, thrown into uncertainty. Will the relationship re-stabilize -- or completely unstabilize to the point of one party or the other withdrawing from the relationship.
The 'power dialectic' and/or the 'democratic dialectic' is always taking another swing, one encounter at a time, one moment at a time, and if resentments, conflicts, and/or instabilities are not processed, negotiated and resolved, then they build up over time until the relationship collapes.
Marriages collaps from self-destruction, and/or needs simply not being met any more. Unions either work or they don't work -- if they don't work, they are usually tossed aside at the end of the contract. If the union works to well in the workers' favor and the company's needs are not fulfilled, then the company could collapse from self-destruction. Same with governments -- they either achieve a good enough homeostatic balance with the people of the country, that the people want to re-elect the government and the leader of the government -- or if the government has failed in the eyes of the people, then the government collapses and/or is thrown out of power at the end of its election term, or in some cases, in a revolution.
If you live in the fast lane, you generally die in the fast lane. Marriages that try to live in the fast lane don't usually last. Marriages trying to live in the slow lane may not last either. Boredome -- a lack of new and exciting stimulation -- is another human reality connected to narcissism. This is both a good and a bad thing. Good in that it propels people together. Bad in that it tears people apart.
The successful marriage probably generally requires a combination of fastballs, curve balls, and change of paces. But don't ask me. I have never been married -- at least in the technical, formal, sense of the word. I guess I don't trust marriage.
Maybe I don't trust myself.
For the most part, I certainly don't trust corporations. How many ethical companies are out there? What is the percentage of ethical corporations out there compared to unethical ones? 5 or 10 per cent maybe?
To be sure, corporations need to stay in business or everyone employed by the company loses. But some times you just have to shake your head at some of the unethical things that are done. Customers are gouged. Unethical marketing practises and promises. I'm not talking about making a product or service 'sexy'. I'm talking about blatant lying, blatant cheating, blatant stealing. Collusion, Conflict of interest. Networking in back offices. Lobbying behind the scenes. Feeding. Two people or groups of people are 'fattened up' with contracts or money or both -- while a third party, or a third, fourth, and fifth party, are all left out in the cold to starve or suffer.
I remember back in the mid 90s when there was a whole mess of government down-sizing. I was a part of it. My job, my department was declared 'redundant'. They had brought in a computer to do my job.
That's fine. You can't stop technology and technological 'advances' (human evolution?), good and/or bad in its consequences.
The company I worked for didn't have unionized white collar workers -- and many of these workers lost their jobs -- while unionized drivers and blue collar workers were barely touched. The white collar workers had voted down a union just the year before as management continued to promise them the same benefits as the blue collar, unionized workers and drivers -- without the union dues. And as it happened a year later -- without the union protection. Many middle managers were eliminated as well as white collar administration workers.
Again this was all fine and good -- not for the workers who lost their jobs of course although many of them got decent to very good severance settlements -- but if the country was so far in debt that it needed to elminate these jobs in order to help eliminate some of the government's -- and country's debt -- then so be it.
But the final touch was the final coup de grace. All the top managers voted themselves 'nice fat raises' to reward themselves for all the people they had cut and all the money they had saved the company while the remaining white collar adminiatration workers were left with twice as much administration work to do and no such fat raises, indeed, no raises at all. And of course, the down-sized workers had no jobs left.
What do we call this? Law of the jungle? Survial of the fittest? Lord of the Flies? Schopenhauer's world? Or management feces running downhill? Which is not to say that in the case of human narcissism, feces can't defy the law of gravity and roll uphill too. With human narcissism -- anything is possible -- and likely.
I mean no disrespect for those corporate ownere who are fair and who treat their employees and customers well -- who treat their employees with respect, as being human. Too be sure, there are some good fair owners and companies out there.
But for the rest, what do we say?
Is there any limit to human greed? Is there any limit to human cheating and/or exploitation. Drivers for companies being nickeled and dimed, short-changed, charged back, charged late fees, made to do runs that they don't get paid for, or don't get paid enough to cover their time and/or expenses, charged for administration fees, charged for dispatch fees, left to deal with rising gas expenses with no compenstations from the companies that employ them and/or contract them. Contracting them is better than employing them -- less responsibility and accountability. Besides, contractors you don't have to pay benefits. Same with part-timers. Part-timers you can pay less wages for a certain time with no benefits. Advantage company. Let's make every Canadian and/or American employee a contractor and/or a part-timer. Less expense for the business and/or government.
Drivrs being paid $400 to $500 -- doesn't sound too bad if you can't get anything else -- until you hear it's on a seventy or eighty hour work week. What's that? About $5 per hour? No taxes paid. Got to pay your taxes. What's that bring it down to -- $3 an hour? That is slave labour. Mexico couldn't make it any cheaper.
And meanwhile, we parade ourselves around as being leaders in human rights and democracy. Democracy goes deeper than just voting our leader -- or at least it should. We think that we are 'humanistic' and 'democratic' but down underneath the surface of things we still have to ask ourselves how much of this is a fascade and a charade. As time goes by, is real government and corporate power being held in the hands of fewer and fewer people?
We don't believe that we have 'sweat shops' in Canada or America. Only in Mexico. Or China. Or Taiwan. We do have our sweat shops here and if an unethical company can't get away with one, then they have another alternative. Close down there manufacturing company here and open it up somewhere else in the world -- like Mexico, China, or Taiwan. They allow sweat shops there.
Now all we need is 'free trade'. Bring more and more of the cheap goods in from foreign countries with dirt cheap wages and no tariffs. The Narcissistic Capitalists love it. They call it 'Globalization'. And since the Narcissistic Capitalists -- are connected to the Government Lobbyists (if they aren't the same people) -- and the Government Lobbyists are giving the politicians money to help them stay in power -- and be wealthy also -- who cares about all the unemployed workers who are being flushed down the drain. That too -- is Capitalism -- we say. Maybe it is high time we took a hard look at Capitalism and where it is taking us -- and at least sort out the difference between 1. Narcissistic, Exploitive Capitalism; and 2. Ethical, Humanistic-Existential Capitalism. We need some new rules in the government about what ethical, Capitalist companies can and can't do. And enforce these laws. The Better Business Bureau and the Labour Board dont' really cut it. They can't see the real faces of human exploitation.
First and foremost, we all need to be our own ethical control boards. And at least partly police each other.
Rules are easy to bend and/or break to achieve narcissistic ends.
But sometimes the social and family cost is horrific.
We all need to know where to draw the line on our narcissistic drives.
A homeostatically balanced and stable society demands it.
Look at the collapse of the Roman Empire if you want to examine the factors leading to the opposite.
Or look at all the ethical transgrssions that are committed by the people you work with -- above you, beside you, and below you.
And sometimes we all need to take a very good look in the mirror.
-- dgb, August 6th, 2008.
......................................................................
Post-Script
In case we are not clear on some or all of these points:
In this essay I wrote yesterday, I think I was going after corporate narcissism more than anything -- the type I see around me every day.
I don't want to turn anyone into a social prude or prune.
I want everyone to have fun, be happy, be in touch with their senses, pursue pleasure and the American and/or Canadian Dream -- within reason without self and/or social toxic consequences.
On the opposite side of things, I will take some religions and religious preachers to task -- just as Nietzsche did -- for being too anti-narcissistic, too anti-human. One does not need to be a slave to one's own moral-ethical code in order to live a balanced, narcissistic-altruistic life.
I just despise corporate and government corruption, exploiting others to climb higher on the corporate narcissistic ladder, and I hate to see families destroyed because of men and women who have no brakes when it comes to their outside socializing.
Aside from that, you can never completely stop the drive of narcissism -- and love, and lust -- from crossing boundaries where sometimes we just don't expect it. Unless, you are old enough to say that nothing surprises relative to love and sex.
Sometimes, despite all of our most ethical efforts, nature simply has the last word.
And what more can I say about that. Nothing.
My message is simply to treat others with dignity and respect relative to working with them, if you own a company, paying your workers their due share, and what is fair labour value, rather than copping another extra couple of bucks for yourself and/or your company that stretches outside the realm of fairness into the realm of unbridled (toxic) narcissism.
There's a lot of hard-working people out there just trying to pay their bills and feed their families. It pains me to see many of these people taken advanatage of by corporate narcissism -- owners squeezing and shaking every last dollar out of their employees in order to load up their own coffers.
To be sure, businesses have to survive but whe are not talking about business survival here. We are talking primarily about owners exploiting workers that are not unionized. I'm not a big union fan but there is a good reason unions came into existence in many companies.
People shouldn't have to become slaves at their work, enrage themselves, and/or dmean themselves in order to keep a job that they need to feed their families but which doesn't pay them fairly.
Have a great -- balanced narcissistic -- day.
-- dgb, Aug. 7th, Aug 8th, 2008.
See DGB Philosophy: Narcissism
Monday, August 4, 2008
Faceoff: Hegel vs. DGB Philosophy: Part 1: On Absolute Knowledge and Historical Determination
It is not by accident that I have called my work here 'Hegel's Hotel'. I view Hegel as the greatest single influence on my philosophical perspective and work.
Either directly -- or indirectly through Perls and Gestalt Therapy, through Freud and Psychoanalysis, through Jung and Jungian Psychology, through Berne and Transactional Analysis, through Nietzsche and 'The Birth of Tragedy' -- Hegel has taught me to think dialectically.
In the newest version of 'Introducing Hegel' -- a great series of books for introductory and advanced philosophy students alike, this one written by Lloyd Spencer, 1996, 2006 -- it states on the back cover:
'George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is one of the greatest thinkers of all time. No other philosopher has had such a profound impact on the ideas and political events of the 20th century.'
(And his influence is not slowing down in the 21st century -- my addition.)
.....................................................................................
Having said this, it is important to recognize some points of divergence between Hegel's philosophy and DGB Philosophy.
Before I start, it must be stated that I have the evolutionary advantage, if you will, of having access to a great number of 'post-Hegelian' and 'anti-Hegelian' thinkers -- mainly philosophers and psychologists -- since Hegel died in 1831. Included in these are: Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, Freud, Jung, Adler, Perls, and more... More philosophical-psychological food to be processed -- or as Lloyd Spencer writes -- 'grist for the excerpt mill' (Introducing Hegel, pg. 9). Now let's look at some of our disagreements.
...................................................................................
1. Absolute Knowledge
You will never see the two terms 'Absolute Knowledge' thrown together in DGB Philosophy except in quoting Hegel. There is no DGB Idealism in these two terms. I simply don't use them. For DGB Philosophy, all knowledge is relative and subject to change. This does not mean that there is not some knowledge that is better than other knowledge. For example, the concept of 'bi-lateral, two-directional, causality' is generally a superior concept to 'unilateral, one-directional causality' but even here context can, and usually does, mean everything. Also, everything is subject to change (Heraclitus, Korzybski, Perls, Gestalt Therapy).
No generalization is right all the time. That is why they are called generalizations. Stereotypes are particularly dangerous types of generalizations that can, and often do, cause more human pain than they are worth. From human stereotypes comes human discrimination -- and reverse discrimination -- where individuals are judged by the stereotypes they are branded by, not by their individual differences. From discrimination comes preferential treatment, unfair treatment, and unequal rights -- the anti-thesis of democracy.
Back to the theme of absolute knowledge. Man is imperfect. Man's epistemology (knowledge) is imperfect. It doesn't matter how many times we run it through the 'dialectic grist mill' -- or not -- it always will be. Every thesis will open up new anti-theses or counter-theses. Every conflict-resolution will open up new conflicts. Every problem-solution will open up new problems. Every cure will have a new side-effect. Again, these are all generalizations but I believe generally good ones. Do you really think that we have less problems today than when Hegel was philosophizing? To be sure, our knowledge is better and greater. But does anyone really not think that it won't be much better in another 200 years? And another 200 years after that? That is, assuming that we have not completely self-destructed from global warming, polluting the world, and/or war.
There are still an infinite number of life mysteries regarding ourselves, our biological, chemical, and psychological make-up, and the make-up of the world around us. Nobody in our lifetime is going to see 'Absolute Knowledge'. We are far more likely to see 'Absolute Destruction' (due to man's narcissistic greed and power-mongering).
...................................................................................
2. Historical Determinism
I am not a 'hard-line historical deteminist'; maybe a 'soft-line historical determinist'. I play the dialect between historical determinism and historical existentialism/freedom.
Example One: When America (Bush, Congress, etc.) thumbed its nose at the United Nations, and was going invade Iraq with or without the UN's approval, I wrote an essay saying that this was a big political mistake. Disregarding the fact that the epistemology ('weapons of mass destruction' and 'national security') used to justify the war turned out to be false, I felt that the principle -- and action -- of 'international unilateralism' put into play by the U.S. was gross hypocrisy from a country that was trying to preach and teach 'international democracy'. Not to mention the fact that it created a huge international 'tide reversal' from other countries empathizing with the U.S. and supporting their chase of Al Queda and the Taliban -- to other countries turning against the U.S. for their gross United Nations and multi-national disrespect, and turning away from their chase of Al Queda and the Taliban in order to start another war.
Now Bob Dylan is purported to have said -- if we are to trust the 'epistemological validity' of the movie, 'I'm Not There' -- that he didn't believe that any of his songs was capable of generating social change. If he's right about that -- and certainly Dylan wrote some wonderful political protest masterpieces such as: The Times They Are a Changin, Blowin in the Wind, Masters of War, God on Our Side, Hattie Caroll, Emmitt Til, Hard Rain's a Gonna Fall, It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding, Balland of a Thin Man, Subterranean Homesick Blues...and many, many more --then how can I possibly believe that any of my political protest essays is going to do any better? That one day my essays will only be 'blowin in the wind' with far less fanfare than anything Dylan wrote.
My answer to this sense of 'political protest futility' is this: If only one person puts only one sandbag on the bank of the Mississipi River to prevent a flood, it is not going to do any more than 'one sandbag' of good. However, if a thousand different people each put one sandbag on the bank of the river it is going to do considerable more good at stopping a flood. Even more so if you have a thousand people each putting ten sandbags on the bank of the Mississippi River -- particularly at its most dangerous points -- and so on as you increase the number of people contributing to the process, and the more each person contributes.
We may or may not look back at the first contributer (usually we do) -- a Jackie Robinson or a Martin Luther King -- and say, 'Gee, what a wonderful process that that man or woman started...'
History usually takes more than one person to turn a tide of political change but it usually takes one or two brave and/or insightful people to start the process -- Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin... There is usually a combination of historical individualism, courage, and existential freedom, combined with 'the almost deterministic drive of the dialectic and the democratic will of the people to compensate for and correct political/legal/economic/philosophical/scientific errors and injustices of any type.
One person doesn't usually generate social and/or political change all by him or herself. Put together a group of people united in the same direction, each making their own individual contributions to the group, and more power and momentum starts to establish itself. This is how you get the beginning of political parties and/or poltical lobbyist groups. Once the 'cause' spreads to 'hundreds or thousands of people' change is likely going to come -- unless you have a strong, military dictatorship holding them back. And eventually, the dictatorship will topple -- particularly if it is not supporting the 'will of the people'.
Anaxamander -- the second oldest Greek philosopher -- was astoundingly astute. He had incredible insight into the dynamics of 'power dialectics' -- of 'cosmic justice'. In his own way, Anaxamander said: 'What goes around, comes around.' -- and who amongst you, doesn't at least partly believe in that prophetic piece of wisdom.
History -- human history -- continues to move forward using a combination of individual freedom and willpower in conjunction with historical determinism, the will of the people, the drive of the dialectic -- and cosmic justice.
-- dgb, Aug. 4th, 2008.
Either directly -- or indirectly through Perls and Gestalt Therapy, through Freud and Psychoanalysis, through Jung and Jungian Psychology, through Berne and Transactional Analysis, through Nietzsche and 'The Birth of Tragedy' -- Hegel has taught me to think dialectically.
In the newest version of 'Introducing Hegel' -- a great series of books for introductory and advanced philosophy students alike, this one written by Lloyd Spencer, 1996, 2006 -- it states on the back cover:
'George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel is one of the greatest thinkers of all time. No other philosopher has had such a profound impact on the ideas and political events of the 20th century.'
(And his influence is not slowing down in the 21st century -- my addition.)
.....................................................................................
Having said this, it is important to recognize some points of divergence between Hegel's philosophy and DGB Philosophy.
Before I start, it must be stated that I have the evolutionary advantage, if you will, of having access to a great number of 'post-Hegelian' and 'anti-Hegelian' thinkers -- mainly philosophers and psychologists -- since Hegel died in 1831. Included in these are: Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Marx, Nietzsche, Sartre, Foucault, Derrida, Freud, Jung, Adler, Perls, and more... More philosophical-psychological food to be processed -- or as Lloyd Spencer writes -- 'grist for the excerpt mill' (Introducing Hegel, pg. 9). Now let's look at some of our disagreements.
...................................................................................
1. Absolute Knowledge
You will never see the two terms 'Absolute Knowledge' thrown together in DGB Philosophy except in quoting Hegel. There is no DGB Idealism in these two terms. I simply don't use them. For DGB Philosophy, all knowledge is relative and subject to change. This does not mean that there is not some knowledge that is better than other knowledge. For example, the concept of 'bi-lateral, two-directional, causality' is generally a superior concept to 'unilateral, one-directional causality' but even here context can, and usually does, mean everything. Also, everything is subject to change (Heraclitus, Korzybski, Perls, Gestalt Therapy).
No generalization is right all the time. That is why they are called generalizations. Stereotypes are particularly dangerous types of generalizations that can, and often do, cause more human pain than they are worth. From human stereotypes comes human discrimination -- and reverse discrimination -- where individuals are judged by the stereotypes they are branded by, not by their individual differences. From discrimination comes preferential treatment, unfair treatment, and unequal rights -- the anti-thesis of democracy.
Back to the theme of absolute knowledge. Man is imperfect. Man's epistemology (knowledge) is imperfect. It doesn't matter how many times we run it through the 'dialectic grist mill' -- or not -- it always will be. Every thesis will open up new anti-theses or counter-theses. Every conflict-resolution will open up new conflicts. Every problem-solution will open up new problems. Every cure will have a new side-effect. Again, these are all generalizations but I believe generally good ones. Do you really think that we have less problems today than when Hegel was philosophizing? To be sure, our knowledge is better and greater. But does anyone really not think that it won't be much better in another 200 years? And another 200 years after that? That is, assuming that we have not completely self-destructed from global warming, polluting the world, and/or war.
There are still an infinite number of life mysteries regarding ourselves, our biological, chemical, and psychological make-up, and the make-up of the world around us. Nobody in our lifetime is going to see 'Absolute Knowledge'. We are far more likely to see 'Absolute Destruction' (due to man's narcissistic greed and power-mongering).
...................................................................................
2. Historical Determinism
I am not a 'hard-line historical deteminist'; maybe a 'soft-line historical determinist'. I play the dialect between historical determinism and historical existentialism/freedom.
Example One: When America (Bush, Congress, etc.) thumbed its nose at the United Nations, and was going invade Iraq with or without the UN's approval, I wrote an essay saying that this was a big political mistake. Disregarding the fact that the epistemology ('weapons of mass destruction' and 'national security') used to justify the war turned out to be false, I felt that the principle -- and action -- of 'international unilateralism' put into play by the U.S. was gross hypocrisy from a country that was trying to preach and teach 'international democracy'. Not to mention the fact that it created a huge international 'tide reversal' from other countries empathizing with the U.S. and supporting their chase of Al Queda and the Taliban -- to other countries turning against the U.S. for their gross United Nations and multi-national disrespect, and turning away from their chase of Al Queda and the Taliban in order to start another war.
Now Bob Dylan is purported to have said -- if we are to trust the 'epistemological validity' of the movie, 'I'm Not There' -- that he didn't believe that any of his songs was capable of generating social change. If he's right about that -- and certainly Dylan wrote some wonderful political protest masterpieces such as: The Times They Are a Changin, Blowin in the Wind, Masters of War, God on Our Side, Hattie Caroll, Emmitt Til, Hard Rain's a Gonna Fall, It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding, Balland of a Thin Man, Subterranean Homesick Blues...and many, many more --then how can I possibly believe that any of my political protest essays is going to do any better? That one day my essays will only be 'blowin in the wind' with far less fanfare than anything Dylan wrote.
My answer to this sense of 'political protest futility' is this: If only one person puts only one sandbag on the bank of the Mississipi River to prevent a flood, it is not going to do any more than 'one sandbag' of good. However, if a thousand different people each put one sandbag on the bank of the river it is going to do considerable more good at stopping a flood. Even more so if you have a thousand people each putting ten sandbags on the bank of the Mississippi River -- particularly at its most dangerous points -- and so on as you increase the number of people contributing to the process, and the more each person contributes.
We may or may not look back at the first contributer (usually we do) -- a Jackie Robinson or a Martin Luther King -- and say, 'Gee, what a wonderful process that that man or woman started...'
History usually takes more than one person to turn a tide of political change but it usually takes one or two brave and/or insightful people to start the process -- Diderot, Voltaire, Rousseau, Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin... There is usually a combination of historical individualism, courage, and existential freedom, combined with 'the almost deterministic drive of the dialectic and the democratic will of the people to compensate for and correct political/legal/economic/philosophical/scientific errors and injustices of any type.
One person doesn't usually generate social and/or political change all by him or herself. Put together a group of people united in the same direction, each making their own individual contributions to the group, and more power and momentum starts to establish itself. This is how you get the beginning of political parties and/or poltical lobbyist groups. Once the 'cause' spreads to 'hundreds or thousands of people' change is likely going to come -- unless you have a strong, military dictatorship holding them back. And eventually, the dictatorship will topple -- particularly if it is not supporting the 'will of the people'.
Anaxamander -- the second oldest Greek philosopher -- was astoundingly astute. He had incredible insight into the dynamics of 'power dialectics' -- of 'cosmic justice'. In his own way, Anaxamander said: 'What goes around, comes around.' -- and who amongst you, doesn't at least partly believe in that prophetic piece of wisdom.
History -- human history -- continues to move forward using a combination of individual freedom and willpower in conjunction with historical determinism, the will of the people, the drive of the dialectic -- and cosmic justice.
-- dgb, Aug. 4th, 2008.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
On Fairness, Ethics, Narcissism, Power, Money and Capitalism
Life is not fair. That is a given. That is our starting point. As a general rule of thumb (and to be sure, things can be different but usually aren't) -- based on my thirty years of corporate experience -- personal and corporate ethics and integrity collapses under the weight of personal and corporate narcissisism -- which means primarily the influence of money and its division. Money corrupts, plain and simple. Money tarnishes everything it touches. It poisions human relationships and human realms of activity...
1. Ethical sports becomes narcissistically corrupted sports...
2. Ethical business becomes narcissistically corrupted business...
3. Ethical politics becomes narcissistically corrupted politics...
4. Ethical science and medicine becomes narcissistically corrupted science and mediicne...
5. Everything money touches in a significant way, it spoils...it batters ethics, fairness, and integrity into submission...
.................................................................................
So what do you do about this? Do you just watch and let this all happen? Or do you try to do something about it? Do you give up on Capitalism altogether -- as Marx did (not that the people who built political and economic structures from Marx's ideas created anything better -- but that lies more on Lenin's and Stalin's and the leaders of China's shoulders; not Marx's) -- or do you work, perhaps hopelessly, at trying to build a more ethical, humanistic-existential (as opposed to narcissistic, manipulative, exploitive) form of Capitalism?
These are important -- potentially life-altering -- questions that dog us as we move more and more into the 21st century, knowing all too well and personally that we are being 'had' at the gas pumps -- that some small segment of very powerful people out there is/are filling their pockets with our hard-earned and hard-to-come-by money as we drive by, fill up, sit by, and seemingly hopelessly watch our evening news and read our morning newspaper as nothing is done about this market manipulation and exploitation of our perhaps way too vitally important North American commodity -- oil and gas.
................................................................................
The 'ethics' of Capitalism was supposed to be governed by the 'free market'. But is there any such thing as a free market anymore? What is the percentage of 'free markets' out there as opposed to 'manipulated markets'?
In the case of oil, where is the market being altered and/or mnaipulated such that we are getting these skyrocketing prices? China -- and its rush towards greater industrialism, capitalism, and consumerism? India? The Middle East? The last article I read pointed to a huge 'over-consumption' of oil in places like Saudia Arabia and Dubai where the price of oil is still very cheap. What are Americans going to do -- sit around and blame the Arabs for their price of gas problems -- or are there more pertinent problems much closer to home?
................................................................................
To be continued...
1. Ethical sports becomes narcissistically corrupted sports...
2. Ethical business becomes narcissistically corrupted business...
3. Ethical politics becomes narcissistically corrupted politics...
4. Ethical science and medicine becomes narcissistically corrupted science and mediicne...
5. Everything money touches in a significant way, it spoils...it batters ethics, fairness, and integrity into submission...
.................................................................................
So what do you do about this? Do you just watch and let this all happen? Or do you try to do something about it? Do you give up on Capitalism altogether -- as Marx did (not that the people who built political and economic structures from Marx's ideas created anything better -- but that lies more on Lenin's and Stalin's and the leaders of China's shoulders; not Marx's) -- or do you work, perhaps hopelessly, at trying to build a more ethical, humanistic-existential (as opposed to narcissistic, manipulative, exploitive) form of Capitalism?
These are important -- potentially life-altering -- questions that dog us as we move more and more into the 21st century, knowing all too well and personally that we are being 'had' at the gas pumps -- that some small segment of very powerful people out there is/are filling their pockets with our hard-earned and hard-to-come-by money as we drive by, fill up, sit by, and seemingly hopelessly watch our evening news and read our morning newspaper as nothing is done about this market manipulation and exploitation of our perhaps way too vitally important North American commodity -- oil and gas.
................................................................................
The 'ethics' of Capitalism was supposed to be governed by the 'free market'. But is there any such thing as a free market anymore? What is the percentage of 'free markets' out there as opposed to 'manipulated markets'?
In the case of oil, where is the market being altered and/or mnaipulated such that we are getting these skyrocketing prices? China -- and its rush towards greater industrialism, capitalism, and consumerism? India? The Middle East? The last article I read pointed to a huge 'over-consumption' of oil in places like Saudia Arabia and Dubai where the price of oil is still very cheap. What are Americans going to do -- sit around and blame the Arabs for their price of gas problems -- or are there more pertinent problems much closer to home?
................................................................................
To be continued...
Saturday, July 26, 2008
On God, Religion, False, Good, and Bad Idols, Projection, Pragmatics -- and The Courage of Martin Luther King
Within the realm of DGB Philosophy, everything starts with the premise -- or actually the conclusion based on a line of reasoning that we have built up in other essays -- that God is a metaphysical and mythological ideal; not an epistemological reality.
So the first DGB 'false idol' is simply this: confusing epistemological truths for projected metaphysical and mythological self-ideals.
Now let us bounce to the other religious polarity. I was partly listening to and watching a short biograpy on CNN this morning -- a part of the series 'Black America' -- and I partly heard (I hope I didn't misinterpret this and/or take it out of context) a section where Martin Luther King was describing how he could behave so strongly and courageously in the constant face of danger and death -- and King answered basically that he got his strength and courage from his belief and faith in God, and his belief that God was basically 'ordaining' him to do what he needed to do to improve black rights -- to improve human rights -- in America, and everywhere.
Now, for me, and for DGB Philosophy, I pull two or three different things out of this Martin Luther King outake which will take us down two or three different paths. Actually, there are probably more paths than this -- let's try the following six.
......................................................................
We can look at God and religion from:
1. an epistemological, common sense, point of view;
2. a psychological point of view;
3. an ethical point of view;
4. a pragmatic, functional point of view;
5. a metaphysical-mythological point of view.
6. a humanistic-existential view.
...............................................................................
1. Epistemologically and common sensically, any talk abouot God and religion does not hold up very well unless you want to try to go down the path of 'intelligent design -- and 'intelligent desinger' theory. You can read some of my other essays on this subject that pursue this theme.
................................................................................
2. Psychologically, to understand the real nature of God and religion in man's life, we need to understand two things;
a. What psychological processes are involved in the creation of God and religion?;
b. What are the pragmantic and functional values of creating God and religion in man's -- or any one man's or woman's -- life?
.....................................................................................
2a. In order to properly understand the psychological dynamics of God, religion, and mythology in man's life, one has to understand the nature of projection -- plain and simple.
Man 'projects' -- mainly subconsciously and out of his awareness -- his thoughts and feelings onto everyone and everything in his social and natural environment -- his universe. Imagine a movie camera that takes the 'film' in the camera and 'projects' this film onto a screen in the form of a movie. Man -- meaning men, women, and children -- do this all day and all night (dreams) whereby they take the 'film' inside their heads and play it out in the uviverse substituting themselves for other 'role players' -- other men and women, children, animals, objects, sybols...and God.
..................................................................................
God is our own thoughts, feelings, impulses, actions -- put together in a self-idealized energy package -- looking back at us, as if from a projected mirror, but more appropriately, from a projected 'Father(or Mother)-Figure' who generally gives us strength, courage, hope, and optimism for the present and future.
...............................................................................
We can go into any time period and/or any culture -- for example, ancient Greece -- and learn much about the psychology of the people and the culture by understanding the psychology and the mythology of their 'projected Gods'. Gaea, Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Dionysus, Poseidon, Aries, Hades, Athena, Aphrodite, Hermes, Artemis, Hestia, Hephaestus...See my future article(s):
On The 'Multi-Dialectic Connection Between Greek mythology and the Psychology of Man' (See also Carl Jung in this regard...)
..............................................................................
This brings us back to Martin Luther King and the functional pragmatics -- for some, indeed many people -- of having God and relgion in one's life.
Martin Luther King showed the perfect idealistic combination to the American people and the world in general of religious ethics, a democratic understanding of what human rights really means, righteousness, tolerance, non-violence, compassion, rhetorical brilliance -- and the type of courage that most people can only dream about where one is fully prepared to die -- and he did -- for his political, ethical, and social cause.
...............................................................................
And behind Martin Luther King's unmitigated courage, we have his own statement that he derived his courage from God.
Epistemologically and psychologically, I could lay down my DGB philosophical (religious, deconstructive) challenges.
But I won't.
Because at this point I have to -- indeed, I fully want to -- bow down and pay my respects for a much more courageous, and greater man.
And finally, I say in conclusion, there is a place in DGB Philosophy and in human behavior and human culture for the functional and pragmatic value of religion when it is practised anyway and anywhere close to the way Martin Luther King practised it.
And at this point all epistemological and psychological deconstructive challenges need to take a back seat to those truly and congruently religious people who are really willing -- and put their action where there thoughts and feelings are -- to treat all people compassionately regardless of their race, colour, sex, religion, and/or culture.
There is a valuable place in human activities where religion seeks to unite people; not divide and/or destroy them.
And if the word 'God' is used by me and/or others to help unify people -- and not to divide people, destroy people, control people, exploit people, manipulate people, undermine people, and/or take away their own free-will and their right to believe and/or not believe what they want to (including not believing in 'God') -- then I support its usage.
God is the dialectical bridge between you and me.
We just have to find that bridge.
-- dgb, July 26th, 2008.
So the first DGB 'false idol' is simply this: confusing epistemological truths for projected metaphysical and mythological self-ideals.
Now let us bounce to the other religious polarity. I was partly listening to and watching a short biograpy on CNN this morning -- a part of the series 'Black America' -- and I partly heard (I hope I didn't misinterpret this and/or take it out of context) a section where Martin Luther King was describing how he could behave so strongly and courageously in the constant face of danger and death -- and King answered basically that he got his strength and courage from his belief and faith in God, and his belief that God was basically 'ordaining' him to do what he needed to do to improve black rights -- to improve human rights -- in America, and everywhere.
Now, for me, and for DGB Philosophy, I pull two or three different things out of this Martin Luther King outake which will take us down two or three different paths. Actually, there are probably more paths than this -- let's try the following six.
......................................................................
We can look at God and religion from:
1. an epistemological, common sense, point of view;
2. a psychological point of view;
3. an ethical point of view;
4. a pragmatic, functional point of view;
5. a metaphysical-mythological point of view.
6. a humanistic-existential view.
...............................................................................
1. Epistemologically and common sensically, any talk abouot God and religion does not hold up very well unless you want to try to go down the path of 'intelligent design -- and 'intelligent desinger' theory. You can read some of my other essays on this subject that pursue this theme.
................................................................................
2. Psychologically, to understand the real nature of God and religion in man's life, we need to understand two things;
a. What psychological processes are involved in the creation of God and religion?;
b. What are the pragmantic and functional values of creating God and religion in man's -- or any one man's or woman's -- life?
.....................................................................................
2a. In order to properly understand the psychological dynamics of God, religion, and mythology in man's life, one has to understand the nature of projection -- plain and simple.
Man 'projects' -- mainly subconsciously and out of his awareness -- his thoughts and feelings onto everyone and everything in his social and natural environment -- his universe. Imagine a movie camera that takes the 'film' in the camera and 'projects' this film onto a screen in the form of a movie. Man -- meaning men, women, and children -- do this all day and all night (dreams) whereby they take the 'film' inside their heads and play it out in the uviverse substituting themselves for other 'role players' -- other men and women, children, animals, objects, sybols...and God.
..................................................................................
God is our own thoughts, feelings, impulses, actions -- put together in a self-idealized energy package -- looking back at us, as if from a projected mirror, but more appropriately, from a projected 'Father(or Mother)-Figure' who generally gives us strength, courage, hope, and optimism for the present and future.
...............................................................................
We can go into any time period and/or any culture -- for example, ancient Greece -- and learn much about the psychology of the people and the culture by understanding the psychology and the mythology of their 'projected Gods'. Gaea, Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Dionysus, Poseidon, Aries, Hades, Athena, Aphrodite, Hermes, Artemis, Hestia, Hephaestus...See my future article(s):
On The 'Multi-Dialectic Connection Between Greek mythology and the Psychology of Man' (See also Carl Jung in this regard...)
..............................................................................
This brings us back to Martin Luther King and the functional pragmatics -- for some, indeed many people -- of having God and relgion in one's life.
Martin Luther King showed the perfect idealistic combination to the American people and the world in general of religious ethics, a democratic understanding of what human rights really means, righteousness, tolerance, non-violence, compassion, rhetorical brilliance -- and the type of courage that most people can only dream about where one is fully prepared to die -- and he did -- for his political, ethical, and social cause.
...............................................................................
And behind Martin Luther King's unmitigated courage, we have his own statement that he derived his courage from God.
Epistemologically and psychologically, I could lay down my DGB philosophical (religious, deconstructive) challenges.
But I won't.
Because at this point I have to -- indeed, I fully want to -- bow down and pay my respects for a much more courageous, and greater man.
And finally, I say in conclusion, there is a place in DGB Philosophy and in human behavior and human culture for the functional and pragmatic value of religion when it is practised anyway and anywhere close to the way Martin Luther King practised it.
And at this point all epistemological and psychological deconstructive challenges need to take a back seat to those truly and congruently religious people who are really willing -- and put their action where there thoughts and feelings are -- to treat all people compassionately regardless of their race, colour, sex, religion, and/or culture.
There is a valuable place in human activities where religion seeks to unite people; not divide and/or destroy them.
And if the word 'God' is used by me and/or others to help unify people -- and not to divide people, destroy people, control people, exploit people, manipulate people, undermine people, and/or take away their own free-will and their right to believe and/or not believe what they want to (including not believing in 'God') -- then I support its usage.
God is the dialectical bridge between you and me.
We just have to find that bridge.
-- dgb, July 26th, 2008.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Faceoff: Wittgenstein vs. DGB Philosophy -- Part 1: What is Philosophy?
I changed the title a bit on this essay. At first, it was called 'Deconstructing Wittgenstein' whereas now it is called 'Faceoff: Wittgenstein vs. DGB Philosophy: Part 1 - What is Philosophy?'.
I think I will run with this 'Faceoff' idea for the remainder of 'Hegel's Hotel'. The more I can contrast the style, the contents, the process, and the ideas of DGB Philosophy with other known philosophers, the more it helps to define and describe DGB Philosophy as having its own unique place in the sun, located somewhere in the 'gaps' between these other known philosophies and philosophers.
DGB Philosophy is basically a mutation, and the evolutionary product of 2600 years of Western philosophy -- and some Eastern philosophy too ('yin', 'yang', Daoism, some little known philosophy papers by Mao tse Tung which are great papers, even though the man himself was a sociopath who didn't care one iota about how many people died under his leadership -- a collision of the highest order in terms of 'incongruence' between 'philosophical idealism' and 'political realism').
Philosophy, in my opinion, has a bad rap, a bad steretype -- both inside and outside the universities. The stereotype as I see it is one of bearded professors, snoring students -- and 'philosophical mind games' -- i.e., let's see what kind of logical contortions we can put your mind through today? There is also the stereotype of philosophy being something that is practised from 'the head up' and/or a form of 'mind and body relaxation process -- like the theory and practise of Budhism -- where we try to escape from the stresses of our day-to-day urban rat race'.
I remember five years back or so I went into downtown Toronto to check out a 'School of Philosophy' around Spadina and Bloor. I met with the receptionist and asked what kind of philosophy they taught there. They reinforced the stereotype -- or at least my stereotype of the way philosophy is often taught and presented to students and the general public. I can't remember exactly what the receptionist said, but the gist of it ran something like this. They taught a 'philosophy of soothing stressed out souls' -- kind of like an Eastern, Budhist style of philosophy, a philosophy of meditation, taking your brain to soothing places to relieve it from the day's stressful 'rat race'.
I said that's fine -- but do you teach any Hegel or Nietzsche? What about 'social activist, post-modern, deconstructive' philosophy -- do you teach any of that?
Paraphrasing the receptionist: 'No, we don't teach that kind of philosophy. You have to go somewhere else for that type of philosophy.'
DGB: 'Okay. Thank you.'
Now, 'meditative philosophy' is not where this brain wants to go to...I'm a social activist deep down at heart, even though I've never spent a minute in a social activist group -- other than in the board room of the 'Progressive Canadian Party' here in Newmarket, Ontario. I spent about a year attending their meetings -- a squashed version of the old Progressive Conservative Party that didn't want to merge with The Reform Party. They continue to practise 'PWP' -- Politics Without Power' -- and I decided I could practise 'PWMP' -- Politics With More Power' -- right here at my computer chair without moving a leg from my living room. It's not that I'm lazy or that I didn't like part of the process of being involved in a 'political-social-activist' group; it's just that I hated the group's decision-making inefficiency and felt like i could move my own philosophical and political agenda along faster within the confines of my own blogsite than listen to a group of people that couldn't get their heads together and move together with any kind of quality and efficieny -- in the same direction. Call it one of the drawbacks of 'democracy' if you will, but call it also a lesson in 'group inefficiency'. Regardless, I wanted to move in a different direction. Today, the direction is Ludwig Wittgenstein:
..................................................................................
From Wikipedia...
Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (April 26, 1889 – April 29, 1951) was an Austrian philosopher who worked primarily in the foundations of logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language.[1] His influence has been wide-ranging and he is generally regarded as one of the twentieth century's most important philosophers.
Before his death at the age of 62,[2] the only book-length work Wittgenstein had published was the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Philosophical Investigations, which Wittgenstein worked on in his later years, was published shortly after he died. Both of these works are regarded as highly influential in analytic philosophy.[3][4]
.....................................................................................
DGB: Now I am not here to 'bust egos and intellects' -- well, partly I am -- with allegedly one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century. I fancy myself as having a good, healthy intellect but nothing up around the '160 IQ' range -- to the extent that 'IQ measurements' say anything meaningful about intelligence. (You can be the most intelligent guy or girl in the room but if you don't do anything meaningful with it -- for yourself and/or others -- then what good is it? A gift from God, un-utilized?)
My self-stated job as a philosopher is to ground philosophy in clarity, common sense, rational-empiricism, integration, humanistic-existentialism (compassion, freedom, assertiveness, personal/social/group accountability...), and functional practicality (utility).
Relative to Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein, my self-stated job is to bring the reins in on him to some extent, to catch him in his own philosopohical hypocrisies, and to in effect say: 'Woah, Mr Wittgenstein -- slow down here. I don't care how much mind-bending logic you throw at me, you are not going to convince me -- like you did Bertrand Russell, according to at least one source (John Heaton, Introducing Wittgenstein, 1994, 2005, Penguin Books, Canada, Totem (Icon) Books, the USA) that 'there is a hippo in my living room'... There is a point at which philosophy needs to come back to earth and meet common sense -- even defer to common sense -- and that point is here and now.'
.............................................................................
DGB: I am going to use John Heaton as my 'interpreting guide' to Wittgenstein. We are going to aim to teach and practise 'DGB KISS Philosophy' here -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.
..................................................................................
Wittgenstein: The purpose of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. (Introducing Wittgenstein, pg. 40).
DGB: Philosophy -- at least DGB Philosophy -- is about much, much more than the logical clarification of thoughts. The clarification of thoughts is very important but philosophy is also about 'putting good thoughts into action': it is about demonstrating passion and compassion towards people (humanism); it is about being accountable for our own freedom -- or perceived lack of it -- and at least partly accountable for the effect that our actions have on others (humanistic-existentialism). Furthermore, relative to logic, logic can be a useless and/or even dangerous tool in the mind of the wrong person -- just like 'statistics' that can be used to support or denounce any thesis and/or brand of ideology. Again, logic needs to be grounded in common sense, rational-empiricism, humanistic-existentialism, pragmatism and functionality, dialectic-democracy, and divorced from the context of narcissistic, malicious, dictatorial people in order to be worth giving any degree of philosophical credibility to it. And again, logic should not be used to play 'non-sensical mind games' -- unless that is the explicit, agreed upon goal of the 'mental exercise' -- with all due respect, it should not be used to try to convince anyone -- Bertrand Russell, I'm a bit disappointed in you -- that 'there is a hippo in anyone's room' unless someone can empirically (observationally) verify it, and/or the room is in a 'zoo', and/or the room is large enough -- including the door -- to actually contain a hippo, and/or the room is actually in a country where hippos are known to exist...You get my drift...
.................................................................................
Wittgenstein: Philosophy is not a teaching but an activity.
DGB: Then why did Wittgenstein teach? Because he was hired to help students learn the dynamics of the types of cerebral activities that he did very well -- and was being paid to pass on to them. Having said this, additional clarification is needed relative to the goals of DGB Philosophy. Philosophy is a 'multi-dialectic integrative activity' that can be constructed in the shape of a 'six-sided figure': 1. sensual-empirical activity (primarily observation and personal experience); 2. cerebral activity (involving a combination of language, meaning, epistemology, and ethics); 3. emotional activity (involving hopefully a combination of passion and compassion for your own creative, self-assertiveness, as well as a passion and compassion for the well-being of other people); 4. behavioral activity (involving putting all your 'good' thoughts into action -- with lots of room to argue over the meaning of the word 'good'), with the evolving support functions of: 5. teaching (someone knowing what they are doing and being excited about the opportunity of passing what they know onto others); and 6. learning ('You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.' Similarily, you can lead a student to a philosophy class but you can't make him or her learn unless he or she wants to learn.)
That makes this six-sided figure a 'sexagon' -- which I am sure will wake students up and make them quite happy -- or, I guess that should be 'hexagon' -- having corrected myself from the internet; previously snoring philosophy students can go back to sleep again.
.....................................................................................
Wittgenstein: A philosophical work consists mainly of elucidations.
DGB: When Wittgenstein wrote: 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus', I'm not sure who he thought he was elucidating -- except himself. I get stuck on the title (which I believe I read was named in reference to a work by Spinoza). Essentially, no-one could understand him. He couldn't get a publisher without the credibility and help of Bertrand Russell. And I'm not sure how much he understood the book. Wittgenstein himself wrote in his preference: 'It's purpose would be achieved if it gave pleasure to one person who read and understood it.' This hardly seems like a work that is aimed at 'elucidating' and 'clarifying' ideas for readers. This seems to make up a good part of the paradox -- dare I say 'elucidating hypocrisy' -- that makes up Wittgenstein and his philosophy.
When I first started writing DGB Philosophy, my dad used to complain that he couldn't understand a thing I was writing -- and my dad is an intelligent man. Way too much 'techno-garble'. This was a few years ago. I have since tried to simplify my writing, eliminate much of my own techno-garble, and make my work more reader-friendly. I still wanted/want my work to be academically important and of a scholarly nature but with some educational and entertainment compromises for my intelligent lay readers and beginning philosophy students in the name of trying to make my work feel less dry than the Sahara desert.
All philosophical works could/can use a little -- if not a lot -- of Nietzschean fire, excitement, and passion. I like Fritz Perls as a writer who in my opinion was a modern day version of Nietzsche.
...................................................................................
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fritz Perls
Born July 8, 1893(1893-07-08)
Berlin, Germany
Died March 14, 1970 (aged 76)
Chicago
Occupation psychiatrist and psychotherapist
Spouse(s) Laura Perls
Friedrich (Frederick) Salomon Perls (July 8 1893, Berlin – March 14, 1970, Chicago), better known as Fritz Perls, was a noted German-born psychiatrist and psychotherapist of Jewish descent.
He coined the term 'Gestalt Therapy' for the approach to therapy he developed with his wife Laura Perls from the 1940s, and he became associated with the Esalen Institute in California in 1964. His approach is related but not identical to Gestalt psychology and the Gestalt Theoretical Psychotherapy of Hans-Jürgen Walter.
At Gestalt Therapy's core is the promotion of awareness, the awareness of the unity of all present feelings and behaviors, and the contact between the self and its environment.
Perls has been widely evoked outside the realm of psychotherapy for a quotation often described as the "Gestalt prayer". This was especially true in the 1960s, when the version of individualism it expresses received great attention.
Gestalt prayer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "Gestalt prayer" is a 56-word statement by psychotherapist Fritz Perls that is taken as a classic expression of Gestalt therapy as way of life model of which Dr. Perls was a founder.
The key idea of the statement is the focus on living in response to one's own needs, without projecting onto or taking introjects from others. It also expresses the idea that it is by fulfilling their own needs that people can help others do the same and create space for genuine contact; that is, when they "find each other, it's beautiful".
Text of "prayer"
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.
(Fritz Perls, 1969)
...............................................................................
Wittgenstein: The result of philosophy is not 'philosophical propositions, but the clarification of propositions. Philosophy should take thoughts that are otherwise turbid and blurred, so to speak, and make them clear and sharp. (Tractatus, 4.112; Introducing Wittgenstein, pg 40).
DGB: I would argue -- I am arguing -- that, in Tractatus, Wittgenstein took a host of intertwined ideas that had the potential to be stated clearly and sharply -- and made them turbid and blurred. DGB Philosophy aims to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the Tractatus and get to what has the potential to be stated more simply, more clearly, and more functionally usefully (i.e., importantly). My main mentor here is Alfred Korzybski, author of 'Science and Sanity', and founder of 'General Semantics'. Personally, I believe that Korzybski was the better linguist, semanticist, and epistemologist -- in fact, I would argue that Korzybski was the best -- and most under-rated -- epistemologist in the history of Western philosophy. The two -- Wittgenstein and Korzybski -- were philosophizing and writing during almost the same period, they wrote about many of the same things, and I cannot believe that there was not some amount of either 'one-sided' or 'mutual, dialectical' influence going on here. More research is needed.
................................................................................
From Wikipedia...
Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski (pronounced /kɔ'ʐɨpski/) (July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950), was called, among many labels, a Polish-American, philosopher and scientist. He is most remembered for developing the theory of general semantics.
..............................................................................
DGB: ...I could do a better introduction on Korzybski than this...and will do so at a future time. The Wikipedia introduction only underscores my point that Korzybski deserves more philosophical attention than he is currently getting. Korzybski influened the development of a number of significant psychotherapies today including Gestalt Therapy and various forms of Cognitive Therapy...)
.................................................................................
We will come back to Wittgenstein again shortly and discuss/critique his ideas concerning:
1. The relationship between philosophy and science;
2. His theory of the relationship between: words, meaning, phenomena, and epistemology.
I think we have accomplished enough for today. I'm not sure if this essay is better or worse than the one I wrote yesterday but it shares the same basic focus and theme.
Don't talk about clarity -- and leave us chasing the moon.
(Or looking for phantom hippos in our room -- although we, as independent philosophers, need to take at least half the responsibility here if we are actually so stupid as to allow ourselves to get caught up in this type of nonsense and seriously start looking for them.)
If the argument defies both our empirical senses and our common sense -- then exit the argument. Someone's playing with our head. It's a 'mind game' designed to drive us to drink and/or shake your very sanity. I still can't believe Russell let Wittgenstein take him there.
Shame on you, Bertrand! You were a great philosopher -- you have many, many things to feel very proud of -- but Ludwig must have been slipping you some funny stuff in your coffee on this one. How else could he have taken you for such a magic carpet ride?
For everyone else, alive and ticking, have yourselves all a clear and sharp, rational-empirical, humanistic-existential, common-sense day!
-- dgb, July 19th, 2008. modified Aug. 30th, 2008.
I think I will run with this 'Faceoff' idea for the remainder of 'Hegel's Hotel'. The more I can contrast the style, the contents, the process, and the ideas of DGB Philosophy with other known philosophers, the more it helps to define and describe DGB Philosophy as having its own unique place in the sun, located somewhere in the 'gaps' between these other known philosophies and philosophers.
DGB Philosophy is basically a mutation, and the evolutionary product of 2600 years of Western philosophy -- and some Eastern philosophy too ('yin', 'yang', Daoism, some little known philosophy papers by Mao tse Tung which are great papers, even though the man himself was a sociopath who didn't care one iota about how many people died under his leadership -- a collision of the highest order in terms of 'incongruence' between 'philosophical idealism' and 'political realism').
Philosophy, in my opinion, has a bad rap, a bad steretype -- both inside and outside the universities. The stereotype as I see it is one of bearded professors, snoring students -- and 'philosophical mind games' -- i.e., let's see what kind of logical contortions we can put your mind through today? There is also the stereotype of philosophy being something that is practised from 'the head up' and/or a form of 'mind and body relaxation process -- like the theory and practise of Budhism -- where we try to escape from the stresses of our day-to-day urban rat race'.
I remember five years back or so I went into downtown Toronto to check out a 'School of Philosophy' around Spadina and Bloor. I met with the receptionist and asked what kind of philosophy they taught there. They reinforced the stereotype -- or at least my stereotype of the way philosophy is often taught and presented to students and the general public. I can't remember exactly what the receptionist said, but the gist of it ran something like this. They taught a 'philosophy of soothing stressed out souls' -- kind of like an Eastern, Budhist style of philosophy, a philosophy of meditation, taking your brain to soothing places to relieve it from the day's stressful 'rat race'.
I said that's fine -- but do you teach any Hegel or Nietzsche? What about 'social activist, post-modern, deconstructive' philosophy -- do you teach any of that?
Paraphrasing the receptionist: 'No, we don't teach that kind of philosophy. You have to go somewhere else for that type of philosophy.'
DGB: 'Okay. Thank you.'
Now, 'meditative philosophy' is not where this brain wants to go to...I'm a social activist deep down at heart, even though I've never spent a minute in a social activist group -- other than in the board room of the 'Progressive Canadian Party' here in Newmarket, Ontario. I spent about a year attending their meetings -- a squashed version of the old Progressive Conservative Party that didn't want to merge with The Reform Party. They continue to practise 'PWP' -- Politics Without Power' -- and I decided I could practise 'PWMP' -- Politics With More Power' -- right here at my computer chair without moving a leg from my living room. It's not that I'm lazy or that I didn't like part of the process of being involved in a 'political-social-activist' group; it's just that I hated the group's decision-making inefficiency and felt like i could move my own philosophical and political agenda along faster within the confines of my own blogsite than listen to a group of people that couldn't get their heads together and move together with any kind of quality and efficieny -- in the same direction. Call it one of the drawbacks of 'democracy' if you will, but call it also a lesson in 'group inefficiency'. Regardless, I wanted to move in a different direction. Today, the direction is Ludwig Wittgenstein:
..................................................................................
From Wikipedia...
Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein (April 26, 1889 – April 29, 1951) was an Austrian philosopher who worked primarily in the foundations of logic, the philosophy of mathematics, the philosophy of mind, and the philosophy of language.[1] His influence has been wide-ranging and he is generally regarded as one of the twentieth century's most important philosophers.
Before his death at the age of 62,[2] the only book-length work Wittgenstein had published was the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Philosophical Investigations, which Wittgenstein worked on in his later years, was published shortly after he died. Both of these works are regarded as highly influential in analytic philosophy.[3][4]
.....................................................................................
DGB: Now I am not here to 'bust egos and intellects' -- well, partly I am -- with allegedly one of the greatest intellects of the 20th century. I fancy myself as having a good, healthy intellect but nothing up around the '160 IQ' range -- to the extent that 'IQ measurements' say anything meaningful about intelligence. (You can be the most intelligent guy or girl in the room but if you don't do anything meaningful with it -- for yourself and/or others -- then what good is it? A gift from God, un-utilized?)
My self-stated job as a philosopher is to ground philosophy in clarity, common sense, rational-empiricism, integration, humanistic-existentialism (compassion, freedom, assertiveness, personal/social/group accountability...), and functional practicality (utility).
Relative to Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein, my self-stated job is to bring the reins in on him to some extent, to catch him in his own philosopohical hypocrisies, and to in effect say: 'Woah, Mr Wittgenstein -- slow down here. I don't care how much mind-bending logic you throw at me, you are not going to convince me -- like you did Bertrand Russell, according to at least one source (John Heaton, Introducing Wittgenstein, 1994, 2005, Penguin Books, Canada, Totem (Icon) Books, the USA) that 'there is a hippo in my living room'... There is a point at which philosophy needs to come back to earth and meet common sense -- even defer to common sense -- and that point is here and now.'
.............................................................................
DGB: I am going to use John Heaton as my 'interpreting guide' to Wittgenstein. We are going to aim to teach and practise 'DGB KISS Philosophy' here -- Keep It Simple, Stupid.
..................................................................................
Wittgenstein: The purpose of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. (Introducing Wittgenstein, pg. 40).
DGB: Philosophy -- at least DGB Philosophy -- is about much, much more than the logical clarification of thoughts. The clarification of thoughts is very important but philosophy is also about 'putting good thoughts into action': it is about demonstrating passion and compassion towards people (humanism); it is about being accountable for our own freedom -- or perceived lack of it -- and at least partly accountable for the effect that our actions have on others (humanistic-existentialism). Furthermore, relative to logic, logic can be a useless and/or even dangerous tool in the mind of the wrong person -- just like 'statistics' that can be used to support or denounce any thesis and/or brand of ideology. Again, logic needs to be grounded in common sense, rational-empiricism, humanistic-existentialism, pragmatism and functionality, dialectic-democracy, and divorced from the context of narcissistic, malicious, dictatorial people in order to be worth giving any degree of philosophical credibility to it. And again, logic should not be used to play 'non-sensical mind games' -- unless that is the explicit, agreed upon goal of the 'mental exercise' -- with all due respect, it should not be used to try to convince anyone -- Bertrand Russell, I'm a bit disappointed in you -- that 'there is a hippo in anyone's room' unless someone can empirically (observationally) verify it, and/or the room is in a 'zoo', and/or the room is large enough -- including the door -- to actually contain a hippo, and/or the room is actually in a country where hippos are known to exist...You get my drift...
.................................................................................
Wittgenstein: Philosophy is not a teaching but an activity.
DGB: Then why did Wittgenstein teach? Because he was hired to help students learn the dynamics of the types of cerebral activities that he did very well -- and was being paid to pass on to them. Having said this, additional clarification is needed relative to the goals of DGB Philosophy. Philosophy is a 'multi-dialectic integrative activity' that can be constructed in the shape of a 'six-sided figure': 1. sensual-empirical activity (primarily observation and personal experience); 2. cerebral activity (involving a combination of language, meaning, epistemology, and ethics); 3. emotional activity (involving hopefully a combination of passion and compassion for your own creative, self-assertiveness, as well as a passion and compassion for the well-being of other people); 4. behavioral activity (involving putting all your 'good' thoughts into action -- with lots of room to argue over the meaning of the word 'good'), with the evolving support functions of: 5. teaching (someone knowing what they are doing and being excited about the opportunity of passing what they know onto others); and 6. learning ('You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.' Similarily, you can lead a student to a philosophy class but you can't make him or her learn unless he or she wants to learn.)
That makes this six-sided figure a 'sexagon' -- which I am sure will wake students up and make them quite happy -- or, I guess that should be 'hexagon' -- having corrected myself from the internet; previously snoring philosophy students can go back to sleep again.
.....................................................................................
Wittgenstein: A philosophical work consists mainly of elucidations.
DGB: When Wittgenstein wrote: 'Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus', I'm not sure who he thought he was elucidating -- except himself. I get stuck on the title (which I believe I read was named in reference to a work by Spinoza). Essentially, no-one could understand him. He couldn't get a publisher without the credibility and help of Bertrand Russell. And I'm not sure how much he understood the book. Wittgenstein himself wrote in his preference: 'It's purpose would be achieved if it gave pleasure to one person who read and understood it.' This hardly seems like a work that is aimed at 'elucidating' and 'clarifying' ideas for readers. This seems to make up a good part of the paradox -- dare I say 'elucidating hypocrisy' -- that makes up Wittgenstein and his philosophy.
When I first started writing DGB Philosophy, my dad used to complain that he couldn't understand a thing I was writing -- and my dad is an intelligent man. Way too much 'techno-garble'. This was a few years ago. I have since tried to simplify my writing, eliminate much of my own techno-garble, and make my work more reader-friendly. I still wanted/want my work to be academically important and of a scholarly nature but with some educational and entertainment compromises for my intelligent lay readers and beginning philosophy students in the name of trying to make my work feel less dry than the Sahara desert.
All philosophical works could/can use a little -- if not a lot -- of Nietzschean fire, excitement, and passion. I like Fritz Perls as a writer who in my opinion was a modern day version of Nietzsche.
...................................................................................
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fritz Perls
Born July 8, 1893(1893-07-08)
Berlin, Germany
Died March 14, 1970 (aged 76)
Chicago
Occupation psychiatrist and psychotherapist
Spouse(s) Laura Perls
Friedrich (Frederick) Salomon Perls (July 8 1893, Berlin – March 14, 1970, Chicago), better known as Fritz Perls, was a noted German-born psychiatrist and psychotherapist of Jewish descent.
He coined the term 'Gestalt Therapy' for the approach to therapy he developed with his wife Laura Perls from the 1940s, and he became associated with the Esalen Institute in California in 1964. His approach is related but not identical to Gestalt psychology and the Gestalt Theoretical Psychotherapy of Hans-Jürgen Walter.
At Gestalt Therapy's core is the promotion of awareness, the awareness of the unity of all present feelings and behaviors, and the contact between the self and its environment.
Perls has been widely evoked outside the realm of psychotherapy for a quotation often described as the "Gestalt prayer". This was especially true in the 1960s, when the version of individualism it expresses received great attention.
Gestalt prayer
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The "Gestalt prayer" is a 56-word statement by psychotherapist Fritz Perls that is taken as a classic expression of Gestalt therapy as way of life model of which Dr. Perls was a founder.
The key idea of the statement is the focus on living in response to one's own needs, without projecting onto or taking introjects from others. It also expresses the idea that it is by fulfilling their own needs that people can help others do the same and create space for genuine contact; that is, when they "find each other, it's beautiful".
Text of "prayer"
I do my thing and you do your thing.
I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it's beautiful.
If not, it can't be helped.
(Fritz Perls, 1969)
...............................................................................
Wittgenstein: The result of philosophy is not 'philosophical propositions, but the clarification of propositions. Philosophy should take thoughts that are otherwise turbid and blurred, so to speak, and make them clear and sharp. (Tractatus, 4.112; Introducing Wittgenstein, pg 40).
DGB: I would argue -- I am arguing -- that, in Tractatus, Wittgenstein took a host of intertwined ideas that had the potential to be stated clearly and sharply -- and made them turbid and blurred. DGB Philosophy aims to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the Tractatus and get to what has the potential to be stated more simply, more clearly, and more functionally usefully (i.e., importantly). My main mentor here is Alfred Korzybski, author of 'Science and Sanity', and founder of 'General Semantics'. Personally, I believe that Korzybski was the better linguist, semanticist, and epistemologist -- in fact, I would argue that Korzybski was the best -- and most under-rated -- epistemologist in the history of Western philosophy. The two -- Wittgenstein and Korzybski -- were philosophizing and writing during almost the same period, they wrote about many of the same things, and I cannot believe that there was not some amount of either 'one-sided' or 'mutual, dialectical' influence going on here. More research is needed.
................................................................................
From Wikipedia...
Alfred Habdank Skarbek Korzybski (pronounced /kɔ'ʐɨpski/) (July 3, 1879 – March 1, 1950), was called, among many labels, a Polish-American, philosopher and scientist. He is most remembered for developing the theory of general semantics.
..............................................................................
DGB: ...I could do a better introduction on Korzybski than this...and will do so at a future time. The Wikipedia introduction only underscores my point that Korzybski deserves more philosophical attention than he is currently getting. Korzybski influened the development of a number of significant psychotherapies today including Gestalt Therapy and various forms of Cognitive Therapy...)
.................................................................................
We will come back to Wittgenstein again shortly and discuss/critique his ideas concerning:
1. The relationship between philosophy and science;
2. His theory of the relationship between: words, meaning, phenomena, and epistemology.
I think we have accomplished enough for today. I'm not sure if this essay is better or worse than the one I wrote yesterday but it shares the same basic focus and theme.
Don't talk about clarity -- and leave us chasing the moon.
(Or looking for phantom hippos in our room -- although we, as independent philosophers, need to take at least half the responsibility here if we are actually so stupid as to allow ourselves to get caught up in this type of nonsense and seriously start looking for them.)
If the argument defies both our empirical senses and our common sense -- then exit the argument. Someone's playing with our head. It's a 'mind game' designed to drive us to drink and/or shake your very sanity. I still can't believe Russell let Wittgenstein take him there.
Shame on you, Bertrand! You were a great philosopher -- you have many, many things to feel very proud of -- but Ludwig must have been slipping you some funny stuff in your coffee on this one. How else could he have taken you for such a magic carpet ride?
For everyone else, alive and ticking, have yourselves all a clear and sharp, rational-empirical, humanistic-existential, common-sense day!
-- dgb, July 19th, 2008. modified Aug. 30th, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)