An Updated, Modified, Extended DGB Version of Sir Francis Bacon's Four Idols

Feedback From One of My Readers on My Latest Kant Essay


So, Kant and his work, obviously provided a lot of
> inspiration for other philosophers.
> The apparent conflict in the study of knowledge... In a
> way, this is where the dialectic would/could have begun?
> You give very good examples. Glass half full/empty
> perspective, gymnasts, steroids etc.
>
> There is a lot to think about even just in this brief intro
> to Kant's philosophy's - it's huge.
> One thought/approach can easily undo the opposite
> thought/approach, but it can also compliment it - funny.



................................................................................

My Reply:

Thanks for the feedback,

You are mainly right on several of your comments.

Firstly, Kant did indeed seem to open up the 'dialectical doors' for Hegel to later push through, and elaborate on, with a gusto...

And yes, secondly, Kant inspired a lot of later philosophers -- Fichte, Hegel, and Schopenhauer to name just a few...

Thirdly, your 'One thought/approach can easily undo the opposite
thought/approach, but it can also compliment it - funny' is part of the essence of dialectic philosophy -- as well as life, love, lust, nature, biology, physics, medicine, psychology, philosophy, economics, politics, law, art, religion, science, etc...It can lead to the 'love/hate' phenomenon of falling in love, then falling out of love. It is often what we initially 'most love' about a person that we later come to 'most resent and/or hate'.

But there is still more to dialectic philosophy than all of this...and a part that I will proceed to develop in the next few papers about 'idols'...

Specifically, there is self-contradiction and the seeds of both self-discontent and self-destruction inherent in even one idea, one theory, one attitude, one characteristic, one line of behavior -- standing all by itself. Indeed, it is this self-contradiction that sets up the 'necessity' of the opposing idea, perspective, theory, philosophy, attitude, characteristic, behavior, polarity, etc. as a 'part of the homeostatic balancing process of life'.

Thus, we are all guilty of 'idol worshipping' to one extent or another, and to one domain, and/or another. We can also call these 'fixations', 'obssessive-compulsions', 'extreme polarity swings' and/or 'addictions'. Thus, the beginning of my essays on the relationship between...Gods, Archetypes, Myths, Self-Energy-Centres, Idols...and The Hegelian Philosophy of Self-Contradiction.

For example, building on a perspective started by Sir Francis Bacon called 'The Four Idols' and both updated and extended by me...We have now 'The 16 Idols of DGB Philosophy:

..............................................................


The Sixteen Idols of DGB Philosophy

1. Idols of The Tribe or The Crowd: Don't get caught up and lost in the ideas and behaviors of the crowd or the 'herd' as Nietcsche would put it;

2. Idols of The Cave: Don't get caught up and lost within yourself. If or when you do, come back out of yourself, and reach out to a person and/or people;

3. Idols of The Sky (The Greek God, Uranus): Come back to earth young man or woman, come back to earth and re-gound yourself;

4. Idols of The Earth (in Greek mythology, the godesses Gaea): Take a risk young man or woman, take a risk! Fly high into the sky and see how high you can soar;

5. Idols of The Theatre, The Magician, or The Sophist: Don't be fooled by others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors; and similarily, don't fool others using sophistry, illusion, smoke and mirrors. Be congruent, be honest, be yourself;

6. Idols of Zeus (Authority, Power, Title): Don't be fooled by, or fool others, using a mantle of exploitive authority, power, and/or title;

7. Idols of The Word: Don't be fooled or fool others using a web of words that don't mean what they claim to mean, or you claim them to mean;

8. Idols of Apollo: Don't spend your whole life following the God of Righteousness -- i.e., Apollo -- because it will create for you a one-sided life;

9. Idols of Dionysus: Don't get lost in the pursuit of hedonism, narcissism, pleasure, sex, alcohol, drugs, gambling, partying, the fast life;

10. Idols of Aphrodite: Don't get lost in -- or consumed by -- love. It will throw everything else in your life out of balance and leave you weak and vulnerable to loss, betrayal, abandonment, rejection -- except perhaps to only the person or people you most trust, and even this is dangerous, because things can change, people can change;

11. Idols of War (The Greek God, Aries): Don't get caught up in -- and consumed by war;

12. Idols of Hades (God of The Underworld): Don't get caught up and lost in illicit and/or illegal activities. It will bring on your self-destruction;

13. Idols of Speed (The Greek God, Hermes): Don't get caught up in, and consumed by speed. Live in the fast lane, die in the fast lane.

14. Idols of Athena (Goddess of Patriotism): Patriotism can be a dangerous thing if you get too caught up, and consumed by it;

15. Idols of Hera (Goddess and Protector of Marriage): Marriage can be a beautiful thing but it can also be a strifeful thing. Don't completely lose yourself -- and die -- in marriage.

16. Idols of Narcissus (God of Self-Idolation): Don't become so absorbed in yourself that you can't see the people around you and their own trials and tribulations. In the myth of Narcissus, Narcissus looked into a pool of water, saw his reflection, and fell in love with himself. Be sensitive to the needs, want, feelings, thoughts, and problems of others.
...............................................................



dave

From Wikipedia...

Francis Bacon, 1st Viscount St Alban KC QC (22 January 1561 – 9 April 1626) was an English philosopher, statesman, and author. He is also known as a catalyst of the scientific revolution. Bacon was knighted in 1603, created Baron Verulam in 1618, and created Viscount St Alban in 1621; without heirs, both peerages became extinct upon his death.
.......................................................................

From The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Sir Francis Bacon (later Lord Verulam and the Viscount St. Albans) was an English lawyer, statesman, essayist, historian, intellectual reformer, philosopher, and champion of modern science. Early in his career he claimed “all knowledge as his province” and afterwards dedicated himself to a wholesale revaluation and re-structuring of traditional learning. To take the place of the established tradition (a miscellany of Scholasticism, humanism, and natural magic), he proposed an entirely new system based on empirical and inductive principles and the active development of new arts and inventions, a system whose ultimate goal would be the production of practical knowledge for “the use and benefit of men” and the relief of the human condition.

At the same time that he was founding and promoting this new project for the advancement of learning, Bacon was also moving up the ladder of state service. His career aspirations had been largely disappointed under Elizabeth I, but with the ascension of James his political fortunes rose. Knighted in 1603, he was then steadily promoted to a series of offices, including Solicitor General (1607), Attorney General (1613), and eventually Lord Chancellor (1618). While serving as Chancellor, he was indicted on charges of bribery and forced to leave public office. He then retired to his estate where he devoted himself full time to his continuing literary, scientific, and philosophical work. He died in 1626, leaving behind a cultural legacy that, for better or worse, includes most of the foundation for the triumph of technology and for the modern world as we currently know it.

Feedback From My Latest Kant Essay...and a Call For More Feedback and/or Prospective Essays From My Readers...

Dave,

So, Kant and his work, obviously provided a lot of inspiration for other philosophers. The apparent conflict in the study of knowledge...

In a way, this is where the dialectic would/could have begun? You give very good examples. Glass half full/empty perspective, gymnasts, steroids etc.

There is a lot to think about even just in this brief intro to Kant's philosophy's - it's huge. One thought/approach can easily undo the opposite thought/approach, but it can also compliment it - funny.

-- Noreen

................................................................................

Noreen,

You always have a knack for giving great feedback -- anticipating and/or foreshadowing my next essay and/or line of thought, and/or changing my direction of thought in a direction that I had not anticipated but which is very meaningful in its own right. I hope that one day you will join me as a co-writer on Hegel's Hotel and/or alternatively, with your permission, I will share more of your feedback on my essays with the rest of my reading audience. I think your own contributions give Hegel's Hotel a new dimension that is not there when I am writing 'unilaterally'.

As much as I am partly a 'control freak' and have finally settled on an 'architectural structure' that feels good to me...(See my newest table of contents for Hegel's Hotel by googling...Hegel's Hotel, table of contents...), still there is all the room in the world for good writers to send me there own personal contributions to Hegel's Hotel which I will add to the evolving structure and process if I like the quality of your work...

Already my dad has made some great contributions to Hegel's Hotel including a section on romantic philosophy and poetry that I dedicated to him. A few years ago, my dad and I co-wrote an essay called 'Plato's Room' which I will add to Hegel's Hotel in the Plato section just as soon as I can find it. I also hope that my dad may make contributions to both my business section and my poltical section as he has been involved in both for most of his adult life. And finally, my dad contributed to an excellent essay to my 'God and Religion' section that I will reprint here in hopes that it will encourage other prospective philosophical writers to submit there own papers for possible inclusion in Hegel's Hotel...Remember, 'dialectic' means more than one perspective by one or more than one writer...Hegel's Hotel was/is not meant to be as 'unilateral' as George Bush and associated company (I think that includes McCain)snubbing their collective noses, and bypassing, the United Nations on their way to invadng Iraq on the grounds of Iraq's imminent threat to America's national security which in turn rested on the declared grounds of their 'weapons of mass destruction'.

DGB Philosophy believes in 'dialectic-democracy-freedom-equal rights-embracing conflicts-negotiation-integration-and-the-aimed-for-idealism-of-differential-unity-harmony-and-wholism (much like the Democratic party is striving for in their convention right now as I write).

It is easy to try to avoid, evade, ignore, demean, disrespect, overpower...conflict and disagreement...but it is in dialectical disagreement that we can often see the most meaningful creative tensions, negotiations, integrations, and evolutionary success stories where 'two perspectives, theories, lifestyles, businesses, political points of view, philosophies, psychologies, biologies, chemistries...suddenly merge into one'. This is the Hegel's Hotel: DGB philosophical idealism of 'differential unity'.

-- dgb, Aug. 27, 2008.

...................................................................................

Gordon Bain" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: dgbainsky@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: God is the Bridge
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:50:31 -0400

I am having some trying days of late, but today is bright and while it
is
cold, it is fun to think.

I go back a little and come to your God is a Bridge thinking, or is Man
the
Bridge?

It occurs to me that without question, God is the Bridge.

There are countless times in life when the load gets heavy, and you
must try
to understand the unthinkable...the questions for which there are no
logical
answers. It is then we can look to the stars and imagine beyond, as
your
mother does most every clear night. She is not crazy with man contrived
theological passions. She simply finds solace and calmness in the
belief of
a greater power ... God...and allows her uncertainties and unanswerable
questions ..indeed all of her hurts and despair .. and we all have
them.. to
ride the stars (read that crossing the bridge) through the vastness of
incalculable space to a place of perfection, serenity and
understanding. It
is a bright and happy place where a person can set their load down, and
find
solace. It allows her to have inner strength that is enviable. In other
words that which she cannot understand she gives to God.

It is said you rarely see an athiest in the heat of battle. In truth,
most
all of the world with its billions of people believe in a greater
power. We
are in a state of self love and me..ness right now. If those less
endowed
could not reach out to their God, how could they bridge the death and
destruction of world savagery, or explain their children dying of
hunger and
disease?

I think your Mom is right. I have thought about it a lot in my time,
tried
to be smart, said clever things to suggest I had an angle on the
religion
thing. I come back to the simple belief in a greater power. As Einstein
remarked in his later life, no matter how many answers are found, there
are
ten thousand times more that are unexplainable except to view and
explain it
as the work of a greater power. Paraphrased and pulled from my memory
of
what he said, but that is the gist of it.

So David, I was quite fascinated with your God is the Bridge poem, for
all
of the reasons given. I hold that the title is suggestive, soothing,
and
meaningful. It is worthy of a scholar's rendering. However, it would be
easy
to crash under the weight of needing to have this God-like state proven
beyond a shadow of doubt. Then it would be a bridge to nothingness,
literally.

Dad

Faceoff: Kant vs. DGB Philosophy -- Re-visited

This essay was written about 9 months ago and then just re-written a couple of weeks ago (August 9th, 2008). Now, I am re-addressing the essay for a third and hopefully final time. However, perhaps with a hopefully better and better knowledge of Kant in the months or years to come, I will have to rewrite this essay again at some future point. Time will tell. This essay is based on new information I am presently getting about Kant.

-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.

...............................................................................

From Wikipedia...on the internet...see Kant...

Immanuel Kant (IPA: [ɪmanuəl kant]; 22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804) was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.

His most important work is the Critique of Pure Reason, a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are the Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and the Critique of Judgement, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.

Kant’s metaphysical and epistemological priorities were to find out whether metaphysics, the science of ultimate reality, is possible. He asked if an object has certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can only think in terms of causality -- which he concluded that it does -- then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this, that it is possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, and so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside of experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. And so the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind.[1]

In this sense, Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The former, according to Kant, believe that knowledge necessarily comes from experience, and that experience can yield only imperfect laws of nature, that past events do not predict future events. Therefore, there is no sound foundation for science. Knowledge of our selves, the external world and causality are off limits. The latter believed that reason alone provides us with certain truths that can provide a sound foundation for science. Kant said we can know some things through reason, but these things are only of how the world appears to us, and that the world we know is objective, compromising with the empiricists. But he also said that what we know through pure reason can only be applied to experience, and that it is through experience that we get most of our knowledge, compromising with the rationalists.

Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany while he was still alive, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer all saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental Philosophy.

..............................................................................

From Wikiquote...on the internet...see Kant...

Critique of Pure Reason (1787)


Human reason has this peculiar fate that in one species of its knowledge it is burdened by questions which, as prescribed by the very nature of reason itself, it is not able to ignore, but which, as transcending all its powers, it is also not able to answer. (Preface, A vii)

Abbot Terrasson tells us that if the size of a book were measured not by the number of its pages but by the time required to understand it, then we could say about many books that they would be much shorter were they not so short. (A xviii)

Criticism alone can sever the root of materialism, fatalism, atheism, free-thinking, fanaticism, and superstition, which can be injurious universally; as well as of idealism and skepticism, which are dangerous chiefly to the Schools, and hardly allow of being handed on to the public. (Preface to 2nd edition, B xxxiv)

There can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience. (B 1)
The light dove, cleaving the air in her free flight, and feeling its resistance, might imagine that its flight would be still easier in empty space. (B 8)

Thoughts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind. (B 75)
Sometimes paraphrased: "Concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind."

A plant, an animal, the regular order of nature—probably also the disposition of the whole universe—give manifest evidence that they are possible only by means of and according to ideas; that, indeed, no one creature, under the individual conditions of its existence, perfectly harmonizes with the idea of the most perfect of its kind—just as little as man with the idea of humanity, which nevertheless he bears in his soul as the archetypal standard of his actions; that, notwithstanding, these ideas are in the highest sense individually, unchangeably, and completely determined, and are the original causes of things; and that the totality of connected objects in the universe is alone fully adequate to that idea. (B 374)

Metaphysics has as the proper object of its enquiries three ideas only: God, freedom, and immortality. (B 395)

Human reason is by nature architectonic. (B 502)

Thus all human knowledge begins with intuitions, proceeds from thence to concepts, and ends with ideas. (B 730)

All the interests of my reason, speculative as well as practical, combine in the three following questions: 1. What can I know? 2. What ought I to do? 3. What may I hope? (B 832-833)



.................................................................................


Kant vs. DGB Philosophy: Kant Re-visited


I will say this about Immanuel Kant: for me, he is the most difficult philosopher that I have ever had the cognitive pain -- or shall we say the cognitive exercise -- of trying to understand, of trying to figure out just exactly what he said and what he meant. Let us make the dualistic, and dialectic, distinction -- as Kant himself is most famously known for -- between: 1. Kant-the-person-in-himself-and-what-he-believed; vs. 2. my subjective understanding of the-either-knowable-and/or-unknowable-so-called-objective-Kant-and-what-he-believed.

Did you follow that distinction? This is as difficult as epistemology gets -- or at least it is where Kant took it, and where I am trying to follow. The 'subjective/objective' problem is arguably one of the two or three most difficult metaphysical problems in the history of philosophy. I put it right up there with the 'mind/body' dualism and the 'religion/atheism' dualism.

Now to be a 'dialectic philosopher' in the sense that I mean being a dialectic philosopher means that we seek to integrate or synthesize all dualities or apparent paradoxes/contradictions/polarities/conflicts/impasses. And so this is what we shall aim to do here.

Complicating the problem here, is the separate problem of 'sound and/or visual bites'.

I have read different authors -- different interpreters of Kant -- and come away with different interpretations of what Kant said and what he meant. This problem is critical to what we are trying to do here because if my understanding of Kant and what he said/meant is wrong, then everything that I write here is also wrong and subject to both re-interpretation and re-evaluation. Similarily, with anything I might have written previously about Kant and this same problem of the 'subjective/objective split'.

At the heart of the matter is this philosophical question: Can we directly know what is in our 'objective world'(Kant's outdated term for 'objective' was 'noumenal') and/or is it colored by the subjective nature of our own 'cognitive-evaluative processing brain-mind-psyche' -- specifically, the unique individual combination of our senses, percepts, power of reasoning/logic, understanding of 'causality', time, space, and structure, concepts, generalizations, abstractions, value-judgments...anything we use to help us (or hinder us) to better understand our 'objective world' and/or the 'thing-in-itself'?

This question -- the Kantian epistemological question -- encompasses two rather large 'semantic time-bombs' that turn the question into a 'epistemologist's living nightmare'. I think the question messed up a lot of people's minds back in Kant's day, as it is still at least partly doing today. Focus too hard on the question and your mind might explode. It will take you on one of those 'magic carpet rides' that I keep writing about relative to any philosopher who wants to 'fly high with you and not return you to the ground -- to the stability of the earth beneath your feet.' Certain philosophers -- to name a few -- Parmedines, Plato, Descartes, Kant, Fichte, Schopenhauer, Hegel, Nietzsche, Freud, Wittgenstein... -- have been very good at taking us on 'fly-high-with-me-magic carpet rides'. When reading them -- if we are dialectically bound by the cognitive interplay between the sky and the earth, between the abstract and the concrete particularities, then there comes a time when we are reading these philosophers when we have to blow the whistle on them, and tell them to either take us back to earth again -- or we are taking over the controls. Back to earth we go.

The crux of the semantic problem with the Kantian epistemological question are these two words: Can we directly know...?

That is the semantically loaded, time-bomb part of the question -- the part that will quite possibly drive you to drink, take you over the deep end, and/or cognitively blow your mind, if you focus too hard on it, and you don't see the potential 'double meaning contradiction' in the question.

Kant's epistemological question is very simlar to this one: Is the glass half full or half empty -- which is it?

If you fall for the question -- then you have been epistemologically trapped -- with no way out of this apparent epistemological conundrum.

Back up a moment -- and approach the question properly -- and you can become untrapped.

You answer the epistemological question the same way you answer the 'half-full, half-empty drink' question.

It depends on your perspective.

Are you an optimist or a pessimist?

Are you a Humean epistemological skeptic and pessimist; or are you a Hegelian epistemological idealist?

Or are you a Bainian multi-dialectic 'skeptic-pessimist-optimist'?; a Bainian multi-dialectic 'epistemological realist-idealist'?

Let's look at it this way. Every person's sensory-perceptual-conceptual-evaluative system is different -- and some are better than others. But even this is relative over time. Let me explain.

When I was 20 years old I could hit an 80 mile an hour fastball. Today, I would be lucky to hit a 50 mile an hour fastball.

What's changed? The efficiency of my senses have changed. At 20 years old, my eyesight was 20/20. It certainly isn't today. In the words of one dominant scientific theory today, 'oxidation' has eroded the sensorary efficiency of my eyes relative to the biological function they are supposed to be performing for purposes of my survival. I made better 'sensory maps' of my environment back when I was 20 than I do now.

So to answer Kant's epistemological question in a way that I don't know whether he would have agreed with me or not (He would have been confused by the 'baseball analogy' because baseball hadn't been invented yet.) -- I say, we can partly directly, partly indirectly, know our objective world through our imperfect senses, some people of whom have better sensory systems than others, all of us subject to the oxidation and erosion of our senses over time, and all of us subject to the very imperfect and narcissistically biased nature of our logical-reasoning-evaluation process as well.

Thus, in relative to any particular situation, our 'epistemological glass' may range anywhere from 'almost completely empty' (no knowledge and/or very bad knowledge) to 'almost completely full' (very good knowledge). To change the analogy a bit here, based on the quality of our epistemological knowledge relative to a particular situaion, we could be running on a relatively full tank of gas or a relatively empty one.

Now on the other side of the 'younger vs. older' polarity -- an epistemological polarity that is very relavent to the Obama vs. McCain election competition -- I'd have to say that my overall experience and knowledge is much superior now to what it was when I was 20. It usually comes down to this: the younger the adult we are, the greater our energy level and sensory efficiency is; whereas the older we are, the greater our experience, knowledge, and wisdom is likely to be -- at least until our cognitive faculties start to seriously erode.

In Obama's defense, as others have pointed out before me, more experience does not always lead to better judgment.

And then -- like a dirty shirt -- there is always the factor of 'narcissistic bias'.

This is where Nietzsche's version of 'relativistic, post-modern, deconstructive epistemology' comes into effect.

For many of us, we hold up 'scientists' and 'doctors' as being our 'epistemological idols'. However, if a particular pharmaceutical company is a paying a particular scientist or group of scientists a lot of money to present a particular 'epistemological position' to the FDA or to the general public regarding the 'safety' of a particular medication -- and this 'epistemological position' is tainted/corrupted/pathologized by 'conflict of interest' -- the money the scientist is getting -- then obviously this type of 'epistemological knowledge is worse than useless, it's downright dangerous, and criminal.

This priniciple of 'narcissistic bias' and 'conflict of interest' also applies to philosophers who are being paid and/or threatened by kings and/or religious institutions; it applies equally to politicians who are being paid, directly or indirectly, a great deal of money by lobbyists who are lobbying for something important that they want (usually at the expense of the general public); and it applies equally to people who are paid or cajoled into 'altering the information on passports and birth certificates' which again reflects all of the following: narcissisic bias, conflict of interest, and 'cheating' and/or criminal intent.

From an epistemological and a narcissistic bias point of view, there is a lot less to worry about in the question: What are you sitting on? (A chair.) than there is in the question: Were the Chinese gymnasts under 16 years old? (Let's just say that probably like most of the rest of you, I have my strong suspicions that narcissistic bias has probably raised its ugly side, and had its dominant power influence -- again. We shall see what unfolds. Who was it Bonds, Palmeiro...? 'No, I've never taken steroids -- or at least knowingly. How about unknowingly, then? I know -- you thought you were taking vitamins. Or maybe you didn't want to destroy your career -- and your chances at the hall of fame and being a baseball legend -- by admitting to what you knew you were taking? How about that one? That one fits for me.)

Call me a 'post-Kantian' if you wish. Or maybe partly or mainly -- an 'anti-Kantian'. It depends on how you interpret Kant and his famous/infamous 'Critique of Pure Reason'.

For myself -- I've done enough interpreting for today.

-- dgb, Aug. 23rd, 2008.

Obama vs. McCain: Sound Bites (Part 1) -- On The Charge of 'Elitism'

Upcoming Essays...

First on Deck: Updating Sir Francis Bacon's 'Four Idols'

Second on Deck: Obama vs. McCain: Sound Bites (Part 2) -- On The Charge of 'Not Being Experienced Enough'

Third on Deck: Obama vs. McCain: Sound Bites (Part 3) -- On The Charge of 'Not Being Tough Enough'

Fourth On Deck: Wittgenstein vs. DGB Philosophy (Part 2): On Science, Epistemology, Rationality, and Narcissism

Fifth on Deck: Nietzsche vs. DGB Philosophy: Existential Extremism vs. Homeostatic Balance

Sixth on Deck: Gods, Myths, Philosophers and The DGB Model of The Personality

................................................................................

Now Up...

Obama vs. McCain: Sound Bites (Part 1) -- On the Charge of 'Elitism'


We have to remember that any essay is a 'sound bite' of its author's overall philosophy and intentions. This is no different than a politician's speech -- or a poliitican's answer to a journalist's or a citizen's question -- which represents an even 'smaller sound bite' which has an even greater potential to be taken out of context and/or to deliver a smaller, sometimes much smaller, component of the author's overall philosophy, motivation, and intentions.

The wrong soundbite can destroy a politician's career, or cause 'giant spikes or crashes' in a politician's positive or negative reception with the audience that the politician is trying to impress or 'win over'.

Recently, in the American presidential race, McCain didn't win too many people over with his off the cuff comment that a rich person is someone worth '5 million dollars or more'. Similarily, Obama's 'inflate your tires' comment didn't go over too well with citizens everwhere getting 'pulverized at the gas pumps' by big oil companies and/or 'the free oil market'. And again, McCain's 'Ask my staff how many houses I own...' didn't go over too well either with wavering prospective voters.

In some ways, it is easier to be a philosopher or a journalist or a political analyst and do all our 'Monday morning quarterbacking' when these poltiicans have to be 'very fast on their feet' when they are reacting to some very difficult personal and professional questions. How many of us non-politicians would like to deal with these types of questions on a day to day, moment to moment, basis, not to mention having our persnal biographies put under a microscope, and being the subject of opposing 'political smear campaigns'. In the dog days of August, as we get closer and closer to -- what is it, a November election? -- 'politics rears its ugly, narcissistic head' in the name of winnning.

Has anyone forgotten the 'Florida voting scandal' where Bush squeeked in front to the finish line of the last American election -- at the expense of democratic fairness? How many 'prospective Democratic voters' didn't get to vote in the Florida election process?

Narcissism and power politics usually wins over ethics, morality, and integrity. Does anyone think that the type of 'dirty politics' played here in America is any different than what Americans are complainng about now relative to China 'doctoring the passports' of two or three of its youngest gymnnasts? Or the steroid scandal?

It's all called 'cheating' -- and both athletes and politicians will do it in the name of 'winning'.

Now, personally, I think Obama missed a political opportunity.

Obama has been hit with the criticism of 'elitist' by the Republican camp.

The trick for Obama -- as I see it -- is 1. how to answer criticisms like the charge of 'elitism' -- I heard the comment reported on CNN that Obama has been portrayed as a 'latte-drinking Liberal' -- 2. how to be aggressive back and land some of his own 'haymakers' against McCain and the Republcan Party ('the best defense is a good offense'); and 3. do this all in an ethical, upstanding, non-dirty, non-tit-for-tat' -- 'latte-drinking' (if you will) -- way.

To bring in a boxing metaphor, if McCain is 'Sonny Liston or Joe Frazier or George Foreman' -- the 'straight-ahead warrior' -- then Obama has to show that he is 'Cassius Clay a.k.a. Muhammad Ali -- in his prime -- a politician who is quick on his feet, and even quicker with his hands (brain and mouth), with a lightning-fast retaliatory jab that makes McCain pay for any smear tactic -- like 'elitism' -- that McCain throws Obama's way.

Now permit me the luxury of being a philosopher-writer who has much more time to think than a politician improvising on-stage. Furthermore, permit me the 'projected fantasy' of steppig into Obama's shoes for a minute or two, of trumpeting a bit of DGB Philosophy which I believe is closer to Obama's 'integrative-differential-unity' philosophy (or visa versa) than it is to McCain's more 'Conservative-Republican-Laissez-Faire-Capitalism-let's not raise anyone's taxes, let's just let the rich keep getting richer, even if it is at the expense of financially hurting the middle and lower classes...(like the oil companies getting richer and richer beyond belief from gouging pump prices).

Anyway, here's my speech:

McCain and the Republican Party label me as an 'elitist'. And yet McCain said that a rich person is someone making over 5 million dollars. McCain said that he can't remember how many houses that he owns. McCain said that he will not tax the rich anymore than they are currently being taxed. McCain said that he will still subsidize big oil companies even though they are currently bringing in record profits that defy belief.

So I ask you: Who is being the elitist?

Furthermore I ask you: Who is more interested in the problems -- and particularly the financial traumacies -- of the lower and middle class? Who is looking to bring down the cost of education? Who is aiming for universal health care and health insurance? Who is looking to bring down the cost of gas? Who is looking to change the way politics is conducted in the White House and in Congress?

Who is looking to stop the way that 'lobbying' is done in Washington? Who is looking to stop special interest lobbyist groups from undermining democracy and preferentially treating one class of people -- usually the already very rich (yes, Mr. McCain, that is people like you and me both who are worth more than 5 million dollars and therefore, by your own stringent definition, deserve to be called 'rich') -- while systematically exploiting one or more other classes of people (usually the middle and lower classes)?

Is it you, Mr. McCain who is promising to do these things? Or is it me? And therefore -- I ask you again, and I ask the American people -- who really deserves to be called 'the elitist'?

-- dgb, August 22nd, 2008

More Thoughts on Narcissism in Relation to Ethics, and Ethics in Relation to Narcissism

At the risk of being redundant, I want to come back to one of the most important concepts in DGB Philosophy -- narcissism.

My thoughts on narcissism are borrowed mostly -- aside from my own modifications -- from Psychoanalysis. My influences within Psychoanalysis are predominantly Sigmund Freud and Heinz Kohut -- mainly Freud although many of my ideas relative to 'healthy narcissism' and the 'narcissistic transferences' peel off towards Kohut. The concept of narcissistic transferences will be developed at a future time under the heading of 'Transference'.

Narcissism, short and simple, equals self-interest -- at least in DGB Philosophy. Now narcissism is like almost everything else in life -- you can have too much of it and you can have too little of it. Too much of it and you come across as arrogant, selfish, conceited, cocky, self-absorbed, and uncaring about the well-being of others. The extent of narcissistic pathology in a person can range from mild to the psychopathic and/or sociopathic. Too little narcissism and you may appear invisible to othters, mild-mannered, modest, wanting to please, submissive, obedient authority, mascohistic, etc.

The opposite of narcissism is -- altruism with its derrivatives such as love, caring, generosity, empathy, compassion, senisitivity...

The healthy derivatives of narcissism/self-interest include: self-assertiveness, self-confidence, being in touch with oneself, being alive with passion, goal-directed, purposeful, self-empowered, willful, knowing what you want and confident you will get it...

The unhealthy derrivatives of narcissism include; addiction, self-infatuation, blindness to the needs and/or wishes of others, excessive drugs, alchohol, partying, eating, sex, gambling, power-seeking, revenge-seeking, rage, hate, violence, the exploitive, psychopathic, and/or sociopathic mentality...

The message of DGB Philosophy is not new -- just re-stated with new philosophical and psychological integrations, modifications, extensions, applications etc.

Everything in balance, including: narcissism and altruism -- caring about oneself and living one's life with passion and self-empowerment on the one hand, without self-destructiveness; and compassion, empathy, sensitivity, kindness, generosity,
caring, love on the other hand.

Most people tip the scale at one side or the other. Psychological and social health comes to those people who can find a good balance of both without upsetting the applecart at either end. That is easier said than done. Most people have too much 'yang' or too much 'yin' but not the perfect mix of both. That is a DGB philosophical ideal in the spirit of Daoism -- a philosophical perspective with deep roots in Chinese history. Soon, DGB Philosophy will be exploring the philosophy, the history of Chinese philosophy and politics -- and the chasm between them.

I look astonishingly at the life of someone like Mao Tse Tung. I found a small little book on philosophy by Mao -- in which I have so far read two excellent papers by him: 1. on the relationship between knowledge and practice (It was called: 'On Practice'); and 2. On Contradiction.

Then I buy a biography of him and I read that 'In all, well over 70 million Chinese perished under Mao's rule -- in peacetime.'

And I have to ask myself, how does such an intelligent man write two beautiful papers like I just read -- and be associated with the deaths of over 70 million people not including, the wars that he was involved in? That is a collosal gap, a collosal chasm between philosophical idealism and/or ideology on th one hand and narcissistic power-building and ruthless politics on the other hand.

And it is on this last note that I answer my own question: Philosophical idealism and ideology has to meet narcissistic self-interest, power-mongering, greed, money-chasing, and ruthless politics on the playing field of reality. It is only after the two have met in battle, in collision, that we can attempt in hindsight to determine how much idealistic ideology is left in the mind, heart, and behavior of the leader and/or party that trumpeted it to victory; and how much this idealistic ideology has been trampled under the marching feet of political leaders, corporate leaders, religious leaders, and the general public.

Idealistic ideology, integrity, character, and ethics has to be continually re-visited, re-cycled, re-trumpeted, re-invigorated, re-practised - or it will always end up losing to narcissism from any and/or every corner of human existence. Marx thought that Capitalism was the enemy but he was wrong. Narcissism is rooted much deeper in human nature and behavior than Capitalism -- Lenin, Stalan, and Mao Tse Tung have all showed us that. You can be an imperialist Socialist and/or Communist just as easily as you can be an imperialist Capitalist or Feudal Lord.

Dictators come in all sorts and shapes, in all different varieties of righteous ideology -- from Capitalism to Communism.

What underlies them all is a ruthless narcissism. Can anyone name me a 'benign' dictator that wasn't narcissistically ruthless? Maybe one day I will come upon one but I haven't yet.

In summary: idealistic ethics has to meet reality on the battlefield of ruthless narcissism. When they have met, then we can talk about whether there is any idealistic ethics left that is still worth talking about -- or whether it has blown away in a cloud of smoke under the fire of human narcissism.

-- dgb, Aug. 18th, 2008.