Reconstructed...Oct. 12th, 2009.
I don't trumpet Hegel in all aspects of his philosophy because, quite frankly, I don't like all aspects of his philosophy.
It is important that writers don't get caught up in 'over-idealizing' their favorite philosophers and/or in 'over-trashing' their most 'disagreed with' philosophers -- lumping ideas together that shouldn't be lumped together, stereotyping philosophers positively or negatively in a way that oversimplifies, over-idealizes, and/or over-vilifies the philosopher and his or her work.
I too can be guilty of this practice -- it is is easier to oversimplify, over-idealize, and/or over-vilify a philosopher than it is to take the extra time required to more seriously investigate the intricacies of a complicated philosopher's work -- and analyze it properly.
Without spending a lifetime studying one and only one philosopher.
Hegel is a very difficult philosopher to read, and interpretations of his work are many, and greatly varied. Just the fact alone that Hegel's students became divided between 'Left' Hegelians, 'Central' Hegelians, and 'Right' Hegelians underlies the fact that 'the living, breathing, existential and evolutionary dialect' was taking on a life of its own even outside of, and independent of, Hegel's own attempt to control the 'essence' of his own philosophical system.
The dialectic should be viewed upon as a living, breathing organism, like a beating heart. The dialectic starts with the principle of engagement -- a dialectic engagement between two people -- or two groups of people -- who are trying to sort out and/or sort through their interpretive and/or evaluative differences in perspective and opinion.
There exists the potential and the reality for as many different 'types of dialectics' as there are different types of engagements...from the dominating and controlling to the manipulating and conniving to the persuasive and rhetorical to the 'idealistically egalitarian and democratic', the latter of which in itself can probably be divided into many, many more different types of dialectic types of engagement and resolution depending on what our 'pragmatic, empirical definitions and practical extensions' of 'democracy' are, and what we believe is the best way to go about 'democratically resolving conflicts'..
This essay was inspired and prompted by my main living, breathing philosophical 'blogsite' adversary out there in 'cyberspace' -- Ms. Niki Raapana. Her main blogsite/website is called 'Living Outside the Dialectic' -- an ideal that she aspires to which I say is both inherently and existentially impossible to do or achieve. Nobody can 'live outside the dialectic' because the dialectic is an essential and existential mandatory process of evolution. So much so that I refer to evolution as 'dialectic evolution' or alternatively, 'associative-differential evolution.
The reason Ms Raapana aspires to 'live outside the dialectic' -- or so I interpret from her writings -- is because she 'conflates' (falsely associates) and confuses 'Communitarianism' with 'the dialectic'. The two are totally different: the dialectic is an 'evolutionary process' which probably happens 'billions of times a day' whereas 'Communitarianism' is a 'Utopian political and social ideal' for some philosophers, Ms. Raapana obviously not included as she trumpets the 'anti-thesis' of Communitarianism which she labels as 'Anti-Communitarianism'.
For Ms. Raapana to conflate and confuse 'Communitarianism' with 'the dialectic' is essentially no different than if she were to conflate and confuse the dialectic with 'Republicanism' or 'Democraticism' or 'Roman Catholocism' or 'Protestantism' or 'Marxism' or 'Socialism' or 'Capitalism' or 'Elitism' or 'Liberatarianism' or any of a hundred or a thousand other possible political, social, economic, and/or religious philosophical ideals.
The dialectic is a process of evolutionary engagement that underlies each and everyone of these different 'isms' that both 'define us and divide us'.
What divides us defines us.
What defines us divides us.
What defines and philosophically divides us does not have to evaluatively and existentially divide us if we believe in a spirit of 'free thought' and 'freedom of speech' and 'freedom of philosophical, political, economic, and religious differences'. What is most essential here is a healthy degree of tolerance and acceptance for other people having different philosophical viewpoints than our own. (Which is not to stop us from 'rhetorically crushing them' if we believe strong enough that they are sufficiently interpretively, semantically, evaluatively, and/or ethically wrong in what they are saying and/or doing. And if our philosophical adversaries are going around preaching and/or practising such things as racism, prejudice, violence, killing, genocide...then this is something that every government at every level needs to take a very strong stand against beyond the level of simply 'rhetoric'. Which to be absolutely clear, is not the kind of stuff that I associate with anything I have read from my own philosophical adversary's website/blogsite. She is simply stating a different philosophical opinion that I strongly disagree with on its most abstract 'Hegelian' levels.)
It is imperative that none of us should hold on irrationally and unconditionally to ideas that have become outdated and archaic just because they belong to our favorite philosopher (or psychologist) or alternatively use our least favorite philosopher as our own 'private whipping post' so that we can let all of our individual frustrations and 'transferences' loose on this particular philosopher until we have effectively 'beat a dead horse'.
Life evolves and what may or may not have been 'true' for what Hegel believed in 1806 must certainly be differentiated from what I believe in 2009 -- even though, with the greatest of respect, I call myself a 'post-Hegelian'. But a 'post-Hegelian' does not mean a 'clone-Hegelian' -- and even Hegel's thought process was constantly evolving.
The same goes with my interpretation of Hegel's philosophy. Particular issues and questions surrounding Hegel's philosophy that have become 're-opened' and relevant to our discussion here, have necessitated me going back into the literature, re-reading some of Hegel's interpreters (the best one and easiest one to understand, I have found, is Lloyd Spencer, 'Introducing Hegel', 1996 although I have found another interesting one this morning on the internet called, 'History of Philosophy' by Alfred Weber). What I have read this morning has caused me to re-think Hegel's concept of 'The Absolute' which I will probably address in a later essay, if not in my reconstructed version of this one (Oct. 13th, 2009).
Incidently, there is profound significance to the date, October 13th. Back aon this date in 1806 both world history and philosophical history were being made simultaneously at the same time -- I would even say partly humourously -- as upstairs and/or inside his room, Hegel was working frantically to finish the last few pages of his philosophical masterpiece, 'The Phenomenology of Mind (Spirit)' while outside Napoleon's army was just about to start battling the Prussian army in The Battle of Jena. (Depending on the interpreter, the battle started on either the 13th or 14th -- the website I am looking at now under 'The Battle of Jena' says October 14th -- but regardless, it seems that Napoleon's army won the battle on October 14th, Prussia losing, which probably was a very significant factor in the evolution and escalation of the German army over tthe next 140 years. Prussia in 1806 largely consisted of a great number of 'smaller unintegrated, un-united states and an un-united army'. Later, an un-united Prussia would become a very united and nationalistic Germany, the latter compensating -- indeed, overcompensating -- for it 'national humiliation' at the hands of the French, Napoleon army which the much more united Germany would take every possible step to make sure that nothing like that every happened again -- consequently, the later rise of German militarism.
...........................................................................
The unified Germany which arose under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in 1871 was called in German Deutsches Reich. Deutsches Reich remained the official name of Germany until 1945, although these years saw three very different political systems more commonly referred to in English as: "the German Empire" (1871–1918), the Weimar Republic (1919–1933; the term is a postwar coinage not used at the time), and Nazi Germany (the Third Reich) (1933–1945).
...........................................................................
Returning to the issue of 'conflation', no two philosophies and/or philosophers should be viewed as exactly the same any more than two politicians or two priests should be viewed as exactly the same, or sharing the exact same beliefs.
We should all understand that, for example, Psychoanalysis isn't
being practiced exactly the same way today as it was 100 or 115 years ago, although some of the most 'anal-retentive' -- 'I can't let go of Freud' -- analysts might try to. Maybe there is something to the fact that 'analyst' starts with 'anal' as in 'anal-retentive' with no 'common sense flexibility' to move away from an idea that just, plain and simple, isn't working.
Similarly, not all 'Hegelian thinkers' or 'post-Hegelian thinkers' think exactly today the same way that Hegel thought in 1806.
Indeed, no two thinkers ever think or feel exactly alike. When a group of thinkers are claiming that they think exactly like their leader -- and follow that leader 100 per cent to the alter and/to the grave -- they are quite likely lying of faking 'group unity' for the sake of 'social perception' and not wanting to appear that they are presenting ideas that are coming from a 'dialectically divided house'.
Sometimes there is real unity but my experience tells me that this is more the exception than the rule.
Indeed, even labeling yourself as a 'Hegelian philosopher' can become a conceptual and historical trap; better to label yourself as a 'post-Hegelian' philosopher and give yourself some freedom to move with certain particular Hegelian ideas staying on the table but other Hegelian ideas being thrown off the table. To be sure, this post-Hegelian philosopher doesn't want to get locked inside a 'Hegelian jail cell'.
My friends -- and/or philosophical adversaries -- over at 'The Anti-Communitarian: Living Outside The Dialectic' blog site make this particular paper that I am writing here -- and the type of distinctions I am making here -- absolutely necessary.
What divides us defines us and what defines us divides us -- at least philosophically speaking.
Let us start with these easy distinctions here.
1. DGB Philosophy is not Classic Hegelian Philosophy most notably in that it is more 'teleological' and 'humanistically-existential' as opposed to 'historically deterministic'. Also at issue here, are some of Hegel's ideas about the role of the individual and the State, freedom, collectivism, communitarianism (depending on how communitarianism is defined) and 'The Absolute'. I need to do more research here and am not in a position to properly tackle all these issue in this essay here today.
2. My brand of 'post-Hegelian' philosophy might be elongated and called: 'DGB Post-Hegelian, Multi-Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential Evolutionary Philosophy'.
3. DGB Philosophy is not Communitarianism in any sense of the word as I have read it being described and/or defined by 'The Anti-Communitarians'. Which is not to say that 'Communitarianism' might not be defined and described in a different way that I might find much more pallatable to endorse such as if it was defined as a 'an ideal homeostatic-ethical balance between individual and community rights'.
4. DGB Philosophy is not Anti-Communitarianism in any sense of the way that it is defined by the Anti-Communitarians except in its desired protection of individual rights and lifestyles. Beyond this, DGB Philosophy rejects any and all of the Anti-Communitarian attacks on Hegel and particularly on Hegelian Dialectic Theory which has nothing to do with 'Communitarianism' except as an underlying evolutionary process to the way Communitarianism might be ideally and/or pathologically defined.'. Evolution is not necessarily 'humanistically right' -- indeed, human evolution might be described as an evolutionary and existential playoff between 'humanistic' and 'anti-humanistic-narcissistic' forces, the latter of which overtly or covertly trumpets human greed and selfishness over humanistic compassion and empathy for the lives and evolution of 'marginalized' people of every race, sex, type and class.
Below are some examples of how the Anti-Communitarians have 'conflated' different Hegelian concepts together in a way that doesn't make sense in 2009 -- and probably doesn't even make any sense going back to 1806 whether we are talking about what Hegel had in mind or whether we are talking about the rather 'unique interpretation' of what the Anti-Communitarians think Hegel had in mind.
Incidentally, I have to thank the Anti-Communitarians for introducing me to the word 'conflation' which can be defined in the following manner:
...........................................................................
Conflation occurs when the identities of two or more individuals, concepts, or places, sharing some characteristics of one another, become confused until there seems to be only a single identity — the differences appear to become lost. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflation
..........................................................................
Here are some of my 'antithesis' ideas to the 'thesis' ideas that the Anti-Communitarians hold against Hegel and the Hegelian dialectic:
1. 'The Dialectic' does not equal in any manner the idea of 'Collectivism' or 'Nationalism' except in a possible 'dialectic process' of negotiating collectivism and nationalism against their opposite concepts -- for example, either 'individualism' and/or 'internationalism'.
2. 'The Dialectic' does not equal in any manner any sort of 'behind the scenes conspiracy theory and/or puppetmaster show' except to the extent that someone or some group is trying to manipulate and pathologize the sincerity, the integrity, and the existential immediacy of the dialectic for purposes of either 'pseudo-democratic illusion' and/or 'ulterior hidden narcissistic gain'.
3. 'The Dialectic' does not equal in any manner any definition of 'Communitarianism' unless the definition of 'Communitarianism' is so 'fluidly mobile and changing' that it in fact has no definition.
Let me spend the duration of this essay to once again clarify some of my main differences of opinion with Hegel, and once these differences of opinion are clarified, address the main complaints that are leveled against Hegel by the 'Anti-Communitarians' who seem to confuse and conflate Hegel's dialectic theory with his 'Nationalism/Collectivism' stance relative to political philosophy when the two are totally different and should not be treated as being the same or necessarily linked at all.
My main counter-argument against the Anti-Communitarians is that there are literally millions upon millions of 'dialectic conflicts and/or conflict resolutions' that are being worked on each and every day by different individuals and different groups of individuals so to steretype and blackball each and every type of dialectic process as being exactly the same in that each and every one of them is 'contrived', 'pre-ordained', 'manipulated', 'orchestrated by powerful players behind the scenes to a pre-engineered conclusion' -- the result of some 'massive idealistic and/or narcissistic world-wide conspiracy theory' is stretching things just a little bit past the point of 'normal believability'.
I am not saying that conspiracy theories can't or don't happen -- I am just saying that they don't happen all the time and it is important to make some critical distinctions here between different types of dialectic conflict processes and confict resolutions as opposed to lumping each and every dialectic process into one gigantic 'Sucker Bag' where we all -- meaning all of us not in the 'elite controlling circle' -- play the role of 'pawns on a chessboard' being 'sacrificed for the good of the more powerful pieces' and for the good of the 'elite few' who are the actual controlling players in this chess game.
If nothing else, we need to distinguish between 'real dialectic conflict processes' where the outcome of the conflict is highly volatile and unpredictable during the whole process; vs. the type of 'contrived, manipulated, collusion-based, dog and pony show, smoke and mirrors, dialectic conflict' that the Anti-Communitarians are obsessing about and against.
Anyways -- let us start with 2009 DGB Post-Hegelian Philosophy vs. 'Classic and/or Archaic' 1807 'Phenomenology of Spirit'-based Hegelian Philosophy.
Firstly, I do not like Hegel's heavy-duty abstractionism although, to confess, I can go off the abstractionism deep end just as many other serious philosophy writers can and do -- much depends on the degree of the philosophical sophistication of the reader we are writing to and/or whether, as a writer, our main purpose is to delve into the most complicated technicalities and convolutions of whatever the issue is we are writing about -- or whether we just want to cover and utilize or modify the main pragmatic implications and/or applications of the philosophical idea that is under discussion. In general, the more abstract a philosopher-writer is, the more likely he or she is of being misunderstood and/or being interpreted in many entirely different ways, and the more likely he or she is going to 'confuse and conflate' things by associating and linking things and/or processes together that are different and should not be treated as being the same or similar. This problem applies equally to Hegel's 'The Phenomenology of Spirit' 1807) and also to my philosophical adversaries over there at the 'Anti-Communitarian Club' who still seem to be caught in a 'Hegelian Time and Abstraction Warp'. And at times, it applies to me when I stereotype certain ideas that need to be probed more deeply such as Hegel's concept of 'The Absolute' which may become the goal of another paper.
Secondly, I do not like Hegel's 'nationalist-collectivist political stance' as I presently understand it (which may be a false stereotype) which as I presently understand it seems to advocate the suppression and marginalization of certain individual civil rights. I will say no more on this particular issue until I re-investigate the issue more deeply.
We have to distinguish first and foremost between two types of dialectics:
1. An 'Imperialistic-Narcissistic-Darwinian-Survival-of-the-Fittest-Winner-Takes-All-Power Dialectic'; vs.
2. A 'Civil-Egalitarian-Looking-For-That-Ideal-Win-Win-Will-to-Humanistically-and-Yet-Assertively-Negotiate-and-Compromise' Dialectic.
The first is 'unilaterally assertive, aggressive, narcissistic (self-centered) and authoritarian' in its approach. 'Might is right.' This is what I call a 'Power-Dialectic'.
The second is 'empathic, socially sensitive, compromising, conciliatory and yet still assertive' in its approach. This is what I call a 'Humanistic-Existential-Democratic-Dialectic'. There are numerous different types of democratic-dialectics (some of which are more democratic than others, or simply 'differently democratic') such as: a) 'Negotiating to Consensus'; b) 'Public Voting'; c) 'Parliament or Senate Representative Voting'; d) 'Autocratic Representation'; e) 'Autocratic Unrepresentation'; f) 'Representative Negotiating to Consensus'...
There are other different types of dialectics, some of which I will list and briefly describe below:
1. A 'Market-Place' Dialectic where, for example, you are trying to sell me a house and I want to buy one, and you are trying to get your best price possible and I am trying to get my best price possible and if we can find that 'magic price' somewhere in the middle that we can both agree on, then we have a 'marketplace deal' -- a 'marketplace dialectic conflict resolution';
2. A 'Righteous vs. Rebellious' Dialectic where one side of a dialectic conflict ('The Anti-Establishment Underdog') is rhetorically -- or elsewise -- poking holes and sabotaging the 'Establishment Dialectic' Law/Rule') that is under 'deconstructive attack';
3. A 'Covert, Sneaky Rebellious' Dialectic where a particular person or party is trying to get his or her own way by covert, sneaky, underhanded means;
4. A 'Fraudulent, Manipulative' type of dialectic where everything is about presenting a particular 'face' or 'perception' that is entirely different than the underlying 'substance' or 'essence' of what is really happening. This is a more extreme extension of the 'sneaky' dialectic described above. This is the 'Dog-and-Pony-Show-Smoke-and-Mirrors Type of Dialectic' -- the type that tells you 'that you have won a million dollars with the intent of getting into your most private identification information particulars and your bank account information in order to steal your identity and as much money as they can get from you.
5. A 'Alienated Impasse' Type of Dialectic where the dialectic transaction or potential dialectic transaction breaks down into an impasse with one side or both sides not willing to negotiate any further...the result being that the two people and/or parties become detached, separated, alienated, schizoid from each other...
6. A 'Submissive-Masochistic-Approval-Seeking' Dialectic where one side will 'cave easily' from what he or she wants in a negotiation out of fear of intimidation, threat, or loss of approval/acceptance...
7. A 'Seductive-Manipulative' Dialectic where one side uses attractiveness, intellect, beauty, seductiveness, narcissistic vanity...to get what he or she wants in the dialectic transaction.
These are some of the main types of dialectic transactions that we can see in everyday action that are designed in their own way to get goods, services, need-fulfillment, power, revenge, approval, sex, drugs, alcohol, money, cigarettes, love, and/or any of the other 101 (1001?) things that people want and/or obsessively and addictively crave for in their everyday lives...
Now from an egalitarian-fairness point of view, what people tend to idealistically want in a 'democratic-dialectic society' is an 'equally or homeostatically balanced' dialectic transaction/relationship where both people or parties get what they want out of the transaction/relationship --and everybody goes home happy.
But then, when you factor in all of the other 'mainly darker, more narcissistic, sides' of human motivation , then we get all of the other narcissistic dialectic possibilities -- and realities -- briefly mentioned above.
This is just a starting-point of later discussion.
Hegel's philosophy of 'alienation' was extremely important -- almost as important as his philosophy of the dialectic. Hegel most certainly created the 'creative mix' in this regard from which 'Existentialism' was shortly thereafter born through the combined intellect of Schelling, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche...and others...
It is important for critics of Hegelian Philosophy to realize that all Hegelian theorists and philosophers are not the same, and in this regard, it is important, indeed imperative, to understand that not all of the Hegelian Philosophy that is being theorized and applied today is the same as the 'Classic' -- some might say 'Archaic' -- Hegelian Philosophy that Hegel was writing about and applying 203 years ago.
DGB Philosophy in particular has made some significant adjustments and modifications to Classic Hegelian Philosophy which is why I call DGB Philosophy a 'Post-Hegelian-Humanistic-Existential-Democratic-Dialectic' Philosophy.
Any brand of 'Collectivist' or 'National' or 'Communitarian' Philosophy where individual civil rights are seriously suppressed and/or marginalized is not a 'democratic-dialectic' philosophy that is paying any serious attention to the 'founding fathers' of The United States of America (Tom Paine, Thomas Jefferson...) and/or their French and English Enlightenment brethrin (Locke, Smith, Hume, Diderot, Voltaire, Montesque, etc.)
Regarding the essential importance of the Enlightenment philosophers and particularly the founders of The American Constitution, I fully agree with the Anti-Communitarians -- it is just that I shake my head every time that they take these massive negative generalizations and then villify Hegel as 'the ultimate architect of everthing that is bad in the world today' -- the ultimate bad philosopher behind a hundred thousand manipulating and contriving politicians today who supposedly all have the same ultimate goal which is the ultimate 'Hegelian goal' of 'Communitarianism'. Or so this is what they keep seeming to argue over and over again, ad nauseum in ttheir blogsite/website.
And they say they are 'living outside of the dialectic'.
As long as they are 'engaged with other people and philosophers who disagree with them, the Anti-Communitarians are living fully inside the dialectic -- not outside of it like a group of hermits who have no contact with the outside world. If they want to live 'outside of the dialectic', then they should give up their website/blogsite which of course they would not want to do anymore than I would -- thus, whether you like it or not, Ms. Raapani, you are 'dialectically engaged' (if not enraged) with me as we each espouse our particular differences in philosophy and opinion.
Please read Ms. Raapana yourself as she gets revved up on one of her passionate 'anti-Hegelian' rhetorical speeches...and tell me if she isn't taking a whole host of what might be considered very real, legitimate problems in the political and social world today -- and then 'hanging Hegel in effagy as if he is the ultimate Anti-Christ of all of these different bad things that are happening in the world today' (that I equate with unbalanced, unbridled human narcissism out of control).
According to Spencer and/or Marx (Introducing Hegel, pg. 110), Hegel himself in 'The Philosophy of Right' describes the social consequences of the unfettered pursuit of private self-interest. Self-interest, exploitation, industrialization, and the division of labour all contribute to the alienation of modern society -- its individualist social fragmentation. (Now that could be Marx talking more than Hegel. I will have to get a hold of a copy of 'The Philosophy of Right' to check to see how much of these classic Marxian ideas Marx was getting from Hegel as opposed to from other sources and/or his own interpretation and evaluation process.)
But back to Ms. Raapana...
...........................................................................
Niki Raapana writes:
“Hegel’s dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels’ grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can’t be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist’s global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to stop land grabs, privacy invasions, expanded domestic police powers, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. Only then can we be released from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.”
For the past few weeks I have been battling with the this “frenzied circular pattern.” It has felt irrational, neurotic and wasteful to preoccupy myself with the signatures behind the frame of our current society and its various social wars of memes and ideology. I have mostly felt a sense of deja vu standing at the gateway of our world’s next “transformation”; that I had been here before, that this very experiment in the world’s labratory had been conducted many times over.
What it is or isn’t leading to is something I believe all of us should have concern about, as it calls into question all of our deepest beliefs and doubts about society; whether this is the next step on our evolutionary crusade or if this whole Frankenstein manipulation of our culture by the “elite” behind the scenes is compatible with our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would argue that all these matters should be discarded from our existence if we have no objection to the next “paradigm shift”; but if we do have objection, as I am certain most of us would if we had access to all the information we would need in order to decide for ourselves who should be setting the agenda for our lives, then now is the time to educate ourselves and recognize the many ways our lives are being systemically controlled for a purpose not consistent with our individual or collective desire.
Google...Living Outside The Dialectic...or....
http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/
...............................................................................
THE ANTI COMMUNITARIAN MANIFESTO
by Niki F. Raapana and Nordica M. Friedrich
Free online edition since 2003
NEW on April 1, 2008: ABSTRACT of the Anti Communitarian Manifesto. Comments welcome.
HARDCOPY: The first ACL Books' edition of the Manifesto is available now for $20 USD. 5 x 8 inch spiral bound, 140 pages, includes additional materials, references and commentary while leaving the original online thesis intact. Email for ordering details or go to the 2020 book order page and replace the word 2020 with Manifesto.
PART ONE:
What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
December 25, 2002
Poll : What prompted you to search for the Hegelian dialectic?
Introduction : Why study Hegel?
1. The origins of deductive and inductive reasoning
2. Webster's definition of the Hegelian dialectic
3. How the Hegelian dialectic changed the formula for deductive reasoning
4. Why it is almost impossible for a layman to understand the Hegelian dialectic
5. The communitarian purpose for the Hegelian dialectic
6. How we interpret the history of the Hegelian dialectic
7. The Anti Communitarian League's conclusion
8. Four examples of the power of the semantics in the dialectic
9. Four different impressions of the modern Hegelian dialectic theory
Poll : What prompted you to search for the Hegelian dialectic?
I'm writing a high school paper
I'm writing a college paper
I'm a high school teacher
I'm a college professor
I'm on a school review board
I work for a news publication
I just keep hearing the term
I was sent here
None of the above
free polls from Pollhost.com
---divider---
Introduction : Why study Hegel?
"... the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special priveleges.'"
-- Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Hegel in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959)
Hegel
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain..."
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was a 19th century German philosopher and theologist who wrote the Science of Logic in 1812. For many historians, Hegel is "perhaps the greatest of the German idealist philosophers."
In 1847 the London Communist League (Marx and Engels, pictured left) used Hegel's theory of the dialectic to back up their economic theory of communism. Now, in the 21st century, Hegelian-Marxist thinking affects our entire social and political structure.
The Hegelian dialectic is the framework for guiding our thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead us to a predetermined solution. If we do not understand how the Hegelian dialectic shapes our perceptions of the world, then we do not know how we are helping to implement the vision for the future.
Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to stop land grabs, privacy invasions, expanded domestic police powers, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. Only then can we be released from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.
When we understand what motivated Hegel, we can see his influence on all of our destinies. Then we become real players in the very real game that has been going on for at least 224 years. Hegelian conflicts steer every political arena on the planet, from the United Nations to the major American political parties, all the way down to local school boards and community councils. Dialogues and consensus-building are primary tools of the dialectic, and terror and intimidation are also acceptable formats for obtaining the goal.
The ultimate Third Way agenda is world government. Once we get what's really going on, we can cut the strings and move our lives in original directions outside the confines of the dialectical madness. Focusing on Hegel's and Engel's ultimate agenda, and avoiding getting caught up in their impenetrable theories of social evolution, gives us the opportunity to think and act our way toward freedom, justice, and genuine liberty for all.
Today the dialectic is active in every political issue that encourages taking sides. We can see it in environmentalists instigating conflicts against private property owners, in democrats against republicans, in greens against libertarians, in communists against socialists, in neo-cons against traditional conservatives, in community activists against individuals, in pro-choice versus pro-life, in Christians against Muslims, in isolationists versus interventionists, in peace activists against war hawks.
No matter what the issue, the invisible dialectic aims to control both the conflict and the resolution of differences, and leads everyone involved into a new cycle of conflicts. We're definitely not in Kansas anymore.
....................................................................................
DGB Editorial Critique vs. Anti-Communitarianism (cont'd)
Three Different Types of Dialectics: A Critique of Living Outside The Dialectic; and The Global Money Scam and The Hegelian Dialectic
The 'Hegelian Dialectic' is not the 'evil monster' as the two essays above would suggest...there are numerous different ways of both interpreting and evaluating 'different types' of Hegelian Dialectics -- no two of which is ever going to be exactly the same. To stereotype 'all dialectics' as being the same is another example of 'Anti-Communitarianist Conflationism'. (I just invented a new word -- 'conflationism'.)
As the first writer (he doesn't give his name) has aptly stated at the top of his website, we have to 'question every precept' -- not negatively stereotype a given precept, set it up like a 'house of cards, straw, or sand -- and then delight in deconstructively knocking down what we built unstably in the first theory. You want to talk about 'preordained conspiracy theory' seem to be making a lifelong mission of 'building the dialectic up weakly and stereotyping all dialectics as being the same so that they can spend the rest of their gleeful energy knocking it down again.
This is not to say that 'preordained dialectics' can't and don't happen -- they do happen but these are 'manipulative, pathological' dialectics and not all dialectics are manipulative, pathological dialectics; most dialectics -- meaning conflict situations -- are totally 'existentially immediate and real' -- with existentially unpredictable and real outcomes on human behavior, relationships, history and evolution.
Let me give you a rather 'emotionally explosive' example from my own life. My sister and her husband had bought an 'investment' townhouse with the pre-established agreement that my son, brother, and I would move in and share the rental cost of the townhouse. My son was still in high school and prone to making impulsive self-centered (narcissistic) decisions that did not include those people around him who were also affected by the outcome of his impulsive decisions. Anyway, he found a girlfriend who started 'staying over' at the townhouse more and more often until she had effectively 'moved in'. Furthermore, the two of them went out and bought a dog -- not just any dog but a cross between a rottweiler, a boxer, and a doberman. It was just a pup but it was untrained and obviously going to get significantly bigger.
My sister and her husband eventually found out about these two 'additions' to the townhouse living situation, were notably upset about these two additions, and arranged a meeting in which a 'decision' was going to be made about what to do about the situation. Before we got to the day of the meeting, it became apparent that a 'decision' had already been made by my sister and her husband about what was going to be done: Mike's girlfriend and the dog were going to have to find a new place to live. This is what you can call a 'pre-ordained dialectic outcome'.
Now, in this regard, I am no different than my friend and/or philosophical adversary, Niki Raapana over at the 'Anti-Communitarian' site -- I don't like 'pre-ordained dialectics anymore than she does. Only, unlike her, I don't try to say that 'every dialectic and every dialectic outcome in the world is preordained by some puppetmaster behind the scenes'. I don't take kindly to being a 'puppet' anymore than Ms. Raapana does. Thus, getting back to my example here, something happened between the intended 'pre-ordained outcome' of the dialectic meeting at the townhouse -- and the actual meeting as it started to evolve. Simmering in the back of my head was the fact that I do not like to be 'excluded' or 'marginalized' from any decision that involves my life -- and in this case, my son's. Also, there was the fact that, over the period of a month or two, I had started to become very attached to the dog.
As the meeting started to take place, and as my sister laid out her 'pre-ordained decsion relative to my son's girlfriend and their dog leaving, an 'emotional volcano' was starting to well up inside myself. To repeat, I don't like 'pre-ordained, unilateral, behind the scenes decisions masked in a pseudo-democratic meeting' any more than Niki Raapana and the rest of the Anti-Communitarians do.
So I told my sister, 'That's fine, I will be leaving too.' The 'dialectic' at this moment had completely lost its 'pre-ordained characteristic' and instead had become very 'existentially real -- with real consequences, and real relationships at stake'. The 'pre-ordained factor' had just 'flown the coup'.
My sister immediately accused me of 'trying to control the meeting' -- that I was being a 'control freak' (as if she wasn't) and raw human emotions of anger and ethical outrage blew into the townhouse living room -- again, eliminating any semblance of 'pre-ordained determinism and predictability'.
The meeting finally came back to order, I suggested that my son and his girlfriend pay an extra $200 a month to cover extra townhouse utility and rental expenses. The dog -- 'Sammy' -- I can't remember what the final townhouse decision was on the dog. She stayed but her life was tragic and brief which still to this day leaves a hole in my heart. The entire story reads like a Sarah Palin family soap opera but the story was, and still is, very 'existentially real'. There was nothing pre-ordained about what happened that day -- or afterwards.
'Seek first to understand, then to be understood.' A very wise person said that (Steven Covey, 'The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People').
Don't paint Hegel's 'Dialectic Theory of Evolution' with an all encompassing black brush. It is not Hegel's Dialectic Theory of Evolution that is the problem with his 205 year old philosophy; rather it is other parts of his philosophy such as his unbridled abstractionism, his unrealistic idealism, and his Fichte-like 'German Nationalism and Collectivism' that did not steer Germany in a very good direction at all (like Fascism, Herdism, Anti-Semiticism, Nazism, and two brutal world wars...)
Thus, we have a combination of two problems today regarding the interpretation, extrapolation, and application of Hegel's 205 year old philosophy: 1. those who try conservatively and 'anal-retentively' to hold onto Hegel's philosophy as it exactly was 205 years ago; and 2. those critics of Hegel (read the 'Anti-Communitarians') who are still trying to criticize 'Classic-Archaic' Hegelian Philosophy even though it is 205 years outdated and most, or at least some, current day Post-Hegelian Philosophers (read, yours truly) who have read Classic Hegelian Theory know its inherent 'weaknesses' as well, or better, than its detractors and critics do -- and have made contemporary, compensatory adjustments while Hegel's contempory critics keep hammering away at crticisms that are getting extremely boring, they have been repeated so often.
If you are going to criticize Hegel, get with the current program all ye critics of Hegel! Don't keep repeating what is 205 years old! Most serious philosophers who have read Hegel, have also read enough of Marx, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Foucault, Derrida, etc. to know what the 'classic Hegelian criticisms' are -- we don't need to keep reading yesterday's newspapers over and over and over again.
Let me repeat -- hopefully, for the last time. Hegel's brutal, unbridled abstractionism is well documented in the philosophical literature. If I want a lesson in brutal, unbridled abstractionism, I have two choices: 1. I can pick up Hegel's classic philosophical treatise: 'The Phenomenology of Mind (Spirit)' (1804). Or I can try reading an anti-Communitarian essay and see very quickly that the strongest proponents of Anti-Communitarianism seem to have learned very well from Hegel in this one regard -- everything written about in terms of 'single universals' such as one type of 'universal dialectic' that is 'pre-ordained' in terms of some underlying 'global conspiracy theory' when, in reality, there are literally millions of actual and potential 'dialectic conflicts and conflict resolutions' -- every last which one which is uniquely different from the one preceding it and the one following it depending on the issue, the context, the participants, the mood, the creativity and/or non-creativity in the problem-solving/conflict-resolving, who's trying to negotiate to a fair and just outcome vs. who is trying to intimidate and/or steamroll over top of his or her adversar's 'anti-thesis' and opposite wishes...
Regarding Hegel's 'Political Collectivism, Herdism, Nationalism' -- the Anti-Communitarians are preaching to the choir here. No argument, plain and simple. Most intelligent, independent-minded philosophers know the dangers of 'Extreme Collectivism, Nationalism, Group Herdism'...Just read Nietzsche's 'pre-Nazi' criticisms of Collectivist, Herdist, Nationalistic Germany...One can almost say that Nietzsche was warning pre-Nazi Germany of the dangers and the slippery slope of evolving Nazism.
I view Nazi Germany as an excellent albeit 'pathological' example of what I would call a 'cultural transference-reversal'. Napoleon invaded 'pre-Germany' and steamrolled over top of it because 'pre-Germany' was not united -- it was simply a collection of smaller 'regional states'. So after Napoleon was finally defeated, 'pre-Germany' became 'Nationalistic' and united into Germany with visions of what Napoleon had done to them still 'crashing around in their collective minds'. The 'compensatory, cultural transference' became to 'grow stronger as a country -- and as a united army' -- so that this type of national catastrophy -- and 'national humiliation' -- would never happen again. So German Nationalism, Collectivism, and Herdism was born. And the beginning of the evolution of Nazi Germany.
But not only did Germany grow their army, improve their national strength and power for purposes of self-defence. They also took something much more ominous and pathological from Napoleon. The idea of 'world dominance, German superiority, German arrogance, ethnic cleansing' -- and the idea of a 'Napoleon-like, pre-emptive strike towards world domination'. Nazi Germany had now reached it zenith of 'National Socio- and Psycho-Pathology'. 'Collectivism and Herdism' -- as initiated by Fichte and Hegel in a culture and a nation that was ready to hear what Fichte and Hegel had to say in this regard -- even though the direction of movment was rhetorically counter-argued over and over again by Nietzsche, a philosopher who was much more accurately attuned and intuitive to the place in Hell that this Socio-psycho-pathological was ultimately going to take Nationalistic Germany -- would ultimately rule the day, and at least three generations of Germans. Nationalism would take Germany to the top of the world cliff, the zenith of national military power with its potential for world power and destruction as it also looked over the threatening precipace of potential national self-destruction. Just like Napoleon before them. This is what I call a 'cultural or national transference re-creation and repetition complex and compulsion brought on by identification with the National Aggressor and Victimizer(Napoleon). What goes around comes around. The tragedy of negative transference both individual and collective. What starts out as an individual or national 'childhood traumacy and tragedy' (pre-Germany being brutally victimized by Napoleon's army) becomes deeply remembered as such, indeed, internalized into the national psyche of Germany -- and then 'replayed' generations later with Nazi Germany -- and Hitler -- playing the role of Napoleon, the world conquerer, who is ultimately defeated and destroyed by a stronger army (or coalition of armies) outsmarting him and overpowering him. Again, this is what I call 'National Transference Reversal'.
Such is the potential danger of Nationalism, Collectivism, Herdism...Group Think...gone mad...
There is no greater proponents of individualism -- in balance with the individualism of other individuals -- than this man, this philosopher, right here.
So let me get the message out there to all my readers and to the 'Anti-Communitarian' philosophical camp: Don't paint DGB Post-Hegelian Philosophy with the all-encompassing black paintbrush of 'Nationalism, Collectivism, Herdism, Group Think -- and 'Communitarianism' in this pathological sense.
Hegelian philosophy 205 years ago is not DGB Post-Hegelian philosophy today. Recognize the difference.
Even to you Ms. Rapaani, I quote Votaire (Toleration and Other Essays, 1755):
I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death, your right to say it.
Criticize Hegel's 'nationalism' if you wish, his 'collectivism', and/or his own particular brand of 'communitarianism'....in the way that the 'Anti-Communitarians' have stereotyped '(Pathological) Communitarianism'.
However, there is an 'infinite potential for different types of 'Communitarianism' -- some healthier, some more pathological than others. And the same goes for a negatively stereotyped definition of 'the dialectic'.
Indeed, I will distinguish between three different types of dialectics:
1. The 'Narcissistic Power Dialectic': Winner takes all. (Until the 'marginalized' and the 'suppressed' start to compensate for their losing strategy, re-build themselves from the shadows, re-generate themselves, slowly re-gaining power until they can topple the dominant, the oppressive, and the suppressive. This is 'Anaxamander's Dialectic', this is Marx's Dialectic -- Power in the hands of The Proletariat (which has never happened...It certainly never happened under Mao Tse Tung, or Lenin, or Stalin. These were 'narcissistic Capitalist leaders trying to disguise themselves as 'humanistic socialists'. They weren't. Like in America -- all the money was collected, passed around, and used at the top.). Marx was a combination of humanist and narcissistic pit bull. The 'narcissistic pitbull' side of his character -- and his philosophy -- was pathological.
2. The 'Egalitarian-Democratic-Dialectic': A type of dialectic where two so-motivated individuals or groups of individuals are actually looking for a 'win-win solution, resolution, and/or compromise' knowing that 'two opposite polarities need each other and need to come together in dialectic unity, wholism, and harmony (at least for a short while, if not a long while, until dialectic disharmony resurrects itself and demands a new negotiation towards a 'different dialectic harmony'...This is 'Heraclitus' Dialectic', 'Lao Tse's Dialectic (yin meets yang in harmonious dialectic balance) Nietzsche's Dialectic (The Birth of Tragedy), Freud (The homeostatic balance of 'id' and 'superego'.), Jung (the homeostatic balance of 'personna' and 'shadow'), Cannon (The Wisdom -- and the Homeostatic Balance -- of The Body), Perls and Gestalt Therapy (the balance of 'topdog' and 'underdog'), Derrida (the balanced of the 'dominant' and the 'suppressed' through the philosophy of 'deconstruction)...
3. 'The Collusive, Manipulative, Dog and Pony, Smoke and Mirrors' Dialectic: This is the type of dialectic that you and your friend Niki describe as if it is the only type of dialectic that operates in the world....Yes, this is a 'pathological type of dialectic' but don't blame it on Hegel unless you want to blame it on his pathological Nationalism, his pathological Collectivism, his pathological brand of Communitarianism...But don't paint all types of 'the dialectic' with the same black paintbrush. Indeed, personally, I would argue that 'Nationalism', 'Collectivism', and 'No-Individual-Civil Rights' Communitarianism is 'anti-dialectic' in the 'egalitarian-democratic-homeostatic balance' sense. Rather it belongs to either and/or both brands of the other two -- pathological -- dialectics listed above.
In contrast, 'Healthy Communitarianism' demands a healthy homeostatic balance between individual civil rights and community rights. In this respect, it is my individual right to 'swing my right arm as often and as far as I want, as long as I don't swing it into your face'...Healthy Communitarianism does not contradict the values of individualism as laid out by America's founding fathers: Tom Paine, Jefferson...nor the French Enlightenment philosophers such as Diderot, Voltaire, Montesque, Adam Smith, John Locke...and others...
But everything depends on the 'type' of dialectic we are talking about...
The type of collusive, behind the scenes, dog and pony show, smoke and mirrors show that you are writing about is only one type of dialectic -- and obviously a pathological one that has nothing to do with 'Ideal, Transparent, Win-Win Democracy'.
We must remember that no two Hegelian thinkers are exactly alike, any more than two Republican, Democrat, Liberal, and/or Conservative thinkers are exactly light.
And Hegelian thinking as it was theorized and applied some 205 years ago by Hegel is not the way that all 'post-Hegelian' thinkers and theorists are using the Hegelian Dialectic today.
Every Hegelian, post-Hegelian, and anti-Hegelian thinker has to be understood and evaluated in his or her own particular individual right and uniqueness -- including the two writers I have critiqued above...
dgb, July 1st-3rd, 2009, last update, Oct. 12., 2009.
David Gordon Bain,
Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
Are Still In Process...
Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism...
...................................................
