Epistemologically speaking, I would classify myself as a 'dialectic-rational-empiricist'. What does this mean?
Well, part of my brand of epistemology is grounded in Hegel's dialectic philosophy, and more particularly, in Hegel's dialectic logic. However, the other part of my brand of epistemology remains solidly grounded in the 'rational-empirical' work of philosophers like Epictetus, Aristotle (being careful of his 'binary, either/or, classification' problems), Bacon, Locke, Hume, Nietzsche, Russell, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Derrida, Ayn Rand, Alfred Adler, Korzybski, S.I. Hayakawa, Aaron Beck, Albert Ellis, George Kelley, Maxwell Maltz, Nathaniel Branden, and more...
The problem here is that there exists the problem of Hegel's brand of 'dialectic logic' colliding and conflicting with 'rational-empirical' epistemology, particularly when and where Hegel basically leaves the 'rational-empirical', scientific, and 'Enlightenment Epistemology' camps in favor of his own brand of 'German Epistemological Idealism' which seems to follow very much in the path of Plato's ancient Greek 'Rational Idealism'. (i.e., see Plato's Theory of The Forms, The Cave, and The Shadows) According to Plato, 'absolute or ultimate knowledge' is to be found inside your head, not outside your head...the hallmark of 'rational idealistic thinking'...) Plato got this idea from Parmenides, and unfortunately for Western Philosophy, made this idea a great part of his legacy to Western Philosophy and History...It messed Fichte and Hegel up, perhaps Schelling too...as they all attempted unsuccessfully to close 'The Great Kantian Divide between 'Subjectivity' and 'Objectivity', and between 'Physics' and 'Metaphysics'...See my essay called 'Parmenide's Poison'...
The Great Kantian Double Divide still exists and there is not a philosopher in the world who is ever going to 'close' this Great Epistemological Double Divide -- not Spinoza, not Fichte, not Schelling, not Hegel, not anyone...
Such divides as 'The Subjective-Objective Divide', The Physics-Metaphysics Divide', 'The Mind-Body Divide', 'The Mind-Brain Divide', and 'The Intensional-Extensional Divide' will always exist; we all have to learn to accept these different divides and do our best to work around, or through, them...using first our senses and observational abilities, and then our best reasoning abilities based on our observations...This is what I am calling 'rational empiricism' and what General Semantics calls 'The Extensional Orientation'. Mainly what is needed here is a 'Consciousness of Abstracting, Interpreting, Inferring, Generalizing, Associating' -- a 'Consciousness of Going Up and Down The Cognitive-Emotional Abstraction Ladder' -- and a 'Consciousness of Spending Too Much Time Up in The Upper Levels Of The Abstraction Ladder Without Coming Back to Earth for Re-Grounding Purposes'...
One of the things that Hegel assumed falsely is that the dialectic would 'subsume' and 'incorporate' in its process and evolving cycle -- i.e., the dialectic process of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis -- everything in its dialectic path and history. This is not true. Things get 'abstracted or screened out of the dialectic process' -- and left behind. Sometimes these 'things' or 'ideas' or 'concepts' or 'theories' deserve to be screened out and left behind. Other times they don't.
Man remains 'the ultimate abstracter' -- for both right and wrong, good and bad -- in this whole human aspect of the dialectic process. And since the abstraction process is a part of the dialectic process, all of the dangers mentioned above relative to 'spending too much time up in the higher levels of the cognitive-emotional abstraction ladder' apply to the dialectic process and dialectic logic as well.
And here is where Hegel left earth to chase 'Platonic Dreams' of an 'Ultimate Epistemology' -- and with it -- 'Ultimate or Absolute Knowledge'.
This was Hegel's worst epistemological mistake -- and DGB Philosophy has to work hard to 'undo' the damage caused by this huge epistemological mistake. It may take this essay and a number of others to more clearly explain and undo the type of Hegelian epistemological damage I am talking about.
One of man's greatest strengths -- his ability to reason -- is also one of his greatest weaknesses. Unfortunately, our power to reason (to generalize, to associate, to abstract, to interpret, to 'recognize patterns and regularities in life', to 'infer causes', to use logic ...) comes with no warning sticker on the package: 'Handle with great care -- or this magnificent tool that nature/God gave you will turn into your worst nightmare and your worst tool of self-destruction.'
What I have said here will suffice for now.
-- dgb, Nov. 24th, 2009.
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations...
-- Are Still in Process...
