As I wondered what to write about next I was nagged by an idea that wouldn’t go away. I‘ve been reluctant to write about this idea because people think its awkward and untenable. Nevertheless, I think it’s intriguing and should see the light of day. This idea entails the odd coupling of Hegel and thermodynamics.
Before I get to my idea let me tell you what precipitated it. It started by accident. A professor told me he asked his students to write an essay on “The epistemology of Kepler's cosmology”. It sounded like an odd subject to write about because it involved what seemed to me two incompatible ideas. Showing I could be just as odd I linked the first two incompatible ideas that popped into my head, hence H&t.
Shortly after it dawned on me what my friend had done. He linked two different ideas together as a way of mentally stimulating his students to expand their thinking. This technique works because in linking H&t I found myself thinking anew about my own subject; the teleology of human endeavour.
I tell the story above to show how thinking works and how new ideas emerge. In bringing H&t together a new idea emerged. This is something Hegel wanted to show us about the dialectic process, that through the rubbing together of two ideas, as the process does, we gain a new idea, adding to our knowledge. And that’s what happened to me when I rubbed H&t together. I think you will see the result below.
The reason Hegel and thermodynamics came to mind so quickly is because they were already in my head lurking around. Originally they came to me when I began wondering if there was one thing that ultimately determines how we live and organize ourselves? I sensed one. As I thought and thought about it, these two kept popping up in my head saying I know, I know, first Hegel and then thermodynamics. However, I didn’t realize what they knew until I consciously linked them.
Change is the connection I made between H&t, the one constant of the universe, something we can all count on happening. Without question it is a primal. Change is the teleological explanation for human endeavour I was searching for. I can’t tell you what a eureka moment that was for me, discovering what fundamentally determines how we function and organize ourselves. Like all humans I sensed it. But it took H&t to reveal it.
Knowing H&t is a big thing for me. There are basically two disciplines we turn to in order to understand the world, philosophy and science. This is how I’ve contextualized it. Hegel represents philosophy and thermodynamics represents science. I see them each heading their disciplines because you essentially can connect everything else through them. H&t have made us aware of the most fundamental thing, the inevitability of change. Thermodynamics deals with change in the physical sense and Hegel deals with it in the abstract sense. In thermodynamics change occurs in the shifting or the changing of energy. That change applies to everything because everything, science has taught us, is made of energy, including ideas and thinking. In Hegel change occurs in human thought and action. Of the two changes thermodynamics comes first but Hegel produced the mental image of it and teaches us that it is also an essential cerebral process.
Here is one example of how change is a major factor in constructing ideas. During Hegel’s time there were a number of attempts to construct “world-system” theories that would explain the direction history was taking. The idea behind it was to pinpoint the one thing that ultimately determines how humankind organizes and governs itself. Some saw religion or nationalism or labour as the principle motivating factor. Whatever it was, the one thing that was quite common about these grand theories was that they were based on a static, unchanging world, as though humankind had reached a point of completion. Such theories quickly crumbled because as soon as they were introduced, the world changed and became something else. However, Hegel was more astute. Though not aware of thermodynamics but sensing it, like all humans do, “he made change itself the heart of his system.” He also knew that ideas grow stale and need change to rejuvenate them.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Containment and other things
The other day I read an article by Paul Krugman of The New York Times entitled “The Ugly American Bank”. Krugman was writing about the World Bank which, despite its name, is really an American bank. It is not seen in a positive light by the rest of the world because it tends more to promote America’s interests rather than address the plight of the world’s poorer nations as it was originally intended. To make things worse, Krugman wrote, President Bush has nominated one of the most divisive, mean-spirited people in his administration to head it, a neo-conservative, Paul Wolfowitz.
Krugman seemed baffled by Bush’s choice to head the World Bank because a month earlier, when Bush met with European leaders, it seemed that he wanted to cooperate with them and mend fences. However, this nomination seems to follow the old pattern. Bush is still up to his old tricks, acting as a unilateralist , being narrow-minded and thinking of America first. Krugman thought that if Bush wanted to be more conciliatory, as he showed on his European trip, he could have at least consulted with his allies about his choice.
As I read Krugman’s article I recalled another one he wrote shortly after 9/11. In it he wrote that one of the silliest idea he ever heard was one made by a British professor who said that 9/11 would mark the end of globalization. I agree, it is a silly idea.
I was thinking of offering Krugman one of my ideas. He might think it equally silly. But I don’t. My idea is this, that Bush is the right man for the times. It is Bush’s choice of Wolfowitz and other poorly suited people to run things that provoked me to think this. This is how my idea goes: because of his poor choices, single-mindedness and weak stewardship, Bush is facilitating the decline of America. But that’s ok because historically decline comes to all great empires. Now, it is the American empire’s turn to decline. Bush is the right man for the times because he is helping hasten America’s inevitable decline from within. By presiding over a second rate administration he is helping the decline along. His defunctive ideology and incompetence are also helping the decline along.
However, the world is a different place from what it was in the past. America's decline is not happening in the same way when past empires virtually disappeared. This time it’s different. America will not collapse like the Soviet Union or the Roman Empire did. Its decline is more transitional and stabilizing, leaving an equalizing, leveling effect throughout the world. Essentially, America is sharing its empire with the rest of the world. The world is adopting America’s system as their own rather than overturning it and creating a new one. As a consequence a ‘world empire’ is being created. America has facilitated this development by encouraging other nations to be more like it politically and economically. The rest of the world has heeded America’s advise and embraced its ways. The Germans did as did the Japanese and now the Chinese and Indians are.
America has done a good job in teaching the rest of world to follow its example. The world has copied America’s management skills, production techniques and general way of life. At times, though, I can hear America saying, "we didn't mean for you to do so well as to better us and overtake us". What is going on here is something akin to a father relinquishing the reigns to his sons. America is now being eclipsed by its own ingenuity.
As I am thinking about all this I hear that a ‘giant’ in foreign affairs has just died, George Kennan. Essentially he created America’s post W.W.II foreign policy. In the aftermath of the war America was flummoxed about how to deal with its chief adversary, the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was expanding its influence and wreaking havoc with America’s approach to global affairs. Kennan, a minor diplomat in the State Department, suggested that instead of opposing Communism with military might it should contain it through ideology, diplomacy and covert action -- by means other than war. Thus was born the doctrine of containment. It was so successful in containing the Soviet Union and Communism that it eventually helped bring about their collapse without a shot being fired.
I brought up the idea of containment because it is another example of America’s innovations being used against it. America’s anti-international stance is now being contained and modified by the international community America educated. So if Wolfowitz becomes head of the World Bank his ‘America first’ mentality will likely be tempered and contained by this doctrine that America invented, this time constraining America. Already America has had its excessive foreign policies, like the ‘Bush Doctrine’, clipped and contained by its allies. I think Krugman should take some comfort in this when thinking about Wolfowitz's appointment.
Krugman seemed baffled by Bush’s choice to head the World Bank because a month earlier, when Bush met with European leaders, it seemed that he wanted to cooperate with them and mend fences. However, this nomination seems to follow the old pattern. Bush is still up to his old tricks, acting as a unilateralist , being narrow-minded and thinking of America first. Krugman thought that if Bush wanted to be more conciliatory, as he showed on his European trip, he could have at least consulted with his allies about his choice.
As I read Krugman’s article I recalled another one he wrote shortly after 9/11. In it he wrote that one of the silliest idea he ever heard was one made by a British professor who said that 9/11 would mark the end of globalization. I agree, it is a silly idea.
I was thinking of offering Krugman one of my ideas. He might think it equally silly. But I don’t. My idea is this, that Bush is the right man for the times. It is Bush’s choice of Wolfowitz and other poorly suited people to run things that provoked me to think this. This is how my idea goes: because of his poor choices, single-mindedness and weak stewardship, Bush is facilitating the decline of America. But that’s ok because historically decline comes to all great empires. Now, it is the American empire’s turn to decline. Bush is the right man for the times because he is helping hasten America’s inevitable decline from within. By presiding over a second rate administration he is helping the decline along. His defunctive ideology and incompetence are also helping the decline along.
However, the world is a different place from what it was in the past. America's decline is not happening in the same way when past empires virtually disappeared. This time it’s different. America will not collapse like the Soviet Union or the Roman Empire did. Its decline is more transitional and stabilizing, leaving an equalizing, leveling effect throughout the world. Essentially, America is sharing its empire with the rest of the world. The world is adopting America’s system as their own rather than overturning it and creating a new one. As a consequence a ‘world empire’ is being created. America has facilitated this development by encouraging other nations to be more like it politically and economically. The rest of the world has heeded America’s advise and embraced its ways. The Germans did as did the Japanese and now the Chinese and Indians are.
America has done a good job in teaching the rest of world to follow its example. The world has copied America’s management skills, production techniques and general way of life. At times, though, I can hear America saying, "we didn't mean for you to do so well as to better us and overtake us". What is going on here is something akin to a father relinquishing the reigns to his sons. America is now being eclipsed by its own ingenuity.
As I am thinking about all this I hear that a ‘giant’ in foreign affairs has just died, George Kennan. Essentially he created America’s post W.W.II foreign policy. In the aftermath of the war America was flummoxed about how to deal with its chief adversary, the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was expanding its influence and wreaking havoc with America’s approach to global affairs. Kennan, a minor diplomat in the State Department, suggested that instead of opposing Communism with military might it should contain it through ideology, diplomacy and covert action -- by means other than war. Thus was born the doctrine of containment. It was so successful in containing the Soviet Union and Communism that it eventually helped bring about their collapse without a shot being fired.
I brought up the idea of containment because it is another example of America’s innovations being used against it. America’s anti-international stance is now being contained and modified by the international community America educated. So if Wolfowitz becomes head of the World Bank his ‘America first’ mentality will likely be tempered and contained by this doctrine that America invented, this time constraining America. Already America has had its excessive foreign policies, like the ‘Bush Doctrine’, clipped and contained by its allies. I think Krugman should take some comfort in this when thinking about Wolfowitz's appointment.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
An Introduction
I think it’s time I wrote something about Hegel (1770-1831), the philosopher who is behind a lot of the things I write about. He is a kindred spirit. Many of the ideas I think about he thought about. We both see the world in holistic terms, speak of a determinism in History and share a dialectic approach. One of my main points of interest is globalizations. He sensed globalization. He confirmed my belief that there is rhyme and reason to human existence.
It wasn’t an accident I came across Hegel. I was destined to come across him because of the questions I was asking about the world, why it functions the way it does. I knew if I wanted to find out I had to read what others said on the subject. First I read history but found it inconclusive in telling me about the ways of the world. Then I realized what I was searching for. It was the metaphysical nature of the world I was after, something only philosophy can anawer. Hence my reading philosophy and meeting Hegel.
There are a lot of things to say about Hegel and what he means to me. It’s difficult to know where to start with him. So I’ll start with an anecdote. On his death bed Hegel said “that there was only one man who had understood him - and he had misunderstood him”. That’s funny. Nevertheless, it means something to me because it says something about his philosophy and philosophy in general. The way I see it philosophers are put on earth for a purpose, to figure things out for the rest of us and to help facilitate life. Philosophers observe life and then come to conclusions. They then put their ideas out for public consumption and scrutiny. Once those ideas are out there they are part of the public domain. They belong to the world which interprets and manipulates them to suit its needs. Remember, philosophers are working for us and if their ideas are misinterpreted by us that’s part of it. This is one reason Hegel felt misunderstood, because his ideas were used by others in ways he couldn’t have imagined. His ideas also dealt with the future which hadn’t happened yet, so no wonder the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of them.
I just had to get that idea out, about Hegel being misunderstood. However, it occurred to me that he may have been deliberately contrary with what he said. You see, contradiction is one of his subjects. He believed that it is through contradictory ideas and the reconciling of them that we develop epistemologically. He believed this happens incrementally, by way of a process called the dialectic. The dialectic process is composed of three parts, theory, antithesis and synthesis. The synthesis is the product of the theory and its antithesis clashing. In turn the synthesis becomes the new theory which then attracts another antithesis or contradictory idea, and so goes the process. Can you see the upward spiral? I’m thinking, maybe by being contrary on his death bed Hegel may have been leaving a parting shot, to confuse and make a listener think. And if that person gained anything from it he or she would be a bit smarter. It might be a stretch but I think it’s worth contemplating.
At the center of Hegel’s thinking is the idea of change. You may have noticed that change is a central theme in my writing. Hegel realized that change is the one constant of the universe, whether it is generated by nature or by humans. During Hegel’s time, for idiosyncratic reason, it was fashionable to devise theories about what determines human history. Most theories were based on a static world. Hegel, however, was more astute. He noticed that static theories went up in smoke as soon as they were made because the world changed. Also, most of the static theories were illegitimate since they didn’t reflect all of humankind because they were based on ideology and bias, like religion, politics or race. As a holistic thinker Hegel tried to avoid ideology and bias in constructing his ideas. Change certainly isn’t ideologically or bias based. That’s why I feel comfortable in choosing it as my chief determinant of History. There are some of the connections I have with Hegel.
It wasn’t an accident I came across Hegel. I was destined to come across him because of the questions I was asking about the world, why it functions the way it does. I knew if I wanted to find out I had to read what others said on the subject. First I read history but found it inconclusive in telling me about the ways of the world. Then I realized what I was searching for. It was the metaphysical nature of the world I was after, something only philosophy can anawer. Hence my reading philosophy and meeting Hegel.
There are a lot of things to say about Hegel and what he means to me. It’s difficult to know where to start with him. So I’ll start with an anecdote. On his death bed Hegel said “that there was only one man who had understood him - and he had misunderstood him”. That’s funny. Nevertheless, it means something to me because it says something about his philosophy and philosophy in general. The way I see it philosophers are put on earth for a purpose, to figure things out for the rest of us and to help facilitate life. Philosophers observe life and then come to conclusions. They then put their ideas out for public consumption and scrutiny. Once those ideas are out there they are part of the public domain. They belong to the world which interprets and manipulates them to suit its needs. Remember, philosophers are working for us and if their ideas are misinterpreted by us that’s part of it. This is one reason Hegel felt misunderstood, because his ideas were used by others in ways he couldn’t have imagined. His ideas also dealt with the future which hadn’t happened yet, so no wonder the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of them.
I just had to get that idea out, about Hegel being misunderstood. However, it occurred to me that he may have been deliberately contrary with what he said. You see, contradiction is one of his subjects. He believed that it is through contradictory ideas and the reconciling of them that we develop epistemologically. He believed this happens incrementally, by way of a process called the dialectic. The dialectic process is composed of three parts, theory, antithesis and synthesis. The synthesis is the product of the theory and its antithesis clashing. In turn the synthesis becomes the new theory which then attracts another antithesis or contradictory idea, and so goes the process. Can you see the upward spiral? I’m thinking, maybe by being contrary on his death bed Hegel may have been leaving a parting shot, to confuse and make a listener think. And if that person gained anything from it he or she would be a bit smarter. It might be a stretch but I think it’s worth contemplating.
At the center of Hegel’s thinking is the idea of change. You may have noticed that change is a central theme in my writing. Hegel realized that change is the one constant of the universe, whether it is generated by nature or by humans. During Hegel’s time, for idiosyncratic reason, it was fashionable to devise theories about what determines human history. Most theories were based on a static world. Hegel, however, was more astute. He noticed that static theories went up in smoke as soon as they were made because the world changed. Also, most of the static theories were illegitimate since they didn’t reflect all of humankind because they were based on ideology and bias, like religion, politics or race. As a holistic thinker Hegel tried to avoid ideology and bias in constructing his ideas. Change certainly isn’t ideologically or bias based. That’s why I feel comfortable in choosing it as my chief determinant of History. There are some of the connections I have with Hegel.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Civilization and its abhorrence
Here is another of my great thoughts: Civilization abhors two things, isolation and complacency.
I took that idea as gospel when it came to me. It came to me while I was contemplating a world event which I thought could be better explained. As I racked my brain for a better explanation in burst that revelation, that axiom about Civilization.
The world event that gave birth to my axiom was a dual one. It involved the last two governing systems in the world, Communism and Democracy. For years those two systems competed with each other for the hearts and minds of the world. Each professed to be the best system for maintaining Civilization. Then Communism collapsed. The main reason given for its collapse was that it was a depleted system. But what made it so? Isolationism and complacency did. As a closed, isolated system Communism ignored and blocked out the influences that could have rejuvenated it. Its complacency was also depleting because in having such an attitude it grew self-satisfied and no longer tried very hard. Both behaviors made it an unproductive, inefficient system. Democracy, on the other hand, has ascended because it shuns those practices and rarely rests on it laurels.
Because of those practices Communism grew stale, atrophic and died. Its isolationistic behavior stymied the introduction and acceptance of new economic and political ideas that are essential for keeping a governing system going. In comparison, Democracy has been very open and receptive to new ideas. It has attracted and welcomed thinkers and fresh blood from all over the world. Communism didn’t. Communism isolating itself from new ideas and procedures because it felt threatened by them. This behavior showed it for what it was, a lifeless, bankrupted governance.
Let’s go back to an old theme - change. Isolation and complacency hate change. Change is an inevitability and if a system doesn’t go with its flow it eventually will be swept aside, as Communism was. Isolation puts up barriers that restrict change. It doesn’t accept the new and fresh ideas needed to handle an ever changing world. Communism didn’t realize that procedures that once worked in dealing with the world no longer worked. So, new ones must be found and allowed to surface. Isolation is an insular, closed mentality that doesn’t encourage this. It’s like living in an ivory tower, oblivious to the currents of the world. Such oblivion is detrimental to the health of a society because it weakens and leaves it vulnerable to deteriorating forces. Communism was oblivious to the changing world.
Complacency is like laziness. It also has an atrophying effect on society. Communism became complacent in thinking it had devised the perfect system and thus felt it unnecessary to develop new techniques to govern its people. This attitude is hostile to the idea of reform which is always required to keep a governing system health. Democracy continues because it has encouraged reform and the reevaluation of itself. However, now and then we see democracies have faltered because they too have gotten complacent about their achievements. Canada found itself there in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Resting on its laurels it became inefficient and uncompetitive. In the 70’s the U.S. also floundered economically because it grew complacent about its industrial prowess, losing its competitive edge to countries like Japan. The British Empire lost much of it preeminence in the world due to it. To help combat complacency and keep it alive and awake, Democracy has cultivated self-correcting mechanisms like individualism and its agitating nature, something Communism always tried to smother.
Because of globalization Civilization isn’t what it used to be. Before it was composed of many different groups of people acting independently. Today, though, it has consolidated itself and become an extremely interdependent body. Today its members depend more than ever on each other for survival and continuance. Because of this closeness, if one member doesn’t perform well it becomes a burden and liability for the others. Communism collapsed because it performed poorly and became drag on the rest of Civilization. Also, today’s closely knitted and highly demanding modern world requires a uniform, well performing system. Communism with all its foibles and inadequacies wasn’t up to the task. In contrast, Democracy, with its organization and flexibility, is more than up to the task, hence it been chosen by Civilization to take it into the future.
I took that idea as gospel when it came to me. It came to me while I was contemplating a world event which I thought could be better explained. As I racked my brain for a better explanation in burst that revelation, that axiom about Civilization.
The world event that gave birth to my axiom was a dual one. It involved the last two governing systems in the world, Communism and Democracy. For years those two systems competed with each other for the hearts and minds of the world. Each professed to be the best system for maintaining Civilization. Then Communism collapsed. The main reason given for its collapse was that it was a depleted system. But what made it so? Isolationism and complacency did. As a closed, isolated system Communism ignored and blocked out the influences that could have rejuvenated it. Its complacency was also depleting because in having such an attitude it grew self-satisfied and no longer tried very hard. Both behaviors made it an unproductive, inefficient system. Democracy, on the other hand, has ascended because it shuns those practices and rarely rests on it laurels.
Because of those practices Communism grew stale, atrophic and died. Its isolationistic behavior stymied the introduction and acceptance of new economic and political ideas that are essential for keeping a governing system going. In comparison, Democracy has been very open and receptive to new ideas. It has attracted and welcomed thinkers and fresh blood from all over the world. Communism didn’t. Communism isolating itself from new ideas and procedures because it felt threatened by them. This behavior showed it for what it was, a lifeless, bankrupted governance.
Let’s go back to an old theme - change. Isolation and complacency hate change. Change is an inevitability and if a system doesn’t go with its flow it eventually will be swept aside, as Communism was. Isolation puts up barriers that restrict change. It doesn’t accept the new and fresh ideas needed to handle an ever changing world. Communism didn’t realize that procedures that once worked in dealing with the world no longer worked. So, new ones must be found and allowed to surface. Isolation is an insular, closed mentality that doesn’t encourage this. It’s like living in an ivory tower, oblivious to the currents of the world. Such oblivion is detrimental to the health of a society because it weakens and leaves it vulnerable to deteriorating forces. Communism was oblivious to the changing world.
Complacency is like laziness. It also has an atrophying effect on society. Communism became complacent in thinking it had devised the perfect system and thus felt it unnecessary to develop new techniques to govern its people. This attitude is hostile to the idea of reform which is always required to keep a governing system health. Democracy continues because it has encouraged reform and the reevaluation of itself. However, now and then we see democracies have faltered because they too have gotten complacent about their achievements. Canada found itself there in the late 80’s and early 90’s. Resting on its laurels it became inefficient and uncompetitive. In the 70’s the U.S. also floundered economically because it grew complacent about its industrial prowess, losing its competitive edge to countries like Japan. The British Empire lost much of it preeminence in the world due to it. To help combat complacency and keep it alive and awake, Democracy has cultivated self-correcting mechanisms like individualism and its agitating nature, something Communism always tried to smother.
Because of globalization Civilization isn’t what it used to be. Before it was composed of many different groups of people acting independently. Today, though, it has consolidated itself and become an extremely interdependent body. Today its members depend more than ever on each other for survival and continuance. Because of this closeness, if one member doesn’t perform well it becomes a burden and liability for the others. Communism collapsed because it performed poorly and became drag on the rest of Civilization. Also, today’s closely knitted and highly demanding modern world requires a uniform, well performing system. Communism with all its foibles and inadequacies wasn’t up to the task. In contrast, Democracy, with its organization and flexibility, is more than up to the task, hence it been chosen by Civilization to take it into the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)