Pairing and Vagueness

Do philosophy and globalization have anything in common? Sometimes I pair unrelated subjects as a way to stimulating new thinking. Earlier in this blog I paired Hegel and thermodynamics and discovered some interesting things I would not have otherwise discovered. Here is what I discovered this time:

Vagueness is what they have in common. For instance, globalization can be a vague subject and philosophy deals with vague subject matter. If there wasn't any vagueness or ambiguity about the world, if its function was perfectly clear, there would be no need for philosophical inquiry to figure things out. Among the major subjects philosophy examines, as listed in "The Oxford Companion of Philosophy", are subjects related to human governance like economics, democracy and capitalism. What makes these subjects philosophy studies and globalization potentially vague is that they are broad descriptions about human activities and thus are prone to contradiction and various interpretations, the stuff of vagueness.

The connection between philosophy and globalization is furthered by the fact that globalization is imbued with those structures of human governance philosophy studies. Globalization is chiefly about economic integration, blended with capitalism and democracy. Because of that kinship I see globalization as a form of human governance. As illustrated by The Oxford Companion, philosophy employs economics, democracy, capitalism as tools to understand and explain the tendencies of our world, how people in their circumstances have come to organize and govern themselves. However, as shown by its absence in The Companion, globalization is not employed in that way, as a tool of philosophical inquire. Perhaps someday it will be because I found it a font of information about philosophy's major inquiry, the human enterprise. Subsequently, though, I found it as an entry in the latest edition of "Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy". And there, clearly, you can see the interpretive vagueness about globalization I speak of.

While on the subject, I would like say more about vagueness, this constant companion of philosophy. A question recently asked about it was, "Is vagueness an aspect of reality itself." I certainly think so. Some might think it exists because of ignorance or a lack of clarity. However, I think it is a manifestation of the contradictory, paradoxical nature of our world. It is a result of human diversity. I see it as a synthesized reality which acts as an ether of accommodation, a venue for diverse human interaction, a common ground. It is like... a facilitative mechanism. Humankind has cultivated it as a means of coexisting by abstraction. In the context of human governance, abstraction essentially are technique for containing and transcending the divisive, conflictive nature of humankind. One example is "all men are created equal" which certainly is vague and abstract. Abstractions are intended to be universal, hence their vagueness. Diplomacy, law and politics are examples of its application. I think one reason Democracy and English enjoy mass appeal throughout the world, albeit often tacit - and tacit is a form of vagueness, a sort of committal, noncommittal - is because they understand this reality and use it to their advantage. Vagueness gives them an ease and flexibility about them that makes them more accommodating than other systems. This is not to say that vagueness substitutes, displaces or is in lieu of the core realities involving human nature and its propensities. On the contrary. It works in concert with them. If vagueness had a job description I think it would be that of facilitator. With its emphases on economics, capitalism and democracy, I think globalization is spreading this mutually beneficial attitude around the world.

One more thing about vagueness. Because there is a lack of definition and clarity about it I liken vagueness to a creative device, one that provokes one to examine and think about various aspects of puzzling issues. It encourages a cognitive exercise that one would not otherwise enter into. In this process one is advanced epistemologically because one is mentally engaged and challenged to find a balance. This I think is one of the processes that has advanced and sophisticated humankind. Pragmatism and pluralism, America's main philosophies, have a vagueness about them. (That is why absolutists and fundamentalists have a disdain for them.) There is something utilitarian and relative about them like there is about vagueness. They are successful philosophies and globalization is promoting them around the world.

The End of History

Francis Fukuyama wrote "The End Of History" as a way to explain an extraordinary historical event, the collapse of Communism and the ascendancy of Democracy. He saw this event as being an end point in human governance because with it there now was only one alternative in human governance left in the world. Democracy had not only triumphed over Communism but it had also triumphed over all other forms of government known to humankind. Fukuyama said this event also represented the end of an ideological struggle, one to determined the course and nature human governance ought to take. With the triumph of Democracy this struggle was essential over. Fukuyama’s “End of History”, metaphorically, is the end of an aspect of History.

Profound developments in History have been accompanied by new, pioneering philosophies to help mediate and facilitate their impact on the world. The revolution in human governance that Fukuyama brought to our attention is on the whole as profound an event as the discovery of the New World. From that discovery new philosophical thinking emerged to coincide with it. Let me quote what Richard Tarans wrote on the subject in his book “The Passion of the Western Mind”: “The discovery of the New World by global explorers demanded a corresponding discovery of a new mental world in which old patterns of thinking, traditional prejudices, subjective distortions, verbal confusion and general intellectual blindness would be overcome by a new method of acquired knowledge”. I see Fukuyama in this light, as the instigator of a new philosophical thinking that corresponds with the revolution in human governance we have witnessed. Also, he has reinvigorated a debate started long ago by Enlightenment thinkers about the nature and course mutually beneficial government ought to take. As someone said, Fukuyama "opened up large and dramatic vistas that may not have been otherwise discernible".

Fukuyama’s idea of the end of History is problematic in that is had been misunderstood. He acknowledges as much. I know that when I first picked up his book I had difficulty grasping his argument. The End of History is somewhat a misleading title. Many interpreted it, understandably so, to mean that no more history will be made. That, as we know, is ridiculous because as long as humans are around and active, history will be made. History is a documentation of human activity. What Fukuyama meant, perhaps exaggeratedly, but I don’t think he could have gotten our attention any other way, was that the end of a specific history was over, like the end of a chapter.

In “The End of History” Francis Fukuyama says that the collapse of Communism and the parallel ascendancy of Democracy (liberal democracy) represents an “end point in mankind’s ideological evolution”. He based his argument on Hegel’s theory that History, History being that of mankind’s struggle with itself, would end when people would no longer have to fight for recognized and freedom. The ideological evolution Fukuyama refers to is basically about the historical philosophical battle humankind has waged to get recognition and freedom and keep it. After a history of intense empirical competition against other form of human governance such as monarchism, totalitarianism and authoritarianism, Democracy emerged the ideological winner. Though we may not have completely reached the end of history in the Hegelian sense, I think that with the ascendancy of Democracy humankind is well on its way because Democracy is, by definition, the bestower of recognition and freedom.

Ten years after Fukuyama wrote his historic treatise he revisited it with and article entitle “Second Thoughts”. He recognized that History would not end as long as science continues. Science is the chief sustainer of humankind. Humankind needs science to survive and continue. It affords the technology needed to survive and continue. History will be made as long as humankind makes science.