The other day I was thinking that I had not thought about Hegel for some time. Perhaps I had tired of this great philosopher who I regarded to be the greatest of them all. Then I came across an interesting article that offered a Hegelian explanation for George Bush. Then I thought, one can't avoid Hegel because we live in a Hegelian world.
The article I refer to was written by Scott McLemee, entitled "The Great Man Theory". Mclemee points out that Hegel had, in his book "Philosophy Of History", postulated a great man theory in which he describes specific men in history as “World-Historical Persons”. For instance, Hegel believes Julius Caesar and Napoleon were great men of history because not only did they make history but also they changed the world dramatically. Mclemee said that as he was reading Hegel's "The Phenomenology of Spirit" he began to wonder if Bush fitted Hegel's criteria as a world historical person. From what he read Mclemee concluded that GWB did fit GWFH's criteria.
To Hegel's way of thinking the thing that made men historically great is not just that they made history or changed it but that they were single-minded about it. They were not men of intellect or complex ideas, or men that nuanced. Their minds were not clutter with a lot of other ideas, like justice or the welfare of others. They were obsessed men who were focused like a dog with a bone, men that could not be distracted from their vision just like a dog can not be distracted from his bone. They were possessed. GWB is such a man, possessed by a crusade that believes the world should be only one way.
(I imagine Bush's management style to be like this: If things remain intransigent and immovable create a mess of it and let the chips fall where the may and generally they will fall in the right place. This is his Middle East Policy.)
I like the idea presented by McLemee. It sort of explains the unexplainable, why George Bush and his mediocrity exists in this day and age. I thought the American people were smarter and I couldn't believe that so many could have considered him at for president. Not in a million years. But since Bush was picked to be president, by a hair, I thought there must be something providential about his becoming president. Mclemee doesn't think his arrival on the world stage was providential but I do think he believes some convergence of history picked him for this time and place.
Perhaps Bush is a product of History. He became president in a sense accidentally. Historical circumstances picked him. (That can be the only explanation for his being.) History needed a single-minded person it could use and manipulate to break the historical impasse that has existed between the West and Islam. Modernity was making the situation worse between them. Islam was not adapting well or quickly enough to the modern world. The West in turn had to become more understanding of the islamic world. History needed a single minded person like Bush to do its bidding. The strategy he would use was not important, whether corrupt mismanaged or perverse, just as long as he some how upended the status quo and started Islam’s belated reform. Bush in his bubble, with his ‘gut feelings’ and hubris has fueled a revolution in the Islamic world, and its relations with the West, that is irreversible. He has done History’s bidding when no other person would have. History perversely used Napoleon and Hitler in the same way, to change the world when Reason alone would not do it.
Sunday, January 14, 2007
Friday, January 12, 2007
Individualism, the ROM and Happy New Year
This was going to be an essay about individualism but then I thought the subject was too self-glorifying and hedonistic. And people soon tire of the subject. Nevertheless, individualism is what makes the world go round and it is a philosophy we can't deny or avoid.
Then I thought I would write about a LA Times columnist who was going to wish the world Happy New Year in his column but then changed his mind. Instead he wrote, "Why bother" because " for a huge and growing number of people around the world, today isn't the start of a New Year". I will probably write on that later.
I then decided to go for a walk. I walked through Toronto's trendy Yorkville district, eying its many construction sites. I am fascinated by construction sites, especially the big wholes that are dug for the foundations of new buildings, of which there are a few in the works at the moment. Then I came upon the new extension to the Royal Ontario Museum, hence the ROM in my title.
I was overcome by what I saw when I stood across Bloor St. and looked at the ROM's new extension. It's overwhelming and fantastic. It is very impressive. It reminded my of a huge cruise liner moored in port, a liner that looked like no other because of its dramatic angles . As I was standing there taking it all in I moved a few steps and then looked at it again. I seemed to repeat this a few times; moving down the block a bit and then stopping to look again, like a camera. I mean, it's fantastic. It's great to have this in Toronto, a building designed by one of the leading architects in the world, Daniel Libeskind.
Some people don't like the postmodern design of the ROM's new extension because they think it is out of place and does not conform to the old building, which is of a 19th century design. Well, in many cases modern extensions to old buildings have been failures. That's because those extensions have been too timid and weak in design, so naturally they look awful. This extension is not weak but at the same time it does not overwhelm the old Victorian building. Instead, it juxtaposes the older building. I think it would have been silly and impossible to replicate the old building in this day an age as some have suggested. As I have said before, if you are going to build an extension to an older building there are no half measures and you can't be wimpy about it. You have to be radical to successfully blend with an older building since whatever is done will never match. And this building is radical and goes to the limit. Such a design also attracts significant attention and tourists.
As I was walking and looking at this fabulous extension I was thinking how lucky the merchants across the street from it are, to have this great view. And as I was walking I spotted someone taking pictures of it. I stopped to talk to him and ask his opinion of it. I though I could get from him some material for this essay I was planning. I asked him what he thought and he said he loved it. I told him how lucky I though the people across from it were and he told me that the architect, Libeskind, used to sit across from the site, perhaps in a cafe, to sketch his design for it. We both thought Toronto was very fortunate to have such a great building.
Now I will touch on the subject of individualism. Without the individual or individualism this great building would not be possible. The design was picked from a competition of several individual architects. And I think, like most people think, the best design was picked. Imagine such a building being designed by committee instead of an individual. Most likely it would have turned out to be lackluster like so many past extensions to old buildings have been, because most have been influenced by committee. Communist countries are noted for their ugly modern architecture because committees instead of individuals designed them. Communism is a system that didn't believe in individualism and that is one big reason why it collapsed. Communism didn't understand that the strength of any society first starts with the individual, it prime element.
On that note I am reminded of a quote: "For best results, cultivate individuals, not groups". Not only will we get the best governance and organization possible by cultivate individuals but also the best buildings.
Now on the topic of Happy New Year. Niall Ferguson is the author of the article I mentioned who decided not to wish everybody a Happy New Year. He thought it was too Anglo-centric a tradition to bother, that most of the world was not Anglo and thus did not participate in New Year's eve celebrations. What nonsense. By what one saw on TV New Year's eve most of the world has been Anglo-ized because most every major city in the world from Tokyo to Mexico City, plus most every culture, were ringing in the New Year as though it was also their custom. More on this topic later.
Then I thought I would write about a LA Times columnist who was going to wish the world Happy New Year in his column but then changed his mind. Instead he wrote, "Why bother" because " for a huge and growing number of people around the world, today isn't the start of a New Year". I will probably write on that later.
I then decided to go for a walk. I walked through Toronto's trendy Yorkville district, eying its many construction sites. I am fascinated by construction sites, especially the big wholes that are dug for the foundations of new buildings, of which there are a few in the works at the moment. Then I came upon the new extension to the Royal Ontario Museum, hence the ROM in my title.
I was overcome by what I saw when I stood across Bloor St. and looked at the ROM's new extension. It's overwhelming and fantastic. It is very impressive. It reminded my of a huge cruise liner moored in port, a liner that looked like no other because of its dramatic angles . As I was standing there taking it all in I moved a few steps and then looked at it again. I seemed to repeat this a few times; moving down the block a bit and then stopping to look again, like a camera. I mean, it's fantastic. It's great to have this in Toronto, a building designed by one of the leading architects in the world, Daniel Libeskind.
Some people don't like the postmodern design of the ROM's new extension because they think it is out of place and does not conform to the old building, which is of a 19th century design. Well, in many cases modern extensions to old buildings have been failures. That's because those extensions have been too timid and weak in design, so naturally they look awful. This extension is not weak but at the same time it does not overwhelm the old Victorian building. Instead, it juxtaposes the older building. I think it would have been silly and impossible to replicate the old building in this day an age as some have suggested. As I have said before, if you are going to build an extension to an older building there are no half measures and you can't be wimpy about it. You have to be radical to successfully blend with an older building since whatever is done will never match. And this building is radical and goes to the limit. Such a design also attracts significant attention and tourists.
As I was walking and looking at this fabulous extension I was thinking how lucky the merchants across the street from it are, to have this great view. And as I was walking I spotted someone taking pictures of it. I stopped to talk to him and ask his opinion of it. I though I could get from him some material for this essay I was planning. I asked him what he thought and he said he loved it. I told him how lucky I though the people across from it were and he told me that the architect, Libeskind, used to sit across from the site, perhaps in a cafe, to sketch his design for it. We both thought Toronto was very fortunate to have such a great building.
Now I will touch on the subject of individualism. Without the individual or individualism this great building would not be possible. The design was picked from a competition of several individual architects. And I think, like most people think, the best design was picked. Imagine such a building being designed by committee instead of an individual. Most likely it would have turned out to be lackluster like so many past extensions to old buildings have been, because most have been influenced by committee. Communist countries are noted for their ugly modern architecture because committees instead of individuals designed them. Communism is a system that didn't believe in individualism and that is one big reason why it collapsed. Communism didn't understand that the strength of any society first starts with the individual, it prime element.
On that note I am reminded of a quote: "For best results, cultivate individuals, not groups". Not only will we get the best governance and organization possible by cultivate individuals but also the best buildings.
Now on the topic of Happy New Year. Niall Ferguson is the author of the article I mentioned who decided not to wish everybody a Happy New Year. He thought it was too Anglo-centric a tradition to bother, that most of the world was not Anglo and thus did not participate in New Year's eve celebrations. What nonsense. By what one saw on TV New Year's eve most of the world has been Anglo-ized because most every major city in the world from Tokyo to Mexico City, plus most every culture, were ringing in the New Year as though it was also their custom. More on this topic later.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Invisible Hand
The other day I read a review of a book about Adam Smith. Smith is the Scotsman who in the 18th century introduced the world to the idea of "free market capitalism". He coined the phrase "invisible hand" to describe the unseen force he thought guided free market capitalism.
At the time of Adam Smith free market capitalism did not yet exist. But it was beginning to emerge, like democracy was beginning to emerge. It is believed that Smith invented the idea of capitalism, that his ideas instigated it. Really, though, capitalism invented itself, to reflect and address what was happening in human affairs. Nevertheless, Smith contributed to it in a big way. He was the one astute enough to name and understand it. Furthermore, by identifying and explaining what was transpiring in human affairs, he helped facilitate and expand it.
I imagine Smith standing in the middle of the 18th century, looking around and trying to figure out the phenomenon that was swirling around and consuming his world. This phenomenon was the Industrial Revolution, which was just developing and creating unparalleled social upheaval. It was mind-boggling. Smith believed that something inevitable and natural was behind this revolution, with its churning, laissez faire, entrepreneurial ways. It was this market anarchy and its money that compelled Smith to name it free market capitalism. However, he also realized that this free market capitalism was no random event but was due to an emerging new order. He also realized that it was this new order's very nature of production and distribution of goods that compelled the economic system of free market capitalism to develop. From Smith's stand point the Industrial Revolution and capitalism were mutually inseparable. Each begot and necessitated the other.
From the book review I also learned a little known fact about Smith's invisible hand. His idea grew out of natural philosophy, a philosophy that was gaining acceptance due to thinkers like Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon before him. These natural philosophers – scientists, linked the activities of humans to those of the natural world, believing that the laws and economics of nature also applied to humans because, as it seemed obvious, humans were also bound by the natural world. Bacon also thought that society could and should be organized and governed along the same principles as nature. This is probably where the idea of the 'survival of the fittest' came from, as an explanation for those humans that adapted well to the social upheaval of the Industrial Revolution and those that did not, similarly to what happens in nature. Perhaps also, Smith's free market principles were intended to reflect the 'free market' principles that occur in nature, with its ebbs, flows and fluctuations.
Having recognized that humankind is part of the natural world and influenced by it, Smith wondered if there was anything comparable to the force of gravity in the social sense. Was there a force like gravity that grounded humankind socially, like that which grounded the natural, physical world? That is when he came up with the idea of the invisible hand, perhaps for want of a better term. So, to Smith's way of thinking the invisible hand was social gravity, the thing that grounds us and establishes our ethical behavior.
The social gravity of the invisible hand that Smith had in mind is not quite what I had in mind. Where as I think of the invisible hand as the economic instrument that organizes society in accordance with nature’s economic imperatives, he thought of it as an instrument that would naturally balance society’s economic imbalances and right the wrongs brought about by the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution, with its laissez faire capitalism, brought about an economic upheaval never witnessed before. While some people got rich a lot of others got very poor and lived in terrible conditions. It was a revolution sparked by and centered on individualism and individual initiative. And while it allowed some people to advance themselves economically it left may others far behind, living in squalor. Some believed that the rich were exploiting the poor without much regard for their welfare. However, Smith thought that the invisible hand, by assisting individuals to pursue their own self-interests and become rich, would inadvertently help the poor to also advance themselves. Smith believed that the invisible hand would in time level the playing field.
I have another idea about the invisible hand, other than it just being the equalizer Smith believed it to be. It is also the guiding hand that has led humankind to an economic system that is capable of sustaining our future. It has also taught us that economics is humankind’s number one discipline, which without it being addressed first and foremost little else is possible. Apart from that, the free market, which the invisible hand has guided us to, is the only workable system that can address the ever-present conflict between human needs and the economic imperatives of the natural world. It is also the best system to afford us the new technologies we need to survive and continue. And as to evidence of its exceptionalism, free market capitalism is now the unchallenged economic system of the world. However, until recently there was another competing economic system, communism, which was rigid and centralized, not free or open. But communism is now debunked because of the invisible hand and the knowledge that inflexible economic markets do not have the sustainability necessary for the modern world.
At the time of Adam Smith free market capitalism did not yet exist. But it was beginning to emerge, like democracy was beginning to emerge. It is believed that Smith invented the idea of capitalism, that his ideas instigated it. Really, though, capitalism invented itself, to reflect and address what was happening in human affairs. Nevertheless, Smith contributed to it in a big way. He was the one astute enough to name and understand it. Furthermore, by identifying and explaining what was transpiring in human affairs, he helped facilitate and expand it.
I imagine Smith standing in the middle of the 18th century, looking around and trying to figure out the phenomenon that was swirling around and consuming his world. This phenomenon was the Industrial Revolution, which was just developing and creating unparalleled social upheaval. It was mind-boggling. Smith believed that something inevitable and natural was behind this revolution, with its churning, laissez faire, entrepreneurial ways. It was this market anarchy and its money that compelled Smith to name it free market capitalism. However, he also realized that this free market capitalism was no random event but was due to an emerging new order. He also realized that it was this new order's very nature of production and distribution of goods that compelled the economic system of free market capitalism to develop. From Smith's stand point the Industrial Revolution and capitalism were mutually inseparable. Each begot and necessitated the other.
From the book review I also learned a little known fact about Smith's invisible hand. His idea grew out of natural philosophy, a philosophy that was gaining acceptance due to thinkers like Isaac Newton and Francis Bacon before him. These natural philosophers – scientists, linked the activities of humans to those of the natural world, believing that the laws and economics of nature also applied to humans because, as it seemed obvious, humans were also bound by the natural world. Bacon also thought that society could and should be organized and governed along the same principles as nature. This is probably where the idea of the 'survival of the fittest' came from, as an explanation for those humans that adapted well to the social upheaval of the Industrial Revolution and those that did not, similarly to what happens in nature. Perhaps also, Smith's free market principles were intended to reflect the 'free market' principles that occur in nature, with its ebbs, flows and fluctuations.
Having recognized that humankind is part of the natural world and influenced by it, Smith wondered if there was anything comparable to the force of gravity in the social sense. Was there a force like gravity that grounded humankind socially, like that which grounded the natural, physical world? That is when he came up with the idea of the invisible hand, perhaps for want of a better term. So, to Smith's way of thinking the invisible hand was social gravity, the thing that grounds us and establishes our ethical behavior.
The social gravity of the invisible hand that Smith had in mind is not quite what I had in mind. Where as I think of the invisible hand as the economic instrument that organizes society in accordance with nature’s economic imperatives, he thought of it as an instrument that would naturally balance society’s economic imbalances and right the wrongs brought about by the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution, with its laissez faire capitalism, brought about an economic upheaval never witnessed before. While some people got rich a lot of others got very poor and lived in terrible conditions. It was a revolution sparked by and centered on individualism and individual initiative. And while it allowed some people to advance themselves economically it left may others far behind, living in squalor. Some believed that the rich were exploiting the poor without much regard for their welfare. However, Smith thought that the invisible hand, by assisting individuals to pursue their own self-interests and become rich, would inadvertently help the poor to also advance themselves. Smith believed that the invisible hand would in time level the playing field.
I have another idea about the invisible hand, other than it just being the equalizer Smith believed it to be. It is also the guiding hand that has led humankind to an economic system that is capable of sustaining our future. It has also taught us that economics is humankind’s number one discipline, which without it being addressed first and foremost little else is possible. Apart from that, the free market, which the invisible hand has guided us to, is the only workable system that can address the ever-present conflict between human needs and the economic imperatives of the natural world. It is also the best system to afford us the new technologies we need to survive and continue. And as to evidence of its exceptionalism, free market capitalism is now the unchallenged economic system of the world. However, until recently there was another competing economic system, communism, which was rigid and centralized, not free or open. But communism is now debunked because of the invisible hand and the knowledge that inflexible economic markets do not have the sustainability necessary for the modern world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)