When I first started thinking about the world I wondered if my ideas and conclusions about it were right. I needed to confirm them. Then I happened upon philosophy where I discovered thinkers who had similar ideas to mine. That’s one thing I like about philosophy. It confirms things.
One of the first ideas that popped into my head when I started contemplating our world is that it is full of contradiction. Not only that, we blindly and deliberately encourage contradiction. I noticed that we praise and promote one thing with great vigor and conviction and then proceed to do the opposite. For instance, we extol the virtues of democracy but then we turn around and promote with equal vigor and conviction an often-undemocratic institution like capitalism. Though these two systems manage to coexist with each other they often clash and cause friction. To my mind this contradictory relationship under scores a need for a measure of institutional conflict in our lives. We reside, then, in a polemic world. Not only do we need it but also as we have progressed this contradictory, polemic nature has increased. We revel in it. Hegel is the one who put me on the path of unraveling this mystery.
Hegel’s critical thinking basically took place in the field of contradiction when he spoke about change, conflict and the dialectic The dialectic is the process of contradictory ideas clashing and transforming each other. Change is the inevitable outcome of the dialectical process. Conflict is the inevitability of contradictory ideas engaging each other in the dialectic. Hegel is the thinker who confirmed my deeps feelings about the world being the product of contradictory elements.
Why did I focus on contradiction in the first place? Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I am an Aquarian, the most contradictory sign of the zodiac. Seriously, though, perhaps it has more to do with my being a creative person. Creative people have this intuitive understanding about contradiction and how contradictory items and opposites mingle with each other to create things. For instance, an architect can create a building space because he understands the relationship between the contradictory elements of length, height and depth. A writer creates interest and tension by bringing together contradictory emotions. An artist draws on the same principle to create a picture, in the same way Nature has draw on contradictory, binary opposites to create and sustain itself. In the contradiction, like in the dialectic, things become animated and alive. Perhaps the real reason I focused on contradiction is because I, like everybody else, live in it and am made of contradictory parts just like everything else is in the universe. It is at the heart of everything. The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclites confirmed this when he said, if you do away with contradiction you do away with reality.
The contradiction I am really interested in is that which relates to human governance. A “Young Hegelian”, Francis Fukuyama, who explained why Democracy triumphed over Communism, sparked this interest in me. What registered with me is his writing about Democracy having two components, capitalism and democracy, capitalism being its essential economic branch and democracy the political branch. (I use “Democracy” as one would use “Day” to describe a phenomenon made up of two separate parts of it, night and day.) Basically his argument boiled down to this, Communism collapsed because it wasn’t composed of two separate branches, branches that could have counterbalance and energized the other and the whole. Democracy won out because it took Nature’s course of incorporating two separate and contradictory aspects of itself. Hegel said that humankind needs conflict, and its reflection, to remain alive and awake. He could just as well have being talking about human governance. Communism certainly didn’t have the stimulating conflict of opposing and competing ideas that may have kept it alive and awake.
Ironically, it was a Russian philosopher who first took issue with the need for contradiction in human governance. This philosopher,Berdyaev, was tossed out of the Soviet Union by Lenin for his insight. As someone described it, he foresaw the inevitable dangers of attempting to build a society in accordance with a single theoretical principle. Of course, he was talking about Communism, which was based on a single minded, non-contradictory principle. He predicted that such a government would lead to a totalitarian regime. He was right.
Why do we need institutional polemics and the conflict/change it engenders? I will rely on something Kant said to answer that question. He said that humankind is inherently lazy and complacent. From personal experience I know what he means. So my answer is this: We need it because it’s agitating and motivating. The conflict and change polemics springs upon us creates new situations that challenges and keeps us active and busy. It forces us to think and seek new solutions. Without this polemic churning we would atrophy and not remain alive and awake.
Here is an interesting observation that somebody made: A sign of intelligence is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas while still functioning well. There is something salient in that. Our grappling with and balancing contradiction has helped us grown smarter and more capable.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Friday, July 01, 2005
The Collapse of Globalism
John Ralston Saul, author of “Voltaire’s Bastards”, thinks there is a wrong-headed assumption out there, amongst those who are running the world, that economics is the foundation of Civilization. He believes this assumption has damaged and perverted the world.
He expresses this view in his book “The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinventing of the World”. Notice that he uses the term ‘globalism’, not ‘globalization’. There is a difference. Globalization, and he acknowledges this, is something that has been occurring since the beginning of Civilization. That event is about the world growing smaller and more interdependent as a result of people and nations engaging each other in common pursuits, such as trade, travel and communications. It’s also due to the expansion of Civilization. Columbus’ discovery of the New World was an act of globalization. Globalism, though, is something else. Saul uses the -ism suffix to distinguish and portray this event as an ideology, like a religion. Globalization is a natural, evolutionary process. But globalism, as he sees it, is the manipulation of this process by zealots and ideological wonks who think they know best how to run and organize the world. This ideology is based on the idea that, you guessed it, economics is the foundation of Civilization. Advocates of this ideology have peddled it as a cure-all for what ails the world. They believe that the market forces of globalism are the answer to everything, as though it was the holy grail of human governance. However, Saul feels very strongly that the imposition of this ideology on the world has gravely injured it and is not the panacea it has been made out to be. He sees it as a failure and its collapse as a sign that the world might be coming to its senses in rejecting it.
I understand Saul’s peeve. If you have read any of his books and articles you may also understand where he is coming from. I wouldn’t quite call him a conspiratorial thinker but I get the impression that he thinks that we have been misguided by a number of influential philosophers and tacticians about what direction the world should take, as we have been misled about globalism. This thinking of his became apparent to me when I read his book Voltaire’s Bastards. From Voltaire’s play “Candide” comes the notion that we live in the best of all possible worlds and all is for the best, a belief expressed by Dr. Pangloss, Candide's teacher. This is how I see it: Saul believes this notion prevails and he faults it for making the world vulnerable to all kinds of misadventures in human governance, like globalism. He thinks this attitude has left the world with few guide lines about how it should proceed and conduct itself because it projects a laisser faire, anything goes attitude. He thinks that this worldview has given carte blanche to all kind of hair-brain ideas about how the world should be run. He thinks Pangloss’ worldview supplanted the more sensible Enlightenment worldview which believes that the world can be a better place. It beat out the Enlightenment because Pangloss’ worldview is more alluring, simpler to understand and easier to consume, like fast food is. Enlightenment ideals are sophisticated ones, requiring reflection and hard work to implement them. Had the Enlightenment philosophy been followed instead, the world would be a better place. However, Pangloss’ philosophy prevails and Saul believes this has left the door open to charlatans and snake oil sales men to ply their less than credible grand theories about how the world should be run. This is how the world got saddled with globalism. Saul thinks that things would have been much better if we had followed the Enlightenment vision of how things could be instead of Dr. Pangloss’ vision of how things are.
Saul see globalism as something like a business plan, hatched in some back room solely to profit from the world. Behind globalism is privatization and free market economics. He thinks the world has been dubbed into thinking it is the best thing for what ails it. It’s all about market reform and he sees this being done at the expense of democracy. In his book, “The Doubters Companion”, Saul lists a number of ideas and concepts that have been infused in us without our being aware. And people have accepted them as given, without challenging them. One concept is “corporatism”, an autocratic, fascist institution that he says has replaced democratically elected governments as the principle form of governance. He defines it as an institution that “has been for some time the only real threat to democracy”. Well, he sees globalism in the same light. They are synonymous. Globalism is corporatism on a worldwide scale.
In Voltaire’s Bastards there is a chapter entitled “The Hijacking of Capitalism”. I found this chapter ironic because it seems that Saul is playing both sides of the street. I would have expected him to be against capitalism, especially with his anti-globalism stance. But he isn’t, according to this chapter. However, he is incensed with modern day capitalists because they contradict themselves. It is quite apparent that Saul believes in the original meaning of things. And he believes in the original meaning of capitalism which espouses laisser faire, free market economics. In this chapter he takes capitalists to task for betraying this concept because today’s capitalists believe governments should intervene and bail them out when things go bad for them and capitalism. Modern day capitalists seem to want things both ways, Saul says. What a bunch of hypocrites! The irony is that Saul supports capitalism in it original form but he doesn’t support globalism which is a manifestation of capitalism’s original intentions. However, it is quite possible he dislike globalism because he thinks it is a bastardization and a distortion of capitalism?
As for Saul’s belief that economics is not the foundation of Civilization, I think he is very wrong. Why, without this discipline being dealt with first nothing much else is possible. It is husbandry of humankind, and Civilization. It is the only disciple that furnishes us with the essentials to survive and continue. It is the only endeavour that puts food on the table, cloths on our backs and a roof over our heads. The institutions of corporatism and globalism which Saul despises have evolved to insure that the economic foundation of Civilization is maintained and that the economic imperatives of the modern world are met. These institutions may have despicable features about them, and I for one know, but as Dr. Pangloss' wisdom suggests, they are the best possible institutions for humankind's most essential task, considering the idiosyncratic characteristics and circumstances of humankind. And if the world is reinventing itself, as Saul suggests in the title of his book, it is reinventing itself in its own image. That means more globalism. Perhaps, though, this time it will have a friendlier face and a more enlightened disposition. Globalism is here to stay. It is the byproduct of the inevitability of globalization. It is the facilitative economic arm of globalization.
Intellectuals generally have a disdain for economics. For them it seems to be an imposition perpetrated by an elite bunch who think they understand the true nature of the world. They feel it gets in the way of the finer things of life. However, little do they realize that it is what affords the finer things of life, and life itself. Some intellectuals seem to think economics is irrelevant. Fortunately they are not running the world. However, intellectuals are essential people too because they reminding us that there is more to life besides economics. As the saying goes, man does not live by bread alone.
He expresses this view in his book “The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinventing of the World”. Notice that he uses the term ‘globalism’, not ‘globalization’. There is a difference. Globalization, and he acknowledges this, is something that has been occurring since the beginning of Civilization. That event is about the world growing smaller and more interdependent as a result of people and nations engaging each other in common pursuits, such as trade, travel and communications. It’s also due to the expansion of Civilization. Columbus’ discovery of the New World was an act of globalization. Globalism, though, is something else. Saul uses the -ism suffix to distinguish and portray this event as an ideology, like a religion. Globalization is a natural, evolutionary process. But globalism, as he sees it, is the manipulation of this process by zealots and ideological wonks who think they know best how to run and organize the world. This ideology is based on the idea that, you guessed it, economics is the foundation of Civilization. Advocates of this ideology have peddled it as a cure-all for what ails the world. They believe that the market forces of globalism are the answer to everything, as though it was the holy grail of human governance. However, Saul feels very strongly that the imposition of this ideology on the world has gravely injured it and is not the panacea it has been made out to be. He sees it as a failure and its collapse as a sign that the world might be coming to its senses in rejecting it.
I understand Saul’s peeve. If you have read any of his books and articles you may also understand where he is coming from. I wouldn’t quite call him a conspiratorial thinker but I get the impression that he thinks that we have been misguided by a number of influential philosophers and tacticians about what direction the world should take, as we have been misled about globalism. This thinking of his became apparent to me when I read his book Voltaire’s Bastards. From Voltaire’s play “Candide” comes the notion that we live in the best of all possible worlds and all is for the best, a belief expressed by Dr. Pangloss, Candide's teacher. This is how I see it: Saul believes this notion prevails and he faults it for making the world vulnerable to all kinds of misadventures in human governance, like globalism. He thinks this attitude has left the world with few guide lines about how it should proceed and conduct itself because it projects a laisser faire, anything goes attitude. He thinks that this worldview has given carte blanche to all kind of hair-brain ideas about how the world should be run. He thinks Pangloss’ worldview supplanted the more sensible Enlightenment worldview which believes that the world can be a better place. It beat out the Enlightenment because Pangloss’ worldview is more alluring, simpler to understand and easier to consume, like fast food is. Enlightenment ideals are sophisticated ones, requiring reflection and hard work to implement them. Had the Enlightenment philosophy been followed instead, the world would be a better place. However, Pangloss’ philosophy prevails and Saul believes this has left the door open to charlatans and snake oil sales men to ply their less than credible grand theories about how the world should be run. This is how the world got saddled with globalism. Saul thinks that things would have been much better if we had followed the Enlightenment vision of how things could be instead of Dr. Pangloss’ vision of how things are.
Saul see globalism as something like a business plan, hatched in some back room solely to profit from the world. Behind globalism is privatization and free market economics. He thinks the world has been dubbed into thinking it is the best thing for what ails it. It’s all about market reform and he sees this being done at the expense of democracy. In his book, “The Doubters Companion”, Saul lists a number of ideas and concepts that have been infused in us without our being aware. And people have accepted them as given, without challenging them. One concept is “corporatism”, an autocratic, fascist institution that he says has replaced democratically elected governments as the principle form of governance. He defines it as an institution that “has been for some time the only real threat to democracy”. Well, he sees globalism in the same light. They are synonymous. Globalism is corporatism on a worldwide scale.
In Voltaire’s Bastards there is a chapter entitled “The Hijacking of Capitalism”. I found this chapter ironic because it seems that Saul is playing both sides of the street. I would have expected him to be against capitalism, especially with his anti-globalism stance. But he isn’t, according to this chapter. However, he is incensed with modern day capitalists because they contradict themselves. It is quite apparent that Saul believes in the original meaning of things. And he believes in the original meaning of capitalism which espouses laisser faire, free market economics. In this chapter he takes capitalists to task for betraying this concept because today’s capitalists believe governments should intervene and bail them out when things go bad for them and capitalism. Modern day capitalists seem to want things both ways, Saul says. What a bunch of hypocrites! The irony is that Saul supports capitalism in it original form but he doesn’t support globalism which is a manifestation of capitalism’s original intentions. However, it is quite possible he dislike globalism because he thinks it is a bastardization and a distortion of capitalism?
As for Saul’s belief that economics is not the foundation of Civilization, I think he is very wrong. Why, without this discipline being dealt with first nothing much else is possible. It is husbandry of humankind, and Civilization. It is the only disciple that furnishes us with the essentials to survive and continue. It is the only endeavour that puts food on the table, cloths on our backs and a roof over our heads. The institutions of corporatism and globalism which Saul despises have evolved to insure that the economic foundation of Civilization is maintained and that the economic imperatives of the modern world are met. These institutions may have despicable features about them, and I for one know, but as Dr. Pangloss' wisdom suggests, they are the best possible institutions for humankind's most essential task, considering the idiosyncratic characteristics and circumstances of humankind. And if the world is reinventing itself, as Saul suggests in the title of his book, it is reinventing itself in its own image. That means more globalism. Perhaps, though, this time it will have a friendlier face and a more enlightened disposition. Globalism is here to stay. It is the byproduct of the inevitability of globalization. It is the facilitative economic arm of globalization.
Intellectuals generally have a disdain for economics. For them it seems to be an imposition perpetrated by an elite bunch who think they understand the true nature of the world. They feel it gets in the way of the finer things of life. However, little do they realize that it is what affords the finer things of life, and life itself. Some intellectuals seem to think economics is irrelevant. Fortunately they are not running the world. However, intellectuals are essential people too because they reminding us that there is more to life besides economics. As the saying goes, man does not live by bread alone.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
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.
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.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
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.
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.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Globalization
Occasionally I come across passages from books that I want to expand on. One such passage comes from the book “Nonzero: The Logic Of Human Destiny” by Robert Wright. It reads, “Globalization, it seems to me, has been in the cards not just since the invention of the telegraph or the steamship, or even the written word or the wheel, but since the invention of life.”
Wright has the right idea about globalization. Generally, though, globalization is misunderstood. Many people interpret it as a contrivance of multinational corporations and big money interests. They see it as a corporate business plan rather than the natural process it is. With it corporations don’t want to take over the role of government as some think. True, big business has profited from it but only because it has presented itself as a great opportunity. The interesting thing is by taking advantage of globalization multinational corporations have made the world more globalized and homogeneous. Multinational corporations have brought together, on mass, people of many cultures that otherwise would not have come together. It’s as though corporation were invented to further and facilitated the process of globalizing and uniting the world.
In his book Wright employs game theory - the logic of “zero sum” and “non-zero-sum”, to tell us what he thinks of globalization. He believes globalization is a nonzero sum enterprise because in the long run there are no losers among the nations of the world. As he sees it, globalization is moving the world in a logical direction, to a point where “relationships among nations are growing more nonzero year by year.” Through globalization the world is becoming a more balanced place. As he suggests, this logical direction has been occurring since the invention of life. I’d like to add that the invention of life was also the beginning of Civilization. As I see it, the intensity of globalization has grown in proportion to the intensity and growth of Civilization.
According to the Wright globalization is a natural process. I agree. One thing that got it started was humanity’s inquisitive nature about what lies beyond. Christopher Columbus’ exploration for a new route to China and his discovery of the New World were acts of globalization. But his travails were also driven by an economic need. Besides being curious and adventurous Columbus also wanted to find a new trade route to China since the traditional land route had become dangerous because of obstructionists in the region. Europe had come to depend on that trade route for resources to sustain its growth and its civilization. Now it was in jeopardy and an alternative had to be found.
Civilization and globalization are related. Their relationship has been a chicken-and-egg one. As Civilization has expanded so has globalization and visa versa. They have fed off each other. Globalization implies expansion and the search for resources elsewhere to sustain local and growing populations. Venice, for instance, was born of such an outward expansion and search by the city of Istanbul. Istanbul was in need of salt which it lacked. The area around Venice was replete with salt. As Istanbul mined the salt Venice grew. In turn, Venice looked outward to expand and fine new markets for its achievements, like those in banking and manufacturing. The technology Civilization has developed, like those mentioned by Wright - the printed word, the wheel, steamships, telegraph, all have contributed to globalization. They have made the world smaller through communications and travel. A hidden reason for Europe’s desire to discover the New World is that it needed its resources. Ships for exploration the world and defending nations were built of wood. Europe’s stock of trees for lumber was dwindling. Spain was financially strapped and almost bankrupt. In the New World it discover gold which replenished in coffers. The New World also became an additional source of food and life sustain technology.
Apart from discovering much needed new sources of material to sustain itself, the Old World also used globalization to ease its growing pains. The closely knitted populations of the Old World were constantly squabbling and in the throws of wars. It needed space to get away from itself. The New World offered that space. Globalization alleviated the tensions that could have completely destroyed the Old World. The New World developed from the Old World’s experience and know-how. In turn, the New World reciprocated by being the Old World’s savior and coming to its aid in two world wars.
Developed nations like Canada and the United States have benefited greatly from globalization. Such nations, and Britain is also a good example of this, tend to grow complacent and uncompetetive in their maturity. It seems to be a natural occurrence, one that is unhealthy and corrosive to a nation’s sustaining powers. Globalization helps to turn this around and keep developed nations vital and healthy. For example, the Canadian and U.S. economies, which had become sluggish and entropic, were revitalized by competition from abroad, especially in the automotive industry. Globalization certainly helped Canada to shape up, giving it the will power to deal with the mounting debt and atrophic ways that were making it unproductive and uncompetetive in the early nineties. Globalization has brought new immigrants to these countries, helping to revitalize their economies with the infusion of “new blood”. Also, globalization has had a way of encouraging accountability and transparency throughout the world, practices that are essential for sustaining nations in the long run.
Globalization has brought the world something else that is beneficial, standardization. With a shrinking world it makes sense that interactive countries standardized there business practices so as to evade confusion and inefficiencies. Imagine banks around the world used different systems. It would be a calamity. Air travel would be dangerous if a standard system didn’t exist to dealt with planes and airports. Because we have become so interdependent it would be foolish not to have a universal monitoring system to check for such things as the quality of food and the spreading of contagious deceases .
Globalization, it seems to me, has been the salvation of humankind. Today it has united the world by engaging it in the central task of economic life. Thanks to it, we have overcome potentially destructive intransigencies such as isolation and protectionism, which in the past have lead to wars. The Cold War between Communism and Democracy would not have been cold, nor would it have ended, if it wasn’t for the restraining and containing powers of globalization. Why, without globalization and its liberating ways the expansion of Democracy would not have been possible.
In conclusion, globalization is about many things. Today, foremostly, its about economic interaction among nations. However, it is also about spreading equality throughout the world, through governance and technology. Uniting the world to make it a safer and more secure place has been one of its goals. It is the logical destiny Wright wrote about. Ironically, though, globalization has had to use perverse and coercive means like corporatism and consumerism to achieve this end.
Wright has the right idea about globalization. Generally, though, globalization is misunderstood. Many people interpret it as a contrivance of multinational corporations and big money interests. They see it as a corporate business plan rather than the natural process it is. With it corporations don’t want to take over the role of government as some think. True, big business has profited from it but only because it has presented itself as a great opportunity. The interesting thing is by taking advantage of globalization multinational corporations have made the world more globalized and homogeneous. Multinational corporations have brought together, on mass, people of many cultures that otherwise would not have come together. It’s as though corporation were invented to further and facilitated the process of globalizing and uniting the world.
In his book Wright employs game theory - the logic of “zero sum” and “non-zero-sum”, to tell us what he thinks of globalization. He believes globalization is a nonzero sum enterprise because in the long run there are no losers among the nations of the world. As he sees it, globalization is moving the world in a logical direction, to a point where “relationships among nations are growing more nonzero year by year.” Through globalization the world is becoming a more balanced place. As he suggests, this logical direction has been occurring since the invention of life. I’d like to add that the invention of life was also the beginning of Civilization. As I see it, the intensity of globalization has grown in proportion to the intensity and growth of Civilization.
According to the Wright globalization is a natural process. I agree. One thing that got it started was humanity’s inquisitive nature about what lies beyond. Christopher Columbus’ exploration for a new route to China and his discovery of the New World were acts of globalization. But his travails were also driven by an economic need. Besides being curious and adventurous Columbus also wanted to find a new trade route to China since the traditional land route had become dangerous because of obstructionists in the region. Europe had come to depend on that trade route for resources to sustain its growth and its civilization. Now it was in jeopardy and an alternative had to be found.
Civilization and globalization are related. Their relationship has been a chicken-and-egg one. As Civilization has expanded so has globalization and visa versa. They have fed off each other. Globalization implies expansion and the search for resources elsewhere to sustain local and growing populations. Venice, for instance, was born of such an outward expansion and search by the city of Istanbul. Istanbul was in need of salt which it lacked. The area around Venice was replete with salt. As Istanbul mined the salt Venice grew. In turn, Venice looked outward to expand and fine new markets for its achievements, like those in banking and manufacturing. The technology Civilization has developed, like those mentioned by Wright - the printed word, the wheel, steamships, telegraph, all have contributed to globalization. They have made the world smaller through communications and travel. A hidden reason for Europe’s desire to discover the New World is that it needed its resources. Ships for exploration the world and defending nations were built of wood. Europe’s stock of trees for lumber was dwindling. Spain was financially strapped and almost bankrupt. In the New World it discover gold which replenished in coffers. The New World also became an additional source of food and life sustain technology.
Apart from discovering much needed new sources of material to sustain itself, the Old World also used globalization to ease its growing pains. The closely knitted populations of the Old World were constantly squabbling and in the throws of wars. It needed space to get away from itself. The New World offered that space. Globalization alleviated the tensions that could have completely destroyed the Old World. The New World developed from the Old World’s experience and know-how. In turn, the New World reciprocated by being the Old World’s savior and coming to its aid in two world wars.
Developed nations like Canada and the United States have benefited greatly from globalization. Such nations, and Britain is also a good example of this, tend to grow complacent and uncompetetive in their maturity. It seems to be a natural occurrence, one that is unhealthy and corrosive to a nation’s sustaining powers. Globalization helps to turn this around and keep developed nations vital and healthy. For example, the Canadian and U.S. economies, which had become sluggish and entropic, were revitalized by competition from abroad, especially in the automotive industry. Globalization certainly helped Canada to shape up, giving it the will power to deal with the mounting debt and atrophic ways that were making it unproductive and uncompetetive in the early nineties. Globalization has brought new immigrants to these countries, helping to revitalize their economies with the infusion of “new blood”. Also, globalization has had a way of encouraging accountability and transparency throughout the world, practices that are essential for sustaining nations in the long run.
Globalization has brought the world something else that is beneficial, standardization. With a shrinking world it makes sense that interactive countries standardized there business practices so as to evade confusion and inefficiencies. Imagine banks around the world used different systems. It would be a calamity. Air travel would be dangerous if a standard system didn’t exist to dealt with planes and airports. Because we have become so interdependent it would be foolish not to have a universal monitoring system to check for such things as the quality of food and the spreading of contagious deceases .
Globalization, it seems to me, has been the salvation of humankind. Today it has united the world by engaging it in the central task of economic life. Thanks to it, we have overcome potentially destructive intransigencies such as isolation and protectionism, which in the past have lead to wars. The Cold War between Communism and Democracy would not have been cold, nor would it have ended, if it wasn’t for the restraining and containing powers of globalization. Why, without globalization and its liberating ways the expansion of Democracy would not have been possible.
In conclusion, globalization is about many things. Today, foremostly, its about economic interaction among nations. However, it is also about spreading equality throughout the world, through governance and technology. Uniting the world to make it a safer and more secure place has been one of its goals. It is the logical destiny Wright wrote about. Ironically, though, globalization has had to use perverse and coercive means like corporatism and consumerism to achieve this end.
Sunday, May 01, 2005
Technology and Thermodynamics
Here’s an interesting bit of information. “Our entire technology is based on the principles of thermodynamics.” There is something fundamentally imperative about it. To understand it you have to understand our incessant dependence on technology and the negative effects of thermodynamics on it. We are bound and at the mercy of those principles.
Our entire world is technologically based, from the farms that grow our food to the purification plants that clean our drinking water to the energy we consume and the medicines that keep us healthy. We couldn’t communicate with each other or travel or have office buildings or television or governing systems if it wasn’t for technology. And if we didn’t guard our technology against the ravages of thermodynamics we wouldn’t have any of it. So we’ve had to take protective measures to maintain our technology from this persistent predator.
The real serious business of thermodynamics lies in its second law, the so-called law of entropy. It states that inevitably everything declines or falls into disrepair. That means that the technologies, techniques and systems we rely on to survive and continue sooner or later ware out and collapse. That means that if we want to survive and continue we must renew, repair or replace our technologies constantly, like the replacing of batteries.
Perhaps some of you are wondering what thermodynamics has to do with technology and systems when it specifically deals with the the subject of energy. Well, Einstein taught us that everything is made of energy and that it is interchangeable with matter. Technology is matter. Therefore matter is also energy and thus is equally susceptible to the ‘law of entropy’ which says that its decay is also inevitable. We can’t see it but matter is energy moving in such a way that it creates solid objects. What we also can’t see is that some of that energy which we see as solid objects is slowly dissipating, making the object older and weaker. If we want to control and prevent that happening we can either repair the object/matter or we can replace it. And that leads us to thermodynamics first law which states that energy can neither be destroyed or created but shifted from one state to another.
There is something comforting about the first law because it says%2
Our entire world is technologically based, from the farms that grow our food to the purification plants that clean our drinking water to the energy we consume and the medicines that keep us healthy. We couldn’t communicate with each other or travel or have office buildings or television or governing systems if it wasn’t for technology. And if we didn’t guard our technology against the ravages of thermodynamics we wouldn’t have any of it. So we’ve had to take protective measures to maintain our technology from this persistent predator.
The real serious business of thermodynamics lies in its second law, the so-called law of entropy. It states that inevitably everything declines or falls into disrepair. That means that the technologies, techniques and systems we rely on to survive and continue sooner or later ware out and collapse. That means that if we want to survive and continue we must renew, repair or replace our technologies constantly, like the replacing of batteries.
Perhaps some of you are wondering what thermodynamics has to do with technology and systems when it specifically deals with the the subject of energy. Well, Einstein taught us that everything is made of energy and that it is interchangeable with matter. Technology is matter. Therefore matter is also energy and thus is equally susceptible to the ‘law of entropy’ which says that its decay is also inevitable. We can’t see it but matter is energy moving in such a way that it creates solid objects. What we also can’t see is that some of that energy which we see as solid objects is slowly dissipating, making the object older and weaker. If we want to control and prevent that happening we can either repair the object/matter or we can replace it. And that leads us to thermodynamics first law which states that energy can neither be destroyed or created but shifted from one state to another.
There is something comforting about the first law because it says%2
Thursday, April 21, 2005
The West's Triumph
I had a letter published in The Economist magazine a few years ago. It was in response to what I thought was a negative article about the the West. This is how it went: I am bothered by your assessment that the West’s triumph might not endure in light of the astonishing ascent of Japan and its neighbors. On the contrary. Even if Asian economies overtake those of the West, the West will still have triumphed. The context and principles on which Asian economies are based have been devised and developed in the West.
That same year, 1999, The Economist had an article commemorating the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. That event marked the end of the Cold War and the triumph of the West and Democracy over Communism. This left Democracy the sole form of government in the world, an extraordinary outcome The Economist acknowledged.
However, I also was bothered by that article because it implied another failure with the West. It believed that the West, which espouses universality, hadn’t invented a new form of government to include those who have found it impossible to embrace Democracy. It felt that the West could have devised a gentler, more broadly based form of human governance. My feeling was that it wasn’t the West’s fault that there were those who had problems with Democracy. They would have to change and adapt to Democracy not the other way around.
By believing that a new form of government should have emerged, it’s obvious that The Economist didn’t subscribe to Francis Fukuyama’s argument that the triumph of Democracy marked an “end point” in human governance. He posited this idea in his book “The End of History. He couldn’t imagine any alternative to it since humankind already had tried every other form. Fukuyama made a pretty good case as to why Democracy could very well be the end point, because it essentially satisfied all the basic needs and aspirations of humankind. Here was the system, Fukuyama said, humankind had been striving for, a governance that was both universal in nature and mutually beneficial. In his view Democracy was the epitome in human governance. One couldn’t do better. Perhaps there were other alternatives, but not for this world.
The way The Economist made it sound, the West is in decline because it is being economically eclipsed by the East and because it hadn’t developed any new methods in human governance. If that’s true, which I don’t believe, one thing is certain, the West is leaving a lasting legacy that the rest of the world will benefit from. It is leaving a legacy like past civilizations have. The Greeks left the notion of democracy; the Romans, our legal system; the Arabs, mathematics and the means to quantify things; the Britons, a constitution and the work ethic. The great thing the West has done for the world is to bring together the best aspects of human ingenuity and molded them into a single coherent workable, humanistic force. The modern West improved on past contributions and has created the political and economic systems that sustains us today. The greatest legacy the West has pasted onto the rest of the world is one of general security and egalitarianism. Apart from inventing Democracy, the West invented the notions of progress, something I notice the rest of the world has not shunned but found appealing and irresistible
The West is not declining. Instead the rest of the world is rising to it. The world is leveling out. The West knew it had something unique in Democracy and has encouraged the rest of the world to partake in it. The rest of the world has heeded the West’s advice and is slowly becoming to resemble it and do as well or better than it. The Economist should celebrate this, not see it as a death knell for the West. What the West truly discovered is the holy grail of human government and now the rest of the world - China, India, etc. - are slowly moving towards it.
If the West has failed it’s because it has wrongly assumed that those who have never participated in Democracy would readily and naturally accept it. Nations that are full fledge democracies have taken centuries to become so. The Economist has not considered this and generally has misplaced its criticism of the West and its stewardship. Instead it should think of ways the West can improve on the selling and implementation of
That same year, 1999, The Economist had an article commemorating the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. That event marked the end of the Cold War and the triumph of the West and Democracy over Communism. This left Democracy the sole form of government in the world, an extraordinary outcome The Economist acknowledged.
However, I also was bothered by that article because it implied another failure with the West. It believed that the West, which espouses universality, hadn’t invented a new form of government to include those who have found it impossible to embrace Democracy. It felt that the West could have devised a gentler, more broadly based form of human governance. My feeling was that it wasn’t the West’s fault that there were those who had problems with Democracy. They would have to change and adapt to Democracy not the other way around.
By believing that a new form of government should have emerged, it’s obvious that The Economist didn’t subscribe to Francis Fukuyama’s argument that the triumph of Democracy marked an “end point” in human governance. He posited this idea in his book “The End of History. He couldn’t imagine any alternative to it since humankind already had tried every other form. Fukuyama made a pretty good case as to why Democracy could very well be the end point, because it essentially satisfied all the basic needs and aspirations of humankind. Here was the system, Fukuyama said, humankind had been striving for, a governance that was both universal in nature and mutually beneficial. In his view Democracy was the epitome in human governance. One couldn’t do better. Perhaps there were other alternatives, but not for this world.
The way The Economist made it sound, the West is in decline because it is being economically eclipsed by the East and because it hadn’t developed any new methods in human governance. If that’s true, which I don’t believe, one thing is certain, the West is leaving a lasting legacy that the rest of the world will benefit from. It is leaving a legacy like past civilizations have. The Greeks left the notion of democracy; the Romans, our legal system; the Arabs, mathematics and the means to quantify things; the Britons, a constitution and the work ethic. The great thing the West has done for the world is to bring together the best aspects of human ingenuity and molded them into a single coherent workable, humanistic force. The modern West improved on past contributions and has created the political and economic systems that sustains us today. The greatest legacy the West has pasted onto the rest of the world is one of general security and egalitarianism. Apart from inventing Democracy, the West invented the notions of progress, something I notice the rest of the world has not shunned but found appealing and irresistible
The West is not declining. Instead the rest of the world is rising to it. The world is leveling out. The West knew it had something unique in Democracy and has encouraged the rest of the world to partake in it. The rest of the world has heeded the West’s advice and is slowly becoming to resemble it and do as well or better than it. The Economist should celebrate this, not see it as a death knell for the West. What the West truly discovered is the holy grail of human government and now the rest of the world - China, India, etc. - are slowly moving towards it.
If the West has failed it’s because it has wrongly assumed that those who have never participated in Democracy would readily and naturally accept it. Nations that are full fledge democracies have taken centuries to become so. The Economist has not considered this and generally has misplaced its criticism of the West and its stewardship. Instead it should think of ways the West can improve on the selling and implementation of
Friday, April 15, 2005
Adults asking childish questions
Isaiah Berlin said that philosophers are adults who persist in asking childish questions.
So does that mean that adults who asks childish questions are philosophers? Not necessarily. For one to be a philosopher childish questions should be followed by reflection and possible explanations. For example, Albert Einstein is considered a philosopher because he answered his own childish questions. One of the biggest childish questions he asked was, “Did God have any choice in how he created the world?” All his life Einstein developed thought experiments and theories that showed reasonably well that God did not have a choice if the world was to be the way it is.
I’ve asked childish questions. In my attempt to answer them I haven’t necessarily become a philosopher but I did turn to philosophy to answer them. What philosophy offers to an inquisitive person like myself is a toolkit of ideas and methods for understanding and explaining. One thing I know is that many of the childish questions asked don’t have simple answers. Sometimes they have contradictory answers. Philosophy helps put the contradictions into perspective and sort out the confusion that can arise from them. In the process philosophy helps develop a lucidity in one’s thinking and an ease of thought that never existed before. I have often said, if there was no contradiction in the world there would be no need for philosophy to help figure it out.
One of my big childish question was, “Why is the world the way it is?” I didn’t ask it in the wonderment of its physical nature as Einstein did, but in the wonderment of its social evolution. I was thinking about its political and economic development. I wanted to know why humankind organizes and governs itself the way it does. I saw a singular, standard system of human organization and governance emerging. I wanted to know why.
I say my question was a childish one because in a sense it was like asking why the sky is blue. The standard answer to that question usually is, “Because! that’s the way it is.” However, with me, as is often the case with children, that was followed by, “But why?”
I can’t think of a childish question Berlin may have asked. I know that he was deeply against the idea of determinism, the philosophy that believes that there is a particular social determining force in the world. He saw that historically this philosophy often led to human subjugation. For instance, both Hitler and Stalin believed in social determinism which they formulated into totalitarianism and the subjugation of their people. The people who didn’t fit into their deterministic schemes were often imprisoned or completely eliminated. Perhaps the childish question Berlin might have asked is, Why has humankind been so brutal and insensitive to itself?
So does that mean that adults who asks childish questions are philosophers? Not necessarily. For one to be a philosopher childish questions should be followed by reflection and possible explanations. For example, Albert Einstein is considered a philosopher because he answered his own childish questions. One of the biggest childish questions he asked was, “Did God have any choice in how he created the world?” All his life Einstein developed thought experiments and theories that showed reasonably well that God did not have a choice if the world was to be the way it is.
I’ve asked childish questions. In my attempt to answer them I haven’t necessarily become a philosopher but I did turn to philosophy to answer them. What philosophy offers to an inquisitive person like myself is a toolkit of ideas and methods for understanding and explaining. One thing I know is that many of the childish questions asked don’t have simple answers. Sometimes they have contradictory answers. Philosophy helps put the contradictions into perspective and sort out the confusion that can arise from them. In the process philosophy helps develop a lucidity in one’s thinking and an ease of thought that never existed before. I have often said, if there was no contradiction in the world there would be no need for philosophy to help figure it out.
One of my big childish question was, “Why is the world the way it is?” I didn’t ask it in the wonderment of its physical nature as Einstein did, but in the wonderment of its social evolution. I was thinking about its political and economic development. I wanted to know why humankind organizes and governs itself the way it does. I saw a singular, standard system of human organization and governance emerging. I wanted to know why.
I say my question was a childish one because in a sense it was like asking why the sky is blue. The standard answer to that question usually is, “Because! that’s the way it is.” However, with me, as is often the case with children, that was followed by, “But why?”
I can’t think of a childish question Berlin may have asked. I know that he was deeply against the idea of determinism, the philosophy that believes that there is a particular social determining force in the world. He saw that historically this philosophy often led to human subjugation. For instance, both Hitler and Stalin believed in social determinism which they formulated into totalitarianism and the subjugation of their people. The people who didn’t fit into their deterministic schemes were often imprisoned or completely eliminated. Perhaps the childish question Berlin might have asked is, Why has humankind been so brutal and insensitive to itself?
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Why Hegel Matters
A friend said that she likes it when I write about topical issues, issues that are current and relevant to our times. She also said that she would like to learn more about Hegel from me. So I thought , maybe I can combine the two. I will write an essay on why Hegel is relevant and matters.
I got the idea for my essay from an article I read, “Why Ayn Rand Matters” by Elaine Sternberg. (It seems to be a trend, writing about why things that matter.) As I mention this I am thinking, what a extraordinary connection I have just made because Rand and Hegel are two thinkers whose ideas are diametrically opposed. This connection was inadvertent but no accident knowing my inclination for cultivating opposites. From this opposition I think I can show why Hegel matters.
Rand’s philosophy focuses on the individual. Hegel’s focuses on the collective of humanity. Imagine the conflict that can exists between the two, the rights of the individual butting heads with the rights of the group. This has been a point of friction in Democracy, whether the individual or the group comes first and which prevails. The answer is simple. Both do because both are determined to exist. Thus a compromise must be reached. Hegel’s philosophy allows for compromise whereas Rand’s doesn't. His philosophy makes a social interactive world possible. Rand’s philosophy is suited more for a frontier society of rugged individuals . Hegel’s philosophy acknowledges the interest of both parties. His philosophy realizes that both are necessary to have a vibrant social order. His philosophy bears the conduit for human interaction.
Hegel matters not because we follow his philosophy but because we live it naturally. He captured the metaphysical nature of human existence like no other philosopher. Generally he was right. For instance, he knew that the driving force of History is change. He also correctly pointed out that History is driven by the human struggle for freedom and recognition. And as the years have gone by we have seen how the world has changed as people have succeeded in that struggle. He was right in thinking that the world was uniting, driven by the common needs and aspirations of humanity. One of the most profound things he said is that humankind requires conflict, and its reflection, to remain alive and awake. He didn’t mean violent conflict. He meant the conflict of competing ideas as shown in the dialectic process. He was right about this because all systems of governments that didn’t engage in this type of conflict have collapsed. Remember Communism? It collapsed because it didn’t allow or engage in the conflict of ideas that could have prevented it from growing stale and atrophying. In comparison Democracy has flourished because in revels in the conflict of ideas.
Hegel matters because he had the right idea. No matter how much people deny that his metaphysical world exists, they reside in it. It’s unavoidable. I realized this after reading an article in an American journal entitled “Philosophical Enemies of a Free Society”. In it Hegel was portrayed as the destroyers of the free society principles America was founded on, the ideas of individualism and liberty that people like Rand believed in. It even suggested he was a communist because he extolled socialist ideas. Well, socialism exists in America. The fact that people rely on each other for their wellbeing is socialism. The existence of community based amenities like public transit, water treatment plants, hospitals and democratic institutions is socialism. Ironically, the idea of liberty is also Hegelian because it wouldn’t exist without the human struggle for it. Liberty has never been offered on a platter. Why, without really knowing it Rand was a Hegelian because she wrote about that very struggle and the conflict of ideas. Deep down we are all Hegelians.
Perhaps Hegel was wrong about his “end of history” theory. But Francis Fukuyama didn’t think so in his book “The End Of History”. Hegel said that History would end when the struggle for human freedom and recognition was complete. That struggle is not complete. But Fukuyama believed that with the collapse of Communism, the last great obstacle to universal freedom and recognition, that struggle was virtually over. Democracy and its liberating ways had triumphed. Fukuyama believed that though the struggle wasn’t over, Democracy would eventually bring this struggle to its conclusion. Hegel’s theory may yet come to fruition because with the triumph of Democracy the mechanisms to achieve his “end of history” are now in place.
.
I got the idea for my essay from an article I read, “Why Ayn Rand Matters” by Elaine Sternberg. (It seems to be a trend, writing about why things that matter.) As I mention this I am thinking, what a extraordinary connection I have just made because Rand and Hegel are two thinkers whose ideas are diametrically opposed. This connection was inadvertent but no accident knowing my inclination for cultivating opposites. From this opposition I think I can show why Hegel matters.
Rand’s philosophy focuses on the individual. Hegel’s focuses on the collective of humanity. Imagine the conflict that can exists between the two, the rights of the individual butting heads with the rights of the group. This has been a point of friction in Democracy, whether the individual or the group comes first and which prevails. The answer is simple. Both do because both are determined to exist. Thus a compromise must be reached. Hegel’s philosophy allows for compromise whereas Rand’s doesn't. His philosophy makes a social interactive world possible. Rand’s philosophy is suited more for a frontier society of rugged individuals . Hegel’s philosophy acknowledges the interest of both parties. His philosophy realizes that both are necessary to have a vibrant social order. His philosophy bears the conduit for human interaction.
Hegel matters not because we follow his philosophy but because we live it naturally. He captured the metaphysical nature of human existence like no other philosopher. Generally he was right. For instance, he knew that the driving force of History is change. He also correctly pointed out that History is driven by the human struggle for freedom and recognition. And as the years have gone by we have seen how the world has changed as people have succeeded in that struggle. He was right in thinking that the world was uniting, driven by the common needs and aspirations of humanity. One of the most profound things he said is that humankind requires conflict, and its reflection, to remain alive and awake. He didn’t mean violent conflict. He meant the conflict of competing ideas as shown in the dialectic process. He was right about this because all systems of governments that didn’t engage in this type of conflict have collapsed. Remember Communism? It collapsed because it didn’t allow or engage in the conflict of ideas that could have prevented it from growing stale and atrophying. In comparison Democracy has flourished because in revels in the conflict of ideas.
Hegel matters because he had the right idea. No matter how much people deny that his metaphysical world exists, they reside in it. It’s unavoidable. I realized this after reading an article in an American journal entitled “Philosophical Enemies of a Free Society”. In it Hegel was portrayed as the destroyers of the free society principles America was founded on, the ideas of individualism and liberty that people like Rand believed in. It even suggested he was a communist because he extolled socialist ideas. Well, socialism exists in America. The fact that people rely on each other for their wellbeing is socialism. The existence of community based amenities like public transit, water treatment plants, hospitals and democratic institutions is socialism. Ironically, the idea of liberty is also Hegelian because it wouldn’t exist without the human struggle for it. Liberty has never been offered on a platter. Why, without really knowing it Rand was a Hegelian because she wrote about that very struggle and the conflict of ideas. Deep down we are all Hegelians.
Perhaps Hegel was wrong about his “end of history” theory. But Francis Fukuyama didn’t think so in his book “The End Of History”. Hegel said that History would end when the struggle for human freedom and recognition was complete. That struggle is not complete. But Fukuyama believed that with the collapse of Communism, the last great obstacle to universal freedom and recognition, that struggle was virtually over. Democracy and its liberating ways had triumphed. Fukuyama believed that though the struggle wasn’t over, Democracy would eventually bring this struggle to its conclusion. Hegel’s theory may yet come to fruition because with the triumph of Democracy the mechanisms to achieve his “end of history” are now in place.
.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Hegel & thermodynamics
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.
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 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.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design has been in the news lately because of Creationists. The concept has been used by them to argue against Darwinism and evolution. Creationists say that there is definition and sophistication about the world that evolution alone cannot explain, because it is based on randomness and chaos. They ask, how could the erratic nature of evolution produce the order and complexity we see today? They believe that since there is such order all around us, from the length of a day to the orbits of the planets, that there must been a specific plan and a Creator behind it. Hence Creationists' religious belief in Intelligent Design.
The other day I read an article that said religious belief initially had nothing to do with the concept of Intelligent Design. Creationists have latched on to the idea to forward their own agenda, the article explained. Scientists noticed and commented on an intelligent design in nature long before religious types got a hold of it. They saw that nature had this ability to organize itself into something intelligent from pure chaos. James Gleick, in his book "Chaos", points to the ability of nature to create beautifully organized things out of its chaos without the suggestion that there is a Creator or God with a specific plan behind it.
I believe there is something inherent in nature that creates order out of chaos. The example I use to illustrate this is an experiment used in elementary science. You take a piece of paper and sprinkle iron filings on it. One sees a clump of iron filings on the paper, helter skelter. Next you rub a magnet underneath the paper and as you are watching a symmetrical design emerges. This is how the universe and the world developed, through similar magnetic forces that have worked on stuff flying around chaotically, bringing it together and organizing it.
Everything starts off like the "Wild Wild West" I like to say. First there is a chaotic, wild situation and them it gravitates to an orderly situation. The universe started off like the Wild Wild West. Civilization started of as the Wild Wild West. Democracy started that way. One thing more immediate that started off this way is the internet. Originally in started with no rules or specific order. Its first practitioners wanted it that way, free to find its own level. Part of the reason for this is that no one really knew what it was going to end up to be. Also, the first users of this fledging enterprise didn't wanted any one group imposing their own agenda on it. However, as the internet grew it found order as it expanded and adapted to change. The internet found its intelligent design by just being and out of the necessity to survive and continue.
On a primary level the Creationists are right, as scientists have pointed out, that there is an intelligent force organizing nature and humankind. We are all made of that intelligent stuff called DNA. However, on its own DNA is not very smart, only potentially. It has to engage external forces like the environment, nurturing and change to become something intelligible. Nothing is intelligent from the beginning. It took the long drawn out efforts of nature and time to create the intelligence we see today. It didn't happen with the wave of a wand, as Creationists tend to see it.
.
The other day I read an article that said religious belief initially had nothing to do with the concept of Intelligent Design. Creationists have latched on to the idea to forward their own agenda, the article explained. Scientists noticed and commented on an intelligent design in nature long before religious types got a hold of it. They saw that nature had this ability to organize itself into something intelligent from pure chaos. James Gleick, in his book "Chaos", points to the ability of nature to create beautifully organized things out of its chaos without the suggestion that there is a Creator or God with a specific plan behind it.
I believe there is something inherent in nature that creates order out of chaos. The example I use to illustrate this is an experiment used in elementary science. You take a piece of paper and sprinkle iron filings on it. One sees a clump of iron filings on the paper, helter skelter. Next you rub a magnet underneath the paper and as you are watching a symmetrical design emerges. This is how the universe and the world developed, through similar magnetic forces that have worked on stuff flying around chaotically, bringing it together and organizing it.
Everything starts off like the "Wild Wild West" I like to say. First there is a chaotic, wild situation and them it gravitates to an orderly situation. The universe started off like the Wild Wild West. Civilization started of as the Wild Wild West. Democracy started that way. One thing more immediate that started off this way is the internet. Originally in started with no rules or specific order. Its first practitioners wanted it that way, free to find its own level. Part of the reason for this is that no one really knew what it was going to end up to be. Also, the first users of this fledging enterprise didn't wanted any one group imposing their own agenda on it. However, as the internet grew it found order as it expanded and adapted to change. The internet found its intelligent design by just being and out of the necessity to survive and continue.
On a primary level the Creationists are right, as scientists have pointed out, that there is an intelligent force organizing nature and humankind. We are all made of that intelligent stuff called DNA. However, on its own DNA is not very smart, only potentially. It has to engage external forces like the environment, nurturing and change to become something intelligible. Nothing is intelligent from the beginning. It took the long drawn out efforts of nature and time to create the intelligence we see today. It didn't happen with the wave of a wand, as Creationists tend to see it.
.
Thursday, February 24, 2005
All politics is local
There is something to the axiom "all politics is local".
I discovered how true that axiom is through my essays. My essays talk in broad terms about the political landscape of the world. However, most people think more locally, in terms of what is happening in their lives. They are more concerned about how things affect their world, not the larger world. One reader wrote that though my holistic thoughts about the world make sense she really didn't care because it was all she could do to keep body and soul together without being bogged down with world affairs. And that is how it is for most of us, just making it through the day. One thing I discovered is that I elicit more interest from readers if I touch on issues that directly affects them - things they can immediately identify with.
To understand some of my grand ideas about the world readers often put them into a context that relates to them. They put it into the context of how they see things and what affects them personally. I wrote an essay on the coexistence of democracy and capitalism and said I believe their togetherness means that neither can survive without the other. I thought I was pretty non-ideological with my argument. However, people often read things with preconceptions and project them onto what they are reading. For instance, I mentioned the word 'capitalism' and some readers immediately saw red and think of greed because that is how they are programed. Initially I am thrown off guard by such views but I understand where they're coming from and I also know that whatever I say will not change minds. Also, from that kind of response I feel a bit inadequate because I feel there is something I haven't been communicating because people have interpreted me wrong, as being too rosy about the world, which isn't true.
The next two paragraphs are a response to a reader who I believe thinks I have put too rosy a spin on things. He puts his concerns in the context of his locality, America. He feels that the America he knows and hopes for is fading away, due to the mean spirited politics that have enveloped it recently. I didn't think I was going to make him feel any better but I wanted to clarify some thing about what he may have interpreted. I wanted to show him I am less political and ideological than I think he thought I was.
This is what I wrote in response:
I am going to say what first comes to mind after reading your letter. I am sure you've heard it before: We live in the best possible world. However, in saying that I am not being an apologist. Overall, I see humanity as "red in tooth and claw" . Though that redness has been tempered and modified over the centuries, it nevertheless keeps popping up. Greed is one of those inherent traits that keeps popping and will never be completely eradicated. Humankind in always a work in progress. It will never be completed or perfected. It will always have faults and imperfections that need putting down and taming. And if there is a meaning to life, I think it is about keeping vigil and managing the beast. I think that on the whole and under the circumstances humankind is doing the best it can. However, that doesn't mean we can't do better or that we shouldn't try harder. We still require a lot of work and it happens incrementally - two steps forward, one step back . Part of the problem is that humankind is always shifting and never staying still. There is always something new, new variables, new situations, new people. The message, as the message about greed, often has to be repeated and relearned.
I've wondered why I have a positive view of the world while some other don't. (It's not so much that I am positive but pragmatic- dangerous notion in some circles.) I believe it has to do with things like circumstance and the combination of nurture/nature. If I had been born under different circumstances, had different parents or my mother had a different attitude when she was carrying me I may have seen the world differently. I see how chancy it can be as to who we become when I look at my sister who is rather negative about humankind, as was my father.
Perhaps I will not win any arguments or convert anybody with what I say. However, that's not really my point. It's more like an exercise. I am comfortable in what I believe and my main objective is to make my argument clear so a least people can understand and agree or disagree with it. I cherish views like yours because they keep me grounded and from straying into a "Pollyanna" world.
I discovered how true that axiom is through my essays. My essays talk in broad terms about the political landscape of the world. However, most people think more locally, in terms of what is happening in their lives. They are more concerned about how things affect their world, not the larger world. One reader wrote that though my holistic thoughts about the world make sense she really didn't care because it was all she could do to keep body and soul together without being bogged down with world affairs. And that is how it is for most of us, just making it through the day. One thing I discovered is that I elicit more interest from readers if I touch on issues that directly affects them - things they can immediately identify with.
To understand some of my grand ideas about the world readers often put them into a context that relates to them. They put it into the context of how they see things and what affects them personally. I wrote an essay on the coexistence of democracy and capitalism and said I believe their togetherness means that neither can survive without the other. I thought I was pretty non-ideological with my argument. However, people often read things with preconceptions and project them onto what they are reading. For instance, I mentioned the word 'capitalism' and some readers immediately saw red and think of greed because that is how they are programed. Initially I am thrown off guard by such views but I understand where they're coming from and I also know that whatever I say will not change minds. Also, from that kind of response I feel a bit inadequate because I feel there is something I haven't been communicating because people have interpreted me wrong, as being too rosy about the world, which isn't true.
The next two paragraphs are a response to a reader who I believe thinks I have put too rosy a spin on things. He puts his concerns in the context of his locality, America. He feels that the America he knows and hopes for is fading away, due to the mean spirited politics that have enveloped it recently. I didn't think I was going to make him feel any better but I wanted to clarify some thing about what he may have interpreted. I wanted to show him I am less political and ideological than I think he thought I was.
This is what I wrote in response:
I am going to say what first comes to mind after reading your letter. I am sure you've heard it before: We live in the best possible world. However, in saying that I am not being an apologist. Overall, I see humanity as "red in tooth and claw" . Though that redness has been tempered and modified over the centuries, it nevertheless keeps popping up. Greed is one of those inherent traits that keeps popping and will never be completely eradicated. Humankind in always a work in progress. It will never be completed or perfected. It will always have faults and imperfections that need putting down and taming. And if there is a meaning to life, I think it is about keeping vigil and managing the beast. I think that on the whole and under the circumstances humankind is doing the best it can. However, that doesn't mean we can't do better or that we shouldn't try harder. We still require a lot of work and it happens incrementally - two steps forward, one step back . Part of the problem is that humankind is always shifting and never staying still. There is always something new, new variables, new situations, new people. The message, as the message about greed, often has to be repeated and relearned.
I've wondered why I have a positive view of the world while some other don't. (It's not so much that I am positive but pragmatic- dangerous notion in some circles.) I believe it has to do with things like circumstance and the combination of nurture/nature. If I had been born under different circumstances, had different parents or my mother had a different attitude when she was carrying me I may have seen the world differently. I see how chancy it can be as to who we become when I look at my sister who is rather negative about humankind, as was my father.
Perhaps I will not win any arguments or convert anybody with what I say. However, that's not really my point. It's more like an exercise. I am comfortable in what I believe and my main objective is to make my argument clear so a least people can understand and agree or disagree with it. I cherish views like yours because they keep me grounded and from straying into a "Pollyanna" world.
Friday, February 18, 2005
In Defence of the Corporation
Recently I saw a documentary called “The Corporation”. It was, as you can imagine, about corporations and their business practices. The Corporation was portrayed negatively. I, however, see this institution in a more positive light.
My interest in the Corporation began when I asked myself the question why do corporations exist? Generally the response to this question is a negative one: to exploit people; for the benefit of a few. However, I unconsciously asked the question rhetorically and thus had something in mind. What I had it in mine was that one of its purposes is to advance Democracy. When I suggested this idea to others they laughed or gave me a dirty look.
The notion that the Corporation promotes Democracy admittedly seems far fetched. Nevertheless, I think it’s true. But before I get into that, let me point out something that I think we all agree on, that the modern world wouldn’t be possible without the Corporation. If this economic engine didn’t exist the material needs of the world couldn't be met. Smaller enterprises like traditional family businesses wouldn’t be able to cultivate or harness the resources needed to support a big modern civilization. Only big business can build and maintain the infrastructure we need to survive and continue, those in communication, transportation, energy, health and in food production and its distribution. Also, smaller enterprises couldn’t raise the vast amounts of capital required to finance essential services like railroads, hydroelectric dams, oil refineries, airports and harbors. Another thing, without this institution we wouldn’t have the managerial skills, which it invented, to run and maintain this complex world we live in.
Only big business or corporations could have developed, produced and distributed the technologies we’ve needed to survive and continue. Oh yes, individuals may be the ones who invented them but it’s the corporations that have the resources to develop and market them so that we can all benefit from them. And in that there is a form of democracy because corporations have made products and technologies available to all, not discriminating. Another often overlooked fact is that many of the technologies corporations have produced have also advanced democracy. Take, for example, television and newspapers, telephones and the internet. Those technologies have developed our communication skills and in turn our democratic skills. Even the car, one of the Corporation’s greatest and most ubiquitous developments, has contributed to democracy. Cars give us mobility. Mobility is a form of freedom and choice, rights that are synonymous with democracy.
Television was made possible by the Corporation. I would say it has been the most influential technology in promoting democracy. A prime example of this influence is the civil rights movement in the United States in the fifties. That movement wouldn’t have had much of a chance if it wasn’t for TV and the mass audience it created. TV provided the platform to make it an issue of consequences. It made and changed public opinion. Without this mass media, the denial of civil rights, in a land that professes to be just and democratic, may still be unresolved. TV has had a similar influence throughout the world in educating and changing public awareness on other critical social issues such as universal suffrage and human rights.
The Corporation is the chief agent of capitalism. As such it has help create and steward an ownership society. Ownership, whether it be in real estate or in stocks and bonds, is an integral part of a well oiled Democracy. Even one’s labor, which corporations can’t function without, is considered private property. As Arthur Schlesinger said (referred to in an earlier essay), private ownership is the backbone of Democracy because “it provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom. Even though it has been inadvertent, The Corporation has helped build and reinforce that base.
My interest in the Corporation began when I asked myself the question why do corporations exist? Generally the response to this question is a negative one: to exploit people; for the benefit of a few. However, I unconsciously asked the question rhetorically and thus had something in mind. What I had it in mine was that one of its purposes is to advance Democracy. When I suggested this idea to others they laughed or gave me a dirty look.
The notion that the Corporation promotes Democracy admittedly seems far fetched. Nevertheless, I think it’s true. But before I get into that, let me point out something that I think we all agree on, that the modern world wouldn’t be possible without the Corporation. If this economic engine didn’t exist the material needs of the world couldn't be met. Smaller enterprises like traditional family businesses wouldn’t be able to cultivate or harness the resources needed to support a big modern civilization. Only big business can build and maintain the infrastructure we need to survive and continue, those in communication, transportation, energy, health and in food production and its distribution. Also, smaller enterprises couldn’t raise the vast amounts of capital required to finance essential services like railroads, hydroelectric dams, oil refineries, airports and harbors. Another thing, without this institution we wouldn’t have the managerial skills, which it invented, to run and maintain this complex world we live in.
Only big business or corporations could have developed, produced and distributed the technologies we’ve needed to survive and continue. Oh yes, individuals may be the ones who invented them but it’s the corporations that have the resources to develop and market them so that we can all benefit from them. And in that there is a form of democracy because corporations have made products and technologies available to all, not discriminating. Another often overlooked fact is that many of the technologies corporations have produced have also advanced democracy. Take, for example, television and newspapers, telephones and the internet. Those technologies have developed our communication skills and in turn our democratic skills. Even the car, one of the Corporation’s greatest and most ubiquitous developments, has contributed to democracy. Cars give us mobility. Mobility is a form of freedom and choice, rights that are synonymous with democracy.
Television was made possible by the Corporation. I would say it has been the most influential technology in promoting democracy. A prime example of this influence is the civil rights movement in the United States in the fifties. That movement wouldn’t have had much of a chance if it wasn’t for TV and the mass audience it created. TV provided the platform to make it an issue of consequences. It made and changed public opinion. Without this mass media, the denial of civil rights, in a land that professes to be just and democratic, may still be unresolved. TV has had a similar influence throughout the world in educating and changing public awareness on other critical social issues such as universal suffrage and human rights.
The Corporation is the chief agent of capitalism. As such it has help create and steward an ownership society. Ownership, whether it be in real estate or in stocks and bonds, is an integral part of a well oiled Democracy. Even one’s labor, which corporations can’t function without, is considered private property. As Arthur Schlesinger said (referred to in an earlier essay), private ownership is the backbone of Democracy because “it provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom. Even though it has been inadvertent, The Corporation has helped build and reinforce that base.
Monday, February 14, 2005
Another thought about Democracy
I am very interested in Democracy and how it works. So I was quite interested in reading what two well known academics, Cornel West and Natan Sharansky, had to say about it.
Cornel West, a Princeton professor, is the author of "Democracy Matters" and Sharansky, an Israeli politician and former Soviet dissident, is the author of "The Case For Democracy". Sharansky's book has been adopted by the Bush White House as a template for establishing Democracy in places where it doesn't exist, like in Iraq and other Middle East countries . As a reviewer put it, West "touts dialogue as route to democracy". Sharanshy's theme is " 'the town square test': if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of imprisonment or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society." There is something simplistic and naive about what both authors think. However, that's how Democracy is generally portrayed, in wistful, jingoistic terms. I exaggerate. Yet that's how Democracy is seen, as one or two dimensional when really its multi-multidimensional.
Both men seem to be preaching to the choir. Their audiences pretty much understand what they are talking about. And that's the thing about Democracy, only those that have done it really understand and appreciate it. It's an esoteric enterprise, very convoluted and complex. It require a lot of things happening at once - some undesirable. It is something that is in our blood. For those of us who live it, it's natural, like breathing. Catch phrases and platitudes like those the two author used are very heart warming for those who have experienced Democracy. But in practice they wont help start Democracy where it hasn't existed, or keep it. Dialogue alone will not ignite democracy, nor will free speech in the town square.
To be fair, though, West was talking more about how to maintain and preserve democracy in a Democracy. Dialogue is certainly one way of doing it, freely debating issues and openly questioning motives of those in power, without being harassed. He was driven to say what he said by something he deeply feels, and rightly so, that there are people in power who are trying to stifle and cut off debate. Though dialogue is an extremely important cornerstone of Democracy, I am sure West understands that dialogue itself is not enough. It also requires strong arm tactics to achieve it as he can attest to. For instance, as an African-American West knows tactics like affirmative action have been necessary to gain democracy. On paper Democracy looks pretty neat but in reality it's quite gut wrenching and contradictory.
The contradictory, gut wrenching part is perhaps why many don't want anything to do with Democracy. It requires a lot of work and social upheaval. It requires a foundation. Sharansky's town square, free speech template is essentially based on a foundation he hasn't acknowledged. He has had the luxury of living this foundation in Israel, whereas other haven't. For his town square test to happen successfully there have to be in place a number of back-up systems. Not only does there have to be a constitution that flatly states and supports ones right to free speech but a legal system to back it up if, as inevitably will happen, someone denies that right. Also, the recognition of individual liberty and freedom usually precede and accompany that right. These things take time to cultivate. My point is this, that it is over simplistic to say that dialogue and passing the town square test is Democracy. Voting itself is no guaranty of Democracy. Nor are those other two axioms on their own.
If the president of the United States relies on a simplistic axiom like Sharansky's to advance Democracy, I don't think the cause is being served well. It requires stronger factors, factors which have taken western Democracies generations to cultivate, things like universal suffrage, polyphony and just the simple tacit understanding of what it is to be democratic. Ironically, Democracy has advanced most through the pursuit of self-interest and property rights. If such avenues had been encouraged from the start in Haiti and other places where the world has tried for decades to establish Democracy, it would now be on a roll. If West's dialogue and Sharansky's free speech were dovetailed with those other things I mentioned, then their axioms would really be something to crow about.
I had this crazy notion that someday there might be a S.W.A.T teem to establish Democracy.
Cornel West, a Princeton professor, is the author of "Democracy Matters" and Sharansky, an Israeli politician and former Soviet dissident, is the author of "The Case For Democracy". Sharansky's book has been adopted by the Bush White House as a template for establishing Democracy in places where it doesn't exist, like in Iraq and other Middle East countries . As a reviewer put it, West "touts dialogue as route to democracy". Sharanshy's theme is " 'the town square test': if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of imprisonment or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society." There is something simplistic and naive about what both authors think. However, that's how Democracy is generally portrayed, in wistful, jingoistic terms. I exaggerate. Yet that's how Democracy is seen, as one or two dimensional when really its multi-multidimensional.
Both men seem to be preaching to the choir. Their audiences pretty much understand what they are talking about. And that's the thing about Democracy, only those that have done it really understand and appreciate it. It's an esoteric enterprise, very convoluted and complex. It require a lot of things happening at once - some undesirable. It is something that is in our blood. For those of us who live it, it's natural, like breathing. Catch phrases and platitudes like those the two author used are very heart warming for those who have experienced Democracy. But in practice they wont help start Democracy where it hasn't existed, or keep it. Dialogue alone will not ignite democracy, nor will free speech in the town square.
To be fair, though, West was talking more about how to maintain and preserve democracy in a Democracy. Dialogue is certainly one way of doing it, freely debating issues and openly questioning motives of those in power, without being harassed. He was driven to say what he said by something he deeply feels, and rightly so, that there are people in power who are trying to stifle and cut off debate. Though dialogue is an extremely important cornerstone of Democracy, I am sure West understands that dialogue itself is not enough. It also requires strong arm tactics to achieve it as he can attest to. For instance, as an African-American West knows tactics like affirmative action have been necessary to gain democracy. On paper Democracy looks pretty neat but in reality it's quite gut wrenching and contradictory.
The contradictory, gut wrenching part is perhaps why many don't want anything to do with Democracy. It requires a lot of work and social upheaval. It requires a foundation. Sharansky's town square, free speech template is essentially based on a foundation he hasn't acknowledged. He has had the luxury of living this foundation in Israel, whereas other haven't. For his town square test to happen successfully there have to be in place a number of back-up systems. Not only does there have to be a constitution that flatly states and supports ones right to free speech but a legal system to back it up if, as inevitably will happen, someone denies that right. Also, the recognition of individual liberty and freedom usually precede and accompany that right. These things take time to cultivate. My point is this, that it is over simplistic to say that dialogue and passing the town square test is Democracy. Voting itself is no guaranty of Democracy. Nor are those other two axioms on their own.
If the president of the United States relies on a simplistic axiom like Sharansky's to advance Democracy, I don't think the cause is being served well. It requires stronger factors, factors which have taken western Democracies generations to cultivate, things like universal suffrage, polyphony and just the simple tacit understanding of what it is to be democratic. Ironically, Democracy has advanced most through the pursuit of self-interest and property rights. If such avenues had been encouraged from the start in Haiti and other places where the world has tried for decades to establish Democracy, it would now be on a roll. If West's dialogue and Sharansky's free speech were dovetailed with those other things I mentioned, then their axioms would really be something to crow about.
I had this crazy notion that someday there might be a S.W.A.T teem to establish Democracy.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Develop through perverse means
I have this idea that we develop through perverse means.
The idea popped into my head as I was contemplating the contradictory nature of society. By contradictory I mean we seem to espouse one thing and do another. For instance, we espouse Democracy but simultaneously we encourage undemocratic institutions like Capitalism to exist. Basically what I am saying is like a reverse psychology, that we behave in an opposite manner to what we believe in order to achieve what we believe.
The Buddha is the only one I know who commented on this type of behavior. He didn’t couch the idea in the same way but said something similar. What he said is something like this, symbolically of course: One generally has to leave one’s house by the front door and reenter by the back to appreciate what’s inside. What he meant by that is that we generally learn things indirectly, like going from A to B via C and D instead of taking the direct route. Another way of explaining it is that we have to lose something before we can appreciate it. One theory I have as to why its like this is because we learn more convincingly through perverse, backward means than through, normal, straight forward means.
Learning from mistakes and mishaps is perverse. One analogy I’ve used to support this idea is about a child who burns itself on a stove element after being told not to touch it. Ironically the child learns more from that experience of burning itself than the from the sensible parent telling it not to do so.
This is also perverse: “The world needs problems because they make us better”. Essentially what that statement is saying is that we inadvertently improve ourselves through negative means. For example, we have made ourselves better because of wars, community strife, environmental pollution and economic upheavals. Problems test and challenge us. That statement reinforces what I believe, that we learn more convincingly about how we ought to conduct ourselves from negative events than we do from positive events. Things like Aids, SARS and terrorism really get our attention, more so than things that don’t give us strife. Problems provoke and compel us to rethink things, seek solutions and understanding. In the process, because we are pushed and motivated, we become more intelligent and sophisticated.
That statement was made by an economist, Julian Simon. In respected to problems, he was thinking in terms of resources. At the time he said it the world was having problems with shortages and rising prices of commodities like oil and copper. Those problems triggered a search for alternatives and stepped-up conservation. Society was jarred by those problems and forced to think anew and act differently. He realized that in going through the procedure of finding alternatives and implementing conservation, society as a whole was improving itself because it was gaining knowledge and new techniques. These gains manifested themselves into other areas of society, also sharpening our skills in how we organize and govern ourselves. Though its hard to measure, problem solving has had an incremental effect on us.
Kant said that humans are inherently lazy. I know that from my own experience. Isn’t it perverse that we need problems to challenge us so not to be lazy? The great economist Adam Smith showed that our own self-interest must come first if we are to take care of the interests of others. Now, that’s perverse.
The idea popped into my head as I was contemplating the contradictory nature of society. By contradictory I mean we seem to espouse one thing and do another. For instance, we espouse Democracy but simultaneously we encourage undemocratic institutions like Capitalism to exist. Basically what I am saying is like a reverse psychology, that we behave in an opposite manner to what we believe in order to achieve what we believe.
The Buddha is the only one I know who commented on this type of behavior. He didn’t couch the idea in the same way but said something similar. What he said is something like this, symbolically of course: One generally has to leave one’s house by the front door and reenter by the back to appreciate what’s inside. What he meant by that is that we generally learn things indirectly, like going from A to B via C and D instead of taking the direct route. Another way of explaining it is that we have to lose something before we can appreciate it. One theory I have as to why its like this is because we learn more convincingly through perverse, backward means than through, normal, straight forward means.
Learning from mistakes and mishaps is perverse. One analogy I’ve used to support this idea is about a child who burns itself on a stove element after being told not to touch it. Ironically the child learns more from that experience of burning itself than the from the sensible parent telling it not to do so.
This is also perverse: “The world needs problems because they make us better”. Essentially what that statement is saying is that we inadvertently improve ourselves through negative means. For example, we have made ourselves better because of wars, community strife, environmental pollution and economic upheavals. Problems test and challenge us. That statement reinforces what I believe, that we learn more convincingly about how we ought to conduct ourselves from negative events than we do from positive events. Things like Aids, SARS and terrorism really get our attention, more so than things that don’t give us strife. Problems provoke and compel us to rethink things, seek solutions and understanding. In the process, because we are pushed and motivated, we become more intelligent and sophisticated.
That statement was made by an economist, Julian Simon. In respected to problems, he was thinking in terms of resources. At the time he said it the world was having problems with shortages and rising prices of commodities like oil and copper. Those problems triggered a search for alternatives and stepped-up conservation. Society was jarred by those problems and forced to think anew and act differently. He realized that in going through the procedure of finding alternatives and implementing conservation, society as a whole was improving itself because it was gaining knowledge and new techniques. These gains manifested themselves into other areas of society, also sharpening our skills in how we organize and govern ourselves. Though its hard to measure, problem solving has had an incremental effect on us.
Kant said that humans are inherently lazy. I know that from my own experience. Isn’t it perverse that we need problems to challenge us so not to be lazy? The great economist Adam Smith showed that our own self-interest must come first if we are to take care of the interests of others. Now, that’s perverse.
Friday, February 04, 2005
An adjunct
The following is born of a reader's comment. She also suggested that I post it on my blog. So here goes:
Thank you for you comment. It triggered in me a thought, something I haven't explained well, something that is central to the way I think about the nature of our human governance and the need for an antithetical system like capitalism and democracy (Democracy). It has to do with our imperfection and fallibility and that it will always be that way. Because we are naturally like that we must have a system of governance that deals with it as reality. The system I tout deals head on with this reality, doesn't avoid it, and does the best with it under the circumstances and also contains it. The system of Democracy acknowledges the imperfection and fallibility in human beings and turns it on its head, so to speak, into something workable. Unlike Communism which manipulated and forced people to change against their will, Democracy uses more a carrot and subtle coercion to influence and change people's less desirable tendencies. Democracy also realizes that people are naturally complacent and lazy and tend to fall back into their natural patterns. Democracy has fashioned itself for this inevitability. One thing I believe is that we develop through perverse means, which I think I have implied above, and meaning something like we don't do the right thing from the start even though we know its right. It's like applying reverse logic to function. We generally have to be encouraged to do the right thing through perverse, illogical means. Democracy deals with this like no other system.
We can all see in ourselves the weakness I speak of, such as our tendency to cheat on our taxes, to be corrupted, to cut corners when we can and to avoid doing what we know we should do. But often our weaknesses are not known to us so we have to be shown them. The system of Democracy we have, with it's bipolar make-up, constantly jolts us to keep with the "program". We always have to be reminded of who we used to be and what we could go back to being. So we have to have a system of governance that can deal with all this. And it always has to reinvent itself and us.
Thank you for you comment. It triggered in me a thought, something I haven't explained well, something that is central to the way I think about the nature of our human governance and the need for an antithetical system like capitalism and democracy (Democracy). It has to do with our imperfection and fallibility and that it will always be that way. Because we are naturally like that we must have a system of governance that deals with it as reality. The system I tout deals head on with this reality, doesn't avoid it, and does the best with it under the circumstances and also contains it. The system of Democracy acknowledges the imperfection and fallibility in human beings and turns it on its head, so to speak, into something workable. Unlike Communism which manipulated and forced people to change against their will, Democracy uses more a carrot and subtle coercion to influence and change people's less desirable tendencies. Democracy also realizes that people are naturally complacent and lazy and tend to fall back into their natural patterns. Democracy has fashioned itself for this inevitability. One thing I believe is that we develop through perverse means, which I think I have implied above, and meaning something like we don't do the right thing from the start even though we know its right. It's like applying reverse logic to function. We generally have to be encouraged to do the right thing through perverse, illogical means. Democracy deals with this like no other system.
We can all see in ourselves the weakness I speak of, such as our tendency to cheat on our taxes, to be corrupted, to cut corners when we can and to avoid doing what we know we should do. But often our weaknesses are not known to us so we have to be shown them. The system of Democracy we have, with it's bipolar make-up, constantly jolts us to keep with the "program". We always have to be reminded of who we used to be and what we could go back to being. So we have to have a system of governance that can deal with all this. And it always has to reinvent itself and us.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Double helix continued
Niall Ferguson was the first to ask out loud in his book “Cash Nexus” whether democracy and capitalism could be the double helix of the modern world. I believe I was the first to think it. However, I am glad the question came first from a person of his stature and credentials because if I had put out this idea first I don’t think I would have been taken seriously. Admittedly, it is a rather odd idea.
Here is the mindset that led to my unorthodox conclusion: When I first started studying democracy, capitalism and human governance, I felt that democracy and capitalism were special. Their exceptionalism occurred to me as I wondered about the collapse of communism. It wasn't just that communism collapsed. It seemed to have collapsed in favor of them. And its collapse didn't spawn a new form of government but instead the void left was filled by democracy and capitalism (Democracy). I believe this happened because there was no alternative or choice in human governance left.
To my mind, humankind had reached a point where all other possible forms of government had been exhausted. Over a period of time the combination of democracy and capitalism had shown that as a system they were the only practical means of government for the future, if Civilization wanted to survive and continue. I felt in good company thinking this because it is essentially what Fukuyama said in his book “The End Of History”.
Unlike the dramatic upheavals that came with changes in human governance, like with the revolutionary birth of Communism or Nazism, Democracy’s ascendency was not marked by political violence, Democracy's triumph and acceptance instead occurred tacitly, like a ‘quiet revolution’. This suggested to me that the world had reached a level of sophistication and understanding where it no longer needed to decide by violent means how it was ultimately going to organize and govern itself.
The triumph of Democracy didn’t happen randomly or because it out-witted, out-flanked or out-spent Communism. It triumphed through a process of elimination. Human governance basically has been an empirical exercise, keeping those things that work and eliminating those things that didn’t work. When humankind started to experiment with types of governances it wasn’t sure what type it would eventually require. That’s because it was still evolving and it wasn’t quite sure in what direction it was evolving. The emergence of the modern world changed all that. It is mostly the modern world which has determined what governance or government has eventually triumphed. If it was a static world Communism may have triumphed. But since it’s a constantly changing, fluctuating, world, Civilization and humankind chose Democracy because the components of democracy and capitalism can best manage it.
There is one other reason why Democracy triumphed. It is predisposed to humankind’s inherent needs and aspirations unlike Communism and other form of government before.
I believe democracy and capitalism are the double helix of the modern world because they were the two surviving doctrines of governance in the world. Both for some time have been at the heart of Western governance, a governance, I might add, that’s generally been quite successful. However, as I said in the previous essay, many intellectuals still consider them opposing doctrines. But for me the fact that they have coexisted in opposition for some time and continue to do so tells me they were meant to be together and that neither can survive without the other. I will use what somebody else said to help me make this point.
“Has Democracy a Future" is an article written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. for Foreign Affairs, back in 1997. In response to his own question he wrote, “While democracy requires capitalism, capitalism doesn’t require democracy, at least in the short run”. In the short run? Essentially what that statement says is that capitalism, in the long run, requires democracy. Schlesinger was forthcoming about how democracy requires capitalism: “Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom.” However, he didn’t venture into how capitalism might require democracy.
I think I found reason why in the long run capitalism requires democracy. I found it in the economies once known as that “Asia Tigers”, who in their rush to emulate the industrial West only adopted capitalistic principles. I understand why they didn’t equally embraced democratic principles. If they had, democracy’s disruptive tendencies would have impeded them from attaining their economic goals. Capitalism on the quick can ill afford such a distraction. For a time these countries were extremely successful, to the point of even outperforming the West economically. However, having reached the limits of unfettered capitalism they recognized that, due to external and internal pressures, sustainable capitalism require reform, which only democratic activity and institutions can deliver. For instance, democratic practices affords the transparency and accountability that sustainable capitalism requires. For example, investors will not continue to invest or do business in companies or countries who’s accounting practices can’t be scrutinized - a requirement capitalism is not inclined to furnish on its own. Democracy brings about reform that also combats destructive, corrupt business practices. Moreover, unfettered capitalism is too high octane to be endured for a prolonged period of time and thus needs modification and tempering, something only democracy can do. If left to its own devises, capitalism can be ruinous, as we have witnessed.
Capitalism needs the antithesis of democracy to keep it alive, awake and legitimate. Democracy needs the antithesis of capitalism to keep it alive, awake and legitimate. In essence that is how a double helix behaves, challenging the other to do better. The litigious discourse and agitation capitalism introduces through the marketplace, through participation in it and in private ownership as Schelinger explained, does keep democracy legitimate and vital. Karl Marx, one of the great theorists on human governance, didn’t see the need for this kind of antithesis in government because he wasn’t a dualist. But to his credit he foresaw that capitalism would implode if its contradiction went unchallenged, which democracy does challenge. And visa versa.
Here is the mindset that led to my unorthodox conclusion: When I first started studying democracy, capitalism and human governance, I felt that democracy and capitalism were special. Their exceptionalism occurred to me as I wondered about the collapse of communism. It wasn't just that communism collapsed. It seemed to have collapsed in favor of them. And its collapse didn't spawn a new form of government but instead the void left was filled by democracy and capitalism (Democracy). I believe this happened because there was no alternative or choice in human governance left.
To my mind, humankind had reached a point where all other possible forms of government had been exhausted. Over a period of time the combination of democracy and capitalism had shown that as a system they were the only practical means of government for the future, if Civilization wanted to survive and continue. I felt in good company thinking this because it is essentially what Fukuyama said in his book “The End Of History”.
Unlike the dramatic upheavals that came with changes in human governance, like with the revolutionary birth of Communism or Nazism, Democracy’s ascendency was not marked by political violence, Democracy's triumph and acceptance instead occurred tacitly, like a ‘quiet revolution’. This suggested to me that the world had reached a level of sophistication and understanding where it no longer needed to decide by violent means how it was ultimately going to organize and govern itself.
The triumph of Democracy didn’t happen randomly or because it out-witted, out-flanked or out-spent Communism. It triumphed through a process of elimination. Human governance basically has been an empirical exercise, keeping those things that work and eliminating those things that didn’t work. When humankind started to experiment with types of governances it wasn’t sure what type it would eventually require. That’s because it was still evolving and it wasn’t quite sure in what direction it was evolving. The emergence of the modern world changed all that. It is mostly the modern world which has determined what governance or government has eventually triumphed. If it was a static world Communism may have triumphed. But since it’s a constantly changing, fluctuating, world, Civilization and humankind chose Democracy because the components of democracy and capitalism can best manage it.
There is one other reason why Democracy triumphed. It is predisposed to humankind’s inherent needs and aspirations unlike Communism and other form of government before.
I believe democracy and capitalism are the double helix of the modern world because they were the two surviving doctrines of governance in the world. Both for some time have been at the heart of Western governance, a governance, I might add, that’s generally been quite successful. However, as I said in the previous essay, many intellectuals still consider them opposing doctrines. But for me the fact that they have coexisted in opposition for some time and continue to do so tells me they were meant to be together and that neither can survive without the other. I will use what somebody else said to help me make this point.
“Has Democracy a Future" is an article written by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. for Foreign Affairs, back in 1997. In response to his own question he wrote, “While democracy requires capitalism, capitalism doesn’t require democracy, at least in the short run”. In the short run? Essentially what that statement says is that capitalism, in the long run, requires democracy. Schlesinger was forthcoming about how democracy requires capitalism: “Democracy is impossible without private ownership because private property - resources beyond the arbitrary reach of the state - provides the only secure basis for political opposition and intellectual freedom.” However, he didn’t venture into how capitalism might require democracy.
I think I found reason why in the long run capitalism requires democracy. I found it in the economies once known as that “Asia Tigers”, who in their rush to emulate the industrial West only adopted capitalistic principles. I understand why they didn’t equally embraced democratic principles. If they had, democracy’s disruptive tendencies would have impeded them from attaining their economic goals. Capitalism on the quick can ill afford such a distraction. For a time these countries were extremely successful, to the point of even outperforming the West economically. However, having reached the limits of unfettered capitalism they recognized that, due to external and internal pressures, sustainable capitalism require reform, which only democratic activity and institutions can deliver. For instance, democratic practices affords the transparency and accountability that sustainable capitalism requires. For example, investors will not continue to invest or do business in companies or countries who’s accounting practices can’t be scrutinized - a requirement capitalism is not inclined to furnish on its own. Democracy brings about reform that also combats destructive, corrupt business practices. Moreover, unfettered capitalism is too high octane to be endured for a prolonged period of time and thus needs modification and tempering, something only democracy can do. If left to its own devises, capitalism can be ruinous, as we have witnessed.
Capitalism needs the antithesis of democracy to keep it alive, awake and legitimate. Democracy needs the antithesis of capitalism to keep it alive, awake and legitimate. In essence that is how a double helix behaves, challenging the other to do better. The litigious discourse and agitation capitalism introduces through the marketplace, through participation in it and in private ownership as Schelinger explained, does keep democracy legitimate and vital. Karl Marx, one of the great theorists on human governance, didn’t see the need for this kind of antithesis in government because he wasn’t a dualist. But to his credit he foresaw that capitalism would implode if its contradiction went unchallenged, which democracy does challenge. And visa versa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)