Skip to main content

A Hegelian Discourse

I admit that I am no student of Philosophy. However, I must comment that after reading certain philosophical works (are they philosophical?), I started to question them from a more - you can say - "simplistic" point of view, one that does not include all the confusing mumbo jumbo in contemporary and classical Philosophy. One such person who caught my eye was a German guy named Hegel.Georg Hegel. He was a German philosopher back in the day, and had quite a cult following, both right-wingers and left-wingers.

I tend to view him in the same light as the same guy who said that "democracies can't fight each other" (which is utterly false). Why is that? Hegel, like Samuel Huntington, in his controversial yet faulty "Clash of Civilizations" theory (I wrote something about this, but I suppose Edward Said has a much better argument), provided a philosophy that is based on simplistic collectivist ideas that do not take into account the many variables that shape our world today.

However, Hegel's theory has a more realistic basis than those of the other two. He stated that society progresses and forms a system called the thesis. The noted example on the Wikipedia link is the French Revolution. The antithesis results from the counter-propositions and faults of the system; the Reign of Terror that followed the French Revolution is a shining example of this. Ensuing conflict between these two aspects would produce a synthesis, which is void of all the defects of the previous society; the French Constitution can be regarded as such a synthesis. In more simplistic words, Hegel stated his theory as follows with respect to the larger scope of human History:
"The History of the world is none other than the progress of the consciousness of Freedom; a progress whose development according to the necessity of its nature, it is our business to investigate."
Reflect a bit on those words. He is stating that with respect to human freedoms, the world community/human society progresses through time as more human freedoms are given rather than taken. Many people borrowed from his philosophy, most notably Karl Marx, the (co-)founder of Communism (you might want to google "Friedrich Engels" and see what you come up with). Karl Marx proposed that class conflict would be the driving force that produces the synthesis, which would, over successive generations, lead to a utopia of classless society and ultimate human (economic) freedom (let's face it: Marx loved his moolah).

If Hegel was right, we would expect humans to be happy about the state of the world... in fact, much happier than before. The truth is that the world is now a worse place than it was years ago, in terms of human freedom.

There has been a rise in despotic regimes globally, and even without the concept of government do people in certain areas enjoy limited freedoms. There are also places with a great degree of disorder. As a liberal/libertarian, I believe that freedom and order are both essential to society. Scientifically, the chance of acquiring a stable and free society diminishes with time. The Second Law of Thermodynamics can also apply to the universe in general:
"The entropy of an isolated system not at equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value."
Entropy is the degree of disorder, and it increases with time because systems tend towards less order, which require an investment, whether it be governmental power or individual choice, or anything else that tends to require energy. The flaw in the theory comes from the idea that people these days feel worse about the world, and that people have different views. Freedom will be a necessity, but people will tend to see that security should be placed in the stead of certain principles of liberty in order to maintain the order. It has been like this over the past few centuries: regimes rise and fall because they suddenly become too autocratic. It is guaranteed that in the end, there will be a maximum state of entropy, of disorder and freedom, but that will not come anytime soon.

Sometimes, I think Hegel might be correct. Maybe I'm just too pessimistic. As a Muslim, I believe in the End of Days, when the Earth will be verdant, and human freedom will be attained. However, considering the state of the world today, we can't be too certain. With all the needless war, destruction and death that has befallen so many people, it is very hard to say that we are attaining the state that both Hegel and Marx dreamed of.

But who knows? Only time will tell if Hegel was right...

Salaam, from Saracen

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What "Culture Clash"?

I hear this all the time, and yet I still have yet to not only materialistically comprehend this prospect, but to philosophically grasp it. There are so many cultures and races that dot this earth, and yet we have seen them come and go as well. But how can cultures themselves clash? To answer this question, one should take a look at the definition of culture. The word culture , from the Latin colo, -ere, with its root meaning "to cultivate", generally refers to patterns of human activity and the symbolic structures that give such activity significance. Different definitions of "culture" reflect different theoretical bases for understanding, or criteria for evaluating, human activity. Note the definition: patterns of personal activity. Patterns by themselves are immeasurable and also immaterial. However, the only material object encountered in the definition is the set of "symbolic structures" that represent these patterns and give them significance. Cult

حول قرار حماس تشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل

هذا النص يتحدث عن التشقق في الحكومة الفلسطينية, وكيف استغلوا القوات الصهيونية على التفرق بين حماس ومنظمة التخريب " فتح" التي خانت الفاسطينيون لخدمة نفسها ولخدمة "إسراءيل". تأليف د. إبراهيم علوش قرار وزير داخلية السلطة الفلسطينية، القائمة على مرجعية اتفاقية أوسلو، بتشكيل قوة مشتركة من الفصائل العسكرية الفلسطينية المقاومة، وقرار محمود عباس رئيس سلطة أوسلو بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية سعيد صيام بتشكيل تلك القوة المشتركة، أثار الكثير من التكهنات واللغط حول مغزى تلك الخطوة وأبعادها. ومثل كل قرار سياسي، هناك دائماً واجهة خارجية وأجندة خفية، خاصة عندما نتعامل مع قوى قررت أن تكون جزءاً من الواقع السائد بدلاً من الانقلاب عليه. فالانضمام لركب أوسلو، على أساس مشروع "تغييره من الداخل"، يترك المرء بالضرورة أسير مساومات لا يمكن إلا أن تمس بالثوابت وبالمرجعيات التاريخية لصراعنا مع الحركة الصهيونية منذ أكثر من قرن. وبالمقابل، فإن قرار محمود عباس بشطب قرار وزير الداخلية يرتبط بدوره بحسابات التنافس الداخلي، ليس فقط على الصلاحيات، بل على كل دوره التاريخي هو وفتح. المهم، يمكن أن ت

Book Review: "The Crusade through Arab Eyes" by Amin Maalouf

The bulk of modern history regarding the Crusades has an unashamedly Western slant to it. Even a cursory search of the word "crusade" on Amazon Books reveals a plethora of books written by authors from the U.K., the U.S., and elsewhere in the Western world, but a severe (emphasis) paucity of books from a more Arab perspective. One book that stands out is Amin Maalouf's "The Crusades through Arab Eyes", a book I believe is much-needed given the overall bias inherent in the gestalt of Western history books on this topic. The gold standard for history on the Crusades is currently the "The Oxford History of the Crusades", another book I will review in the not-so-distant future (and expect comparisons to this book given that I have completed reading it). The too-long-didn't-read version of this review is the following: if you're interested in history, buy it, read it, and keep it. Nevertheless, my full review follows. For those who are un