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

Politics as an "Outflow of Culture": Unmasking Racism in today's Socioeconomic Scene

A common yet grave fallacy is to assume that (the actions of) (part of) the infrastructure of a particular country at a particular time and place is derived from a singular cause, of which a metaphysical nature attributed to said cause would be even more so. That said, attributing (a perception of) (failed) politics as an "outflow" of a country's culture is in my honest opinion a crock of bull. I'm not denying that culture and politics are related: there clearly is a relationship between the two in the broader historical context. However, this reductionist outlook panders to more than your garden variety racism, itself being built on misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Why is that? First of all, consider that politics and culture are mutually exclusive concepts, although their definitions may not appear to be so on the surface. Politics (according to the pseudo-omniscient Wikipedia [1] ) is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The...

Book Review: "The Third Chimpanzee" by Jared Diamond

Jared Diamond is sort of a rock star in the sphere of biogeography (and science in general depending on your perspective). He is more a doom-sayer than a soothe-sayer, a prophet warning of the destruction of society and mankind as a whole. His magnum opus and prophetic text " Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" has received accolades from a variety of sources, the least of which was the Pulitzer Prize in 1998. Having read that book myself, I came into his lesser-known essay " The Third Chimpanzee " with the expectation that it would be entertaining and enlightening at the same time. Gladly, I was not disappointed, but a glaring issue exists that I will address later. The first book published by Jared Diamond, " The Third Chimpanzee " explores the progression of human evolution in four parts. In the first, he explores the biological premises of our relationship to two other primate species, the common and pygmy chimpanzees (now c...

On "Leviathan", by Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury (Part 1: On Man)

Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan , or The Matter, Forme, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil,  is a veritable juggernaut (pun intended) of a book. It is Hobbes' magnum opus, having been circulated widely by the turn of the 17th and 18th Centuries at a time when England was plunged into civil war. Rather than rebel against the new political order (a war crime according to Hobbes which I will revisit later in this post), Hobbes' central thesis is to submit to the absolute authority of an established commonwealth (preferably, in Hobbes' point of view, a "Christian" one), which he compares to the overwhelming biblical sea monster, the Leviathan. Having just finished reading it, I would like to convey my thoughts on his central themes in as short a post as allowed by the breadth of the knowledge he passed on with this read. For this post, I will stick to part 1 (On Man), and deal with the subsequent parts of the book in later posts. Summary of P...