A large portion of our Hegel-related class discussions have dealt with one of this philosopher’s better known concepts: the Dialectic. Hegel describes the Dialectic as a system of progression involving conflict and opposition. With regard to ideas, this can mean that two opposing beliefs will eventually clash and reach a point of resolution either through synthesis or through the rejection of ideas. He applies the dialectic to the histories of ideas and human events, stating that these concepts all shift and change through conflict over time and, hypothetically, will all reach a set of ideas, or even a single idea, that meets the needs of everyone involved. It is this supreme idea that Hegel refers to as the self-reflective recognition of “the Spirit” which represents the unity of humanity, nature, and the world. It is the progress toward this universally perfect idea that helps justify human history.
While Hegel’s justification for the past is very optimistic, the thought of a universally true idea or system does bother me (not just with Hegel, but with many of the philosophers which we have read). I can’t help but compare Hegel’s development of history and ideas to Darwin’s theory of Evolution. While they are not identical, these two ideas do seem to have marked similarities, namely the concept of progression and adaptation through competition. In Darwin’s theory, species are not evolving toward one universally perfect breed, but rather toward what is most adapted to the current environment. If a species exists in an environment in which freshwater is scarce, then the species will theoretically either adapt to regulate its water usage more efficiently, or it will die out, leaving the environment to other, more fit species. Could the same situation not apply to ideas and, more specifically, political thought? Instead of historical actions moving toward one ultimate political form, is it not possible that the ‘ideal’ political strategy is the one most fit to the current state of the world? For example, would the ‘right’ action in a given scenario not vary based on resource abundances, religious demands, population, and available technology? It seems somewhat unlikely that a single decision-making strategy or political system could effectively cover the infinite possibilities that could exist. I feel that even our democratic system and our capitalist economy, which we currently view as ideal, will inevitably be replaced by other systems that will seem more appropriate for whatever future situations may arise.
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with you that Hegel's dialectic (or at least what we've studied of it) seems overly optimistic. We do speak in our everyday language of the "winners" and "losers" of history, and so in that sense the dialectic seems to apply. However, I cannot look at history without also recognizing that humanity repeats its mistakes over and over again. If we are indeed moving toward an ultimate synthesis, then it is an extremely slow and painful process.
I agree that it is unlikely that any sort of final perfect resolution of ideas will be reached, and I too have had trouble accepting philosopher's attempts to simplify motivations and morality in the world. However, Hegel's philosophy to me seems to be the most applicable to what is true and complicated about human relations. I can find hundreds of examples in my own life of the power struggle for recognition that Hegel theorizes over. Besides that, as a bleeding- hearted liberal, I truly would like to believe that human society has the capacity to progress and reach new understandings of how society can have the most equality and fairness for all. I do not believe that perfection will ever be reached, but Hegel's view seems closest to being accurate of reality, and his philosophy makes me feel hopeful.
ReplyDeleteHegel's Dialectic can be seen in Francis Fukuyama's "End of History" thesis, in which he claims human history has been defined by a struggle of ideologies. He sees a triumphant liberal democracy, one that will eventually exert itself as the only form of government. While this theory is certainly intriguing, I find it hard to believe we are in fact at the end of history. While the Cold War is over, and liberal democracy indeed valued by many, I am simply not convinced that humanity will (or even should) be satisfied by such a form of government. Even if we have already reached the best possible form of government, failures in its implementation feed my sympathies for other ideologies. Similarly, while I do believe human thought follows a distinct progression, perhaps even a positive one, I am skeptical everyone could ever be convinced that we have reached ultimate knowledge, even in the remarkable occasion we had achieved such.
ReplyDeleteI have to say that I have the same issues with Hegel's dialectic. From a historical standpoint, it would seem that the opposite of what Hegel is proposing is happening. If man began from common origins then why would divergence exist after such a situation? Throughout the progress of human history we've witnessed a multiplication of ideologies and the evolution of ideas manifold. If anything, the rate of said ideological expansion only increases as time passes on. Where is the evidence for a convergent trend? Maybe Hegel could cite the trend towards Globalism in this day and age, but even then that would be a stretch.
ReplyDeleteKavi, one could make the argument that the struggle which results from differing opinions, cultures, etc. is long and arduous. While the world we live in is far from perfect, it is still experiencing undeniable progress, particularly in the sciences and in total quality of human life. Hegel does not state that utopia will someday manifest itself in our world, but that progression will be brought about through conflict.
ReplyDeleteI'm cool with that. It does make sense
ReplyDelete