Fallout
04-22-2018, 10:41 AM
Of all the philosophers that I have read, Georg Hegel is perhaps the one that I have the most conflicting thoughts about, particularly his work when it comes to dialectics.
Whilst I acknowledge that his work on detailing the master-slave dialectic as a groundbreaking psychological work, as a philosophy to be followed, it is perhaps the most abhorrent philosophy I have ever born witness to. The idea that self-righteousness, a lack of self-doubt and unapologetic exertion of one's will upon others is a trait to be admired fundamentally qualifies as my general perception of what all of the greatest evils in this world are rooted in: Belligerence.
Let's take a classic example: The Nazi's. According to Hegel's dialectic, the Nazi's would qualify as the master, and the Jews who suffered at his hand the slaves. From our basic definition of the words "slave" and "master", as well as on a material plain, this is true. However, there are three things that deeply trouble me about this sentiment.
1: Hegel's glorification of being a material master would mean that he would very likely have supported the Nazi's persecution of the Jews, at least on a concentration camp level. I can't say with certainty that he would have supported the extermination of Jews, but the fact that he considers the exertion of literal slavery onto a populace to be more indicative of the slaves than the masters is reprehensible, and could be used to justify any misdeeds committed against the Jewish populace, or indeed, any misdeeds throughout history. Look at what the teachings of Marx, very much inspired by Hegel, lead to in Russia and China as an example of this behaviour.
2: Notice that I used material and not ideal, because when applied in terms of the mental faculties, there is a reverse polarity. It is the Nazi's, in their close-minded and dogmatic belligerence, who are the slaves to their own ideology, incapable of changing their mind. Hegel's criticism of Stoicism and scepticism as slave ideologies is backwards also, these philosophies are liberating and are extremely helpful in allowing for humanity to reach new heights and to not be weighed down by depression or anxiety, and to achieve a pluralist and more complete view of the world around them.
3: "The one who values liberty more than life becomes Master; the one who values life more than liberty becomes Slave." This is fallacious. Life is the ultimate liberty; without it, you cannot exercise the rest of your liberties. Dying for a cause strips you of all liberties. You could argue from a selfless perspective that it's not about you, it's about the world, but the assertion of being a master implies there is inherently selfish desires manifested in your objective.
So, if you couldn't tell, the support for the Master-Slave theory is in my opinion, bollocks. So why is it that I'm giving Hegel a mixed review and not entirely a scathing criticism?
Because his synthesis dialectic attributed to him is absolutely wonderful. Thesis and antithesis are constantly in battle, participating for victory for one another, when in actuality, there needs to be no ultimate victory, and arguably, nor should there be. Whilst I am far from being a cultural relativist, I cannot claim with certainty that my perception of the world is indeed the correct one (the Socrates quote comes to mind "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."), but neither should anyone else for that matter; as we are all learning, developing creatures, from birth until death. When two ideas are pitted against one another, there are reasons as to why these conflicting viewpoints have emerged, and arguments to be made for both of them. That argument begets conflict, and the synthesis is the proposed resolution to that conflict. The promotion of dialectics is both the pursuit of the truth, and the pursuit for peace, something bastardised by Marx and Engels later on unfortunately and tainted Hegel's legacy in this particular field.
In conclusion, it's really very hard to get a conclusion on Hegel. No accredited philosopher is an idiot (not even you, Marx), and Hegel is most certainly no exception to this rule, but in terms of his findings, they are revolutionary. His personal conclusions on the other hands, are revolting, and whilst I don't entirely agree with Karl Popper attributing Hegel's synthesis dialectic as a means of relativism promoting fascism and communism, I do believe his master-slave dialectic is much more responsible for encouraging the manner of belligerence found in, but not exclusive to, fascism and communism. And this belligerence is, to me, the root of all evil in this world.
Whilst I acknowledge that his work on detailing the master-slave dialectic as a groundbreaking psychological work, as a philosophy to be followed, it is perhaps the most abhorrent philosophy I have ever born witness to. The idea that self-righteousness, a lack of self-doubt and unapologetic exertion of one's will upon others is a trait to be admired fundamentally qualifies as my general perception of what all of the greatest evils in this world are rooted in: Belligerence.
Let's take a classic example: The Nazi's. According to Hegel's dialectic, the Nazi's would qualify as the master, and the Jews who suffered at his hand the slaves. From our basic definition of the words "slave" and "master", as well as on a material plain, this is true. However, there are three things that deeply trouble me about this sentiment.
1: Hegel's glorification of being a material master would mean that he would very likely have supported the Nazi's persecution of the Jews, at least on a concentration camp level. I can't say with certainty that he would have supported the extermination of Jews, but the fact that he considers the exertion of literal slavery onto a populace to be more indicative of the slaves than the masters is reprehensible, and could be used to justify any misdeeds committed against the Jewish populace, or indeed, any misdeeds throughout history. Look at what the teachings of Marx, very much inspired by Hegel, lead to in Russia and China as an example of this behaviour.
2: Notice that I used material and not ideal, because when applied in terms of the mental faculties, there is a reverse polarity. It is the Nazi's, in their close-minded and dogmatic belligerence, who are the slaves to their own ideology, incapable of changing their mind. Hegel's criticism of Stoicism and scepticism as slave ideologies is backwards also, these philosophies are liberating and are extremely helpful in allowing for humanity to reach new heights and to not be weighed down by depression or anxiety, and to achieve a pluralist and more complete view of the world around them.
3: "The one who values liberty more than life becomes Master; the one who values life more than liberty becomes Slave." This is fallacious. Life is the ultimate liberty; without it, you cannot exercise the rest of your liberties. Dying for a cause strips you of all liberties. You could argue from a selfless perspective that it's not about you, it's about the world, but the assertion of being a master implies there is inherently selfish desires manifested in your objective.
So, if you couldn't tell, the support for the Master-Slave theory is in my opinion, bollocks. So why is it that I'm giving Hegel a mixed review and not entirely a scathing criticism?
Because his synthesis dialectic attributed to him is absolutely wonderful. Thesis and antithesis are constantly in battle, participating for victory for one another, when in actuality, there needs to be no ultimate victory, and arguably, nor should there be. Whilst I am far from being a cultural relativist, I cannot claim with certainty that my perception of the world is indeed the correct one (the Socrates quote comes to mind "The only thing I know is that I know nothing."), but neither should anyone else for that matter; as we are all learning, developing creatures, from birth until death. When two ideas are pitted against one another, there are reasons as to why these conflicting viewpoints have emerged, and arguments to be made for both of them. That argument begets conflict, and the synthesis is the proposed resolution to that conflict. The promotion of dialectics is both the pursuit of the truth, and the pursuit for peace, something bastardised by Marx and Engels later on unfortunately and tainted Hegel's legacy in this particular field.
In conclusion, it's really very hard to get a conclusion on Hegel. No accredited philosopher is an idiot (not even you, Marx), and Hegel is most certainly no exception to this rule, but in terms of his findings, they are revolutionary. His personal conclusions on the other hands, are revolting, and whilst I don't entirely agree with Karl Popper attributing Hegel's synthesis dialectic as a means of relativism promoting fascism and communism, I do believe his master-slave dialectic is much more responsible for encouraging the manner of belligerence found in, but not exclusive to, fascism and communism. And this belligerence is, to me, the root of all evil in this world.