A good philosopher needs to be able to move in and out of the dialectic. He or she needs to be able to see both sides of an argument, the 'goods', the 'bads', and the 'uglys' of opposing perspectives -- both theoretical and applied.
A distinction can be made between a 'Constructive-Idealistic-Grand Narrative' Philosopher who aims to paint a broad, idealistic, visionary picture -- a picture of hope and optimism for the future of a person and/or a nation -- vs. a 'Deconstructive-Post-Modern' Philosopher who aims to punch holes, emphasize the weaknesses and pathologies, and tear down the arguments and/or the policies of the Constructive-Grand Narrative Philosopher and/or 'The Party' that he or she belongs to.
A third type of philosopher is the 'Integrative or Synthesizing Philosopher' who aims to integrate and harmonize two or more opposing theories, and/or the disagreements between a Constructive Philosopher (and/or the Philosophical Party he or she belongs to) and a Deconstructive one.
This is all a simple extension of Classic Hegelian Dialectic Theory and 'The Classic Hegelian Evolutionary Life Cycle' that includes everything from Philosophy, Politics, History, Economics, Medicine, Psychology, to all other aspecs of human life and culture.
Put another way, there are: 1. 'Thesis Philosophers', 2. 'Anti-Thesis Philosophers' and 3. 'Integrative Philosophers'. These are all simple 'teaching-classification devices'. It is not unusual for a philosopher to practise, all three of these forms of philosophy at the same and/or different times in his or her philosophizing.
Philosophy provides the underlying foundation for all other aspects of human culture and human living. For some people, the particular philosophy that underlies his or her character may be more clearly focused in his or her awareness, and/or articulated in his or her speech. For others, it may be much more covert, non-congruent, beyond awareness, and unarticulated. It is not unusual for a person's particular philosophy to be full of 'working hypocrisies and double standard' -- indeed, this is probably more the rule than the exception when it comes to understanding human behavior -- and dare I say -- 'human nature'.
There is plenty of 'good' and 'bad' in human behavior and human nature. Over and over again, we see human narcissism (selfishness, greed, pride, love, lust, jealousy, possessiveness, envy, anger, rage, hate, power, revenge...) overpower human ethics, morals, character, and integrity.
Human narcissism is a huge factor in human behavior and human nature -- and in this regard, human ideology, philosophy, politics, and religion rarely touch the day-to-day corrupt and non-corrupt, toxic and non-toxic, pathological and healthy, influence and effect of human narcissism. It doesn't matter if you, or I, or we, are Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, religious or non-religious, Capitalist or Socialist -- you and I and we cannot escape the positive and/or negativeinfluence of narcissism on human behavior and human nature.
One might say that 'human narcissism' is at least partly -- if not largely -- ingrained in our genes, in our DNA makeup.
Ayn Rand would -- and has -- called it 'The Virtue of Selfishness'.
In contrast, Erich Fromm has called the 'darker, negative side of human narcissism and its resulting effects on human character and culture in a Capitalist society' -- 'the pathology of normalcy' (See Erich Fromm, The Sane Society).
So there you have it -- the 'twin polarities, contradictions and paradoxes of Capitalism'.
Take your choice between an Adam Smith and/or Ayn Rand 'Idealistic, Visionary, Constructive' view of Capitalism;
Versus a 'Marxian and/or Frommian Post-Modern Deconstruction of 19th century Capitalism (Marx) or 20th century Capitalism (Fromm).
DGB Philosophy works, negotiates, and integrates the 'democratic-dialectic' between these two twin economic-philosophical polarities -- that is, between Adam Smith and Ayn Rand Idealistic, Visionary Capitalism, and The 'Marxian-Frommian Deconstructive Critiques' of both 'Theoretical Capitalism' and 'Empirical, Reality-Bound' Capitalism.
In this regard, DGB Philosophy aims to distinguish between the 'good', the 'bad', and the 'ugly' of modern-day, 21st century North American Capitalism.
DGB Philosophy aims to distinguish between: 'Dialectically and Democratically Divided, Alienated and Alienating, Top-Heavy, Narcissistic Capitalism' on the one hand; vs. 'Dialectic-Democratic, Humanistic-Existential, Ethical, Win-Win Capitalism' on the other hand.
If Sarah Palin wants to go back and speak in front of The GOP and tell her party where they failed, as well as telling her party, where they need to idealistically move to, this is the place she needs to start.
However, I do not think that Sarah Palin is:
1. Aware of the type of philosophical distinction I am making here;
2. Able to talk about the type of distinction I am making here with any kind of philosophical depth and passion;
3. Cares about this distinction.
In short, I do not believe that Sarah Palin is any kind of 'idealistic, philosophical visionary', nor do I think she is the right person to lead any 'new, Maverick, Republican White Horse Charge' to change the essence and nature of American Capitalism....not now, and not any time in the future. And this is where the GOP has to start. They are suffering the same consequences, the same fate, as The Liberal Party up here in Canada. Loss of public faith and trust. Loss of any kind of believable and credible Republican Vision. Loss of both old and new-fashioned Republican Idealism in the wake of too much government -- White House and Congress -- Corruption, Narcissism, Inefficiency, and Harmful Action to The American People. Now to be sure, the Democrat Party had a hand in much of this too. But it was a Republican Party leading the way. And it was the Republican Party that was going to take the fall for bad leadership strategies and implementations -- both in Economics and in Foreign Affairs and Diplomacy.
Sarah Palin may have many strengths of character. She may be a good Governor. She may be a good implementor. She may be an attractive charismatic, person and personality. She may be a fiesty 'hockey mom or pitbull with lipstick on'. She may carry her own in some debates and/or interviews (even as she puts up smoke and mirrors, abstractions, and answers to different questions, as she aims to avoid the questions that are 'too hot to handle' -- such as: 'What do you read?').
Sarah Palin may have been over-controlled by The Republican Party (even though the American people soon saw why the Republican Party was trying to keep her on a 'tight leash'.)
Hey, if Sarah Palin can re-invent herself and/or re-promote herself to the American people in the next four years to come, then I give her full credit for being able to do so -- for not taking the recent election loss of the Republican Party and to the 'perceived and/or real damage' to her own character and career passively, without getting up and fighting back...
Sarah Palin has the support of many 'hard right wing, Conservatives and Republicans'.
I just don't think she will ever be able to get the support of more 'middle road' Conservatives and Republicans, not to mention Independents, and any kind of pro-Democrat following at all.
Sarah Palin is who she is -- and I do not believe that that is any kind of 'Idealistic, Wholistic Visionary', nor any kind of 'Integrative Statesperson'. She is too steeped in her own ego, her own financial and career well-being, in Narcissistic Capitalism and Narcssistic Republicanism -- to lead any kind of new 'GOP White Horse, Ethical Capitalism Charge'. And this is where the GOP needs to 'go back to basics' again, back to Ethics 101, and start all over again, working from the bottom up, and the top down towards a new form of 'Wall Street-Main Street Integrative Democratic-Dialectic, Humanistic-Existential, Ethical Capitalism (that was a mouthful!) as opposed to essentially disregarding 'Main Street, American Capitalism' as The Republicans sit in their Ivory Towers and Unilaterally Try to Rule The World -- not to mention, aiming to act as International Police Force, Judge, Jury, and Hangman, while not wanting to have any national or international 'democratic checks and balances' in this whole process. In short, the American Republican Party has spent far too much of the last eight years in office trying to act like 'National and International Gods'.
But maybe after 4 years of 'Democrat-led philosophy and politics', the American people might be ready for another 'hard-nose, Conservative and Republican' again.
Not likely in my opinion -- unless Obama completely floops -- and/or unless The Republican Party is able to 'ethically reform' itself from top to bottom and back to the top again. The future is not ours to see right now.
Philosphically and politically speaking, right now -- Obama and The Democrats are leagues ahead of where the GOP needs to get to, and/or get back to.
The GOP needs to 're-enlighten' itself in the philosphical visions of America's founding fathers, as well as evolve to where American Capitalism and American Foreign Policy needs to get to, from a more 'ethical-dialectic-democratic' form of American Republicanism; not the type of narcissistic, unilateral, imperialistic Republicanism that America has seen for the last eight years.
Time will tell. Obama still has to show that he can 'execute effective, productive, meaningful American government action' as well as he can carry a speech. He has 'talked the talk'. Now he has to 'walk the walk'.
And I will develop my views and Idealistic Vision of American Capitalism as we move along here.
-- dgb, Nov. 15th, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment