Before we start exploring the depths, extensions, and boundaries of DGB Post-Hegelian Philosophy, I am going to take you back into history to meet some of the most famous Western Dialectical Philosophers (and one or two Eastern ones too) -- philosophers who worked with 'dualisms' and 'dichotomies' and 'debates' and 'paradoxes' and 'bi-polarities' -- all of which we will encompass under the term 'dialectic'.
We will dedicate a 'room' in Hegel's Hotel to every philosopher who I think has added something to the evolution of dialectic philosophy. Come to think of it, this includes everyone in one way or another, either directly by bringing the ideas of 'dualism', and 'dialectic' into their philosophy, and/or by contributing more indirectly to the evolution of the dialectic over time -- such as Plato and Aristotle or Freud and Jung or Freud and Adler complementing each other's work, the 'dialectic whole' being greater than the sum of the individual parts.
So too with Spinoza who is the ultimate of all 'unity-wholists'. However, Spinoza's work makes a good complement to Hegel's work such as through the integrative 'romantic' contribution of Schelling who combined Spinoza and Hegel through the idea of 'dialectical unity and wholism' -- two polar opposites coming together to form an integrative whole. (This echoes Plato's much earlier work in The Symposium where Eryximachus claims that love is the rule of harmony which reconciles opposed elements in the body. Aristophanes takes this one step further and claims the body was originally round with four arms and ears, two faces, etc. The gods, to punish us, split them in two and ever since the halves have sought each other to be reunited in love. -- Derek Johnston, A Brief History of Philosophy, 2006, p. 23-24).
Indeed, Spinoza has been a significant influence on my own philosophical system and process -- again, integratively through previously mentioned ideas like 'dialectical unity' and 'dialectical wholism'. This is the reason for Spinoza's inclusion in a work centring on dialectical philosophy. 'Dialectical philosophy', 'dialectics', and 'multi-dialectics' is the main paradigm that we will be working in for this entire philosophical work -- which is what spawned the idea for, and the name -- Hegel's Hotel.
dgb, Jan. 31st, 2007, updated Sept. 28th, 2007.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Introduction To The Birth of Western Dialectic Philosophy
Trying to trace an idea back to its historical source can be like digging in quicksand -- no matter how deep you dig, the quicksand (idea) keeps getting deeper. Indeed, you may get the feeling of all this fresh quicksand piling around you, above your head even, surrounding you, and you start to wonder very strongly -- with increasing anxiety and sense of losing control -- whether you maybe better not climb back to the surface again and forget you even started digging. Either that or go get an excavator!
So it is with the idea of 'the dialectic' -- which exploded into Western philosophy, then Eastern philosophy, most famously through Hegel and then significantly modified even more famously (or infamously) through Marx.
Which is not to say that the idea of the dialectic just magically appeared out of nowhere. All ideas have a history -- a geneology -- and the idea of the dialectic goes back in name as far as Socrates, goes back even significantly further, almost to the beginning of Western philosophy in concept as far as the second oldest known Western philosopher -- Anaxamander -- and his indirect student -- Heraclitus -- the pre-Socratic version of Plato and Aristotle or the later one-two punch of Hegel and Marx).
The historical interpretation and analysis that I am about to conduct here is all part of an attempted massive philosophy re-integration and re-vitalization process with which I aim to give a 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging Prescription Shot' to both Western philosophical history and many aspects of current Western society. Will this prescription shot fall on deaf ears? Possibly or probably. But generally speaking, ideas that are good and strong enough to carry their weight, will not entirely fall on deaf ears. And the largest snowball starts with the first few snowflakes bound together, the largest ocean starts with the first few water drops bound together. Where there is unity in numbers, starting with small numbers and progressing with passion to larger ones, there exists the very real opportunity for serious evolutionary growth. The type of evolutionary philosopohical growth that we are looking for here is in a 'multi-dialectical-democratic-humanistic-existential' direction; extremist philosophy either at the 'narcissistic' end of the spectrum or at the 'self-denial' end of the spectrum is not what we are looking for.
Put another way, we are looking for a type of philosophy that strives for an ideal of optimal self and civil balance. A multi-dialectical-democratic or worded otherwise, a dialectical-gap-bridging-optimal balance philosophy is what we are looking for in DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...and the earliest roots of it can be found in Pre-Socratic philosophy. When most philosophers think back to early Greek and Western philosophy, they generally think of 'The Big Three' as being Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. I am here to trumpet the huge but usually underestimated influence of a different big three or maybe four ancient philosophers -- two from the area of Greece and one, two, or more from China. These are, in my opinion, the three or four most important ancient dialectic philosophers (or groups of philosophers) and I will now identify them as such: 1. Anaxamander; 2. Heraclitus; 3. Confucious; and 4. the Han Philosophers. Let us find out more about them.
So it is with the idea of 'the dialectic' -- which exploded into Western philosophy, then Eastern philosophy, most famously through Hegel and then significantly modified even more famously (or infamously) through Marx.
Which is not to say that the idea of the dialectic just magically appeared out of nowhere. All ideas have a history -- a geneology -- and the idea of the dialectic goes back in name as far as Socrates, goes back even significantly further, almost to the beginning of Western philosophy in concept as far as the second oldest known Western philosopher -- Anaxamander -- and his indirect student -- Heraclitus -- the pre-Socratic version of Plato and Aristotle or the later one-two punch of Hegel and Marx).
The historical interpretation and analysis that I am about to conduct here is all part of an attempted massive philosophy re-integration and re-vitalization process with which I aim to give a 'Dialectical Gap-Bridging Prescription Shot' to both Western philosophical history and many aspects of current Western society. Will this prescription shot fall on deaf ears? Possibly or probably. But generally speaking, ideas that are good and strong enough to carry their weight, will not entirely fall on deaf ears. And the largest snowball starts with the first few snowflakes bound together, the largest ocean starts with the first few water drops bound together. Where there is unity in numbers, starting with small numbers and progressing with passion to larger ones, there exists the very real opportunity for serious evolutionary growth. The type of evolutionary philosopohical growth that we are looking for here is in a 'multi-dialectical-democratic-humanistic-existential' direction; extremist philosophy either at the 'narcissistic' end of the spectrum or at the 'self-denial' end of the spectrum is not what we are looking for.
Put another way, we are looking for a type of philosophy that strives for an ideal of optimal self and civil balance. A multi-dialectical-democratic or worded otherwise, a dialectical-gap-bridging-optimal balance philosophy is what we are looking for in DGB Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...and the earliest roots of it can be found in Pre-Socratic philosophy. When most philosophers think back to early Greek and Western philosophy, they generally think of 'The Big Three' as being Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. I am here to trumpet the huge but usually underestimated influence of a different big three or maybe four ancient philosophers -- two from the area of Greece and one, two, or more from China. These are, in my opinion, the three or four most important ancient dialectic philosophers (or groups of philosophers) and I will now identify them as such: 1. Anaxamander; 2. Heraclitus; 3. Confucious; and 4. the Han Philosophers. Let us find out more about them.
Anaxamander's Room (Part 1)
Let's start with Anaxamanderian Philosophy. Anaxamamder is an enigma -- his philosophy is both sparse and primitive on the one hand but on the other hand it was very dynamically loaded, laying out the basic foundation dualistically and dialectically for many, many different philosophies to come including Heraclitus, perhaps some of the early Chinese philosophers (Confucious?, the Han Philosophers?...) who probably did not have access to Anaxamander's philosophical ideas but who knows for sure -- and then exploding some 2300 years later in the philosophies, politics, and/or psychologies of Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, and Derrida. Let's look at a sample of Anaxamanderian philosophy:
As a fragment from Anaxamander says, “the unlimited is the first principle of things that are. It is that from which the coming-to-be takes place, and it is that to which they return when they perish, by moral necessity, giving satisfaction to one another and making reparation for their injustice, according to the order of time.” Coming to be is the separation of opposites and does not involve any change in the natural being of a substance. Anaxamander thought that it was neither water nor any other substance, but it is of entirely different nature than that in which the unlimited exists. He believed that all things existed in some place. Whether they were absent or conspicuous was irrelevant; they still existed. He believed that qualities came into existence, vanished away, only to return again. Anaxamnder took into consideration that “there was a storehouse or reservoir from which the qualities that now confront us have ‘separated off’ and into which, when their contraries come forth in time, they will go back; the process being repeated in reverse, and so on in never-ending cycles.” Anaxamander, unlike most philosophers of this time, assessed that the world was created from air, not water. He assumed that everything was created from nothing. This nothing, however, was actually the unknown. The unknown, as Anaxamander defines it, can best be described as the other half of what is. The undetermined is what is not and cannot be seen. Equally as important are water, land, and fire that were created by the density in the air. Each of these three things, as seen from Anaxamander’s point of view, were the origin of all the rest of what exists. Water, of course, was the origin of life. From this water, first came fish that would evolve into what is now man.
Bibliography
Kirk,G.S. and Raven, J.E. The_Presocratic_Philosophers. London: Cambridge University Press, 1957 Wheelwright, Philip. The Presocratics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1966 15 Oct. 1999. http://viator.ucs.indiana.edu/~ancmed./foundations.htm 15 Oct. 1999. http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch5143/help/pre-socratic.html 13 Oct. 1999. http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/instruct/div.sci/sci122/Greek/Greek.html
Editorial Comments From DB
There are several things that stand out for me about Alaxamander's philosophy. Firstly, it is dualistic, and secondly, it is dialectical. And the purpose of this section is to follow the history of the dialectic in Western -- and some early Eastern -- philosophy.
What is the difference between 'dualistic' and 'dialectic'. This is my take on the difference between the two. 'Dualistic' can imply either of two things: it can imply 'opposite polariities -- plain and simple'; and/or it can imply 'opposite polarities doing war with each other -- dualing it out with each other'. I will opt for both interpretations. Now how is a 'dialectic' similar and/or different than a 'dualism'. For me, and for DGB Philosophy, a dialectic implies an 'exchange', usually between dualistic or polar elements -- but not necessarily of the 'war-mongering type'. A dialectic can be of the 'righteous, either/or, 'will-to-power', 'control-freak', war-mongering type'. Or a dialectic can be of a more democratic, egalitarian, creative, reasonable, empathic, humanistic-existential nature.I believe that there is something seriously profound in this essay of which I will take little credit. I am the 'ideological chemist or mediator' if you will or the 'dialectical shaman'. I like nothing better than to weave my way back into time, weave my way through time, and find 'magical potions' in the form of ideas in the deepest recesses and caverns of time. I search out and bring together magical ideas so that they can 'touch' each other -- sometimes for the first time -- make contact with each other in ways which they perhaps never have made contact with each other before, adding to their healing and/or the enlightening powers -- each in it own and respective right -- by combining these ideas together into a new and perhaps even greater healing and enlightening 'gestalt-formation'. I borrow the concept of the too unknown but brilliant linguist-semanticist-scientist-mathematician-philosopher -- Alfred Koryzybski -- to describe this process (or my rendition of it); he called it 'time-binding'. Indeed, time-binding is perhaps man's greatest evolutionary asset -- the ability to learn, to remember, to write down or otherwise pass down using language as the 'time-binding' agent that allows us to pass down our individual and collective wisdoms through the ages so that the generations that follow us can build from our shoulders.
'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.'
-- Isaac Newton
My idea -- my ideological ideal -- is to bring as many of these great ideas, these great thinkers, and these great people under one ideological roof -- call it the 'dialectical roof' -- to share in the glories of their great ideas, and to mix these ideas together -- philosophically 'dance' with them, integrate them, 'cross-fertilize' them. The name that I give to this dialectical roof and all of the great ideas, the great thinkers, and the great people that I plan to bring together under this roof is -- 'Hegel's Hotel'.
The first piece of ideological gold that I found in the history-philosophy books that I want to share with you -- it actually took me a good two or three decades to find it -- is a piece of philosophy that has a very poetic, mystical, msterious profound ring to it . Many philosophical experts and students alike have looked at it, interpreted it, torn it and reduced it to even smaller pieces than it is -- and then tried to put it back together again (like Humpty Dumpty). The philosophical piece by the man who is generally considered to be our second oldest Western (ancient Greek) philosopher is called -- Anaxamander's Fragment (Anaxamander, 610-546 B.C)
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
As is the order of things;
For they execute the sentence upon one another
- The condemnation for the crime -
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
Now it is easy to over-interpret something like this, to perhaps put more wisdom into it than properly belongs. In the process, turn a philosopher into a saint -- or even a God.
But I cannot leave this passage alone. I am transfixed by it -- as Nietzsche would say -- intoxicated by it. It grabs me, it shakes me, it will not leave me alone. I have to keep coming back to it.
Call me hallucinatory if you will, but I look at this passage and I see the beginning of Western Dialectic Philosophy. I see the first -- and one of the most important -- entries into Hegel's Hotel. I see the begiining -- the roots -- of Hegel. These roots would have a long way to travel before they got to Hegel -- through Heraclitus (The Riddler and the second Dialectic (Polarity) Philosopher, through the Sophists (the first set of formal, relativist, Deconstructionists -- today you would call them 'lawyers'), Socrates (the second major Deconstructionist -- more ethical and more idealistic than the more pragmatic, cynical Sophists), through Plato, through Aristotle, gradually spreading and spiralling its philosophical roots through the Scholasitic (religous, philosophical) Period, through the Enlightenment -- finally getting to Fichte, and then to Hegel. Then exploding outward through Hegel to Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, Derrida -- and coutless political, legal, business, economic, scientific, medical, relgious, and artistic expressions -- 'Good' against 'Evil', 'Black 'against 'White', 'Religous' against 'Scientific', 'Left' against 'Right', 'Masculine' against 'Feminism', 'East' agaisnt 'West', 'Orthodox' against 'Unorthodox', 'Dominant' vs. 'Suppressed', 'Heterosexual' vs. 'Homosexual'...'Either/Or', 'Tit for tat'... I could go on and on.
The passage by Anaxamander, in my opinion, could have easily been written by someone living in Lebanon or Israel. The very human cost of human destructionsism and self-destructionism -- man's 'Will To Power' at its worst.
I don't know much about the history of Ancient Greek but I do know enough to know that the people lived in what have been called 'city-states' with the politics of each city-state being different. 'Different' is the crucial, operative word here -- it always has been thoughout human history. Intolerance of difference. People not letting other people be different. Intolerance leads to hate -- racism and discrimination -- and hate through these passages leads to war. Sparta invading Athens. Athens turning around and invading Sparta. Each city-state upping the ante. The weak coming back stronger and the strong coming back weaker. The victim becoming the victimizer and the victimizer becoming the victim. Trading sides in the continual battle for war supremacy. Losing but learning from one's mistakes and coming back better prepared when the victor least expects it -- to overthrow the victor. It is easier to 'conquer' a land than it is to try to 'keep' it. The loser coming back stronger than before -- better prepared to win a war that they previously lost -- from submission to dominance and then back to submission again as the pendulum of 'cosmic justice' keeps swinging back and forth from victor to loser and back again 'in conformity with the ordinance of Time'.
Anaxamander's pasage -- perhaps cynically written, in my humble opinion -- is a statement of fatalistic, deterministic, dialectical, often violent, cosmic, and particularly human, justice. An eye for an eye. For every extreme action -- for every evil action -- there is going to be an equal and opposite, often escalated, reaction. If you live in a world of frontier justice -- which war definitely is (where police and courts and democracy and rights are no longer relevant; only soldiers, war strategy, and firepower) -- and you kill someone who is 'different' than you, on the 'other' side -- you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a very good chance that someone who loved the person you killed is going to come back and try to even the score. The more you kill -- assuming you can morally live with your actions -- the more you have to worry about the friends, the family, and the descendents of the people you killed. Live by the sword; die by the sword. What goes around comes around.
'Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered is unhappy.'
I read about the politician who said he 'didn't care about civilian deaths' -- and I feel sick to my stomach. I think of Bob Dylan's song, 'The Masters of War'.
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul...
Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music
There are two ways the dialectic can play itself out -- through 'the will to power' which if it is not attached to the thill of competing in a sporting or game challenge, and/or not attached to the 'will to excellence in human achievement (partnered with human compassion), then it is probably a 'negative' will to power that is played out through the worst of human nature -- narcissism (selfishness) and greed and 'territorialness' and coercion, and manipulation, and hate, and force, and violence.
I think Anaxamander saw all this in human nature -- he saw how 'what goes around comes around'. He saw how 'black' and 'white' originated from the same 'Universal Souce' -- he called it 'The Boundless'. He saw how 'The Boundless Universe' differentiated into 'polar differences', 'polar opposites', 'polar extremes'... They would separate from each other, then collide with each other, each striving for total, universal dominance, and perhaps partly getting there, feeling the thrill of temporary victory, only to be eventually thwarted, brought back into line again, held back in check again, by the inevitable, rising polar strength of the opposite characteristic coming back into play again, toppling the victor off its pedestal, to take its place, but again, only temporarily again, as the cosmic pendulum of justice swings back and forth again 'in conformity with the ordinace of Time'.
Hegel -- to what extent he may or may not have been familiar with Anaxamander I don't know -- bought into Anaxamander's logic completely giving the dialectic a 'deterministic, fatalistic, inevitable clout to it' -- regardless if the dialectic is playing itself out in peace or war. And furthermore, Hegel assumed that the inevitable end to the 'determinsitic, forceful dialectic' -- regardless of how violent it is -- will be a solution that inevitablly takes man to 'The Absolute' -- and to God.
I am not nearly this optimistic in terms of the inevitable outcome of the 'forceful, violent' acting out of the dialectic in human affairs. Indeed, I am much more cynical in terms of the capability of man for ultimate destruction and self-destruction -- before he gets to any kind of ultimate 'Awareness', 'Consciousness', and 'God-like Knowledge'.
Freud viewed the ultimate acting out of man's 'positive' dialectical characteristics (debate, democracy, diplomacy, humanistic negotiation) with man's 'negative' dialectical features ('will to power', war, force, manipulation, violence, destruction and self-destruction) as the conflict between man's 'life' and 'death' instinct.
I don't look at this conflict as being one between two different sets of 'instincts'. I view it -- existentially -- as being one between two different sets of choices: 'life' choices vs. 'death' choices -- narcissistic, will to power, ignorance of human compassion, choices vs. humanistic-existential choices that build from a healthy 'homeostatic balance' between human compassion and human accountabllity.
Without a balanced leger of human compassion and human accounatability, we may indeed get to God sooner than we want to -- but it may be through a nuclear holocaust or through polluting the world we live in until it can no longer support us.
We would/will have nobody to blame but ourselves (assuming that there is someone still around to take the self-blame). Indeed, it would seem that the eerie poetry of our second oldest Western philosopher, Anaxamander -- a man who seemed to know much too much about the worst side of human nature -- would/will come back to haunt us like a voodoo spell.
The Condemnation for the Crime,
In Conformity With The Ordinance of Time
db, August 21st, 2006, updated Jan. 31st, 2007.
As a fragment from Anaxamander says, “the unlimited is the first principle of things that are. It is that from which the coming-to-be takes place, and it is that to which they return when they perish, by moral necessity, giving satisfaction to one another and making reparation for their injustice, according to the order of time.” Coming to be is the separation of opposites and does not involve any change in the natural being of a substance. Anaxamander thought that it was neither water nor any other substance, but it is of entirely different nature than that in which the unlimited exists. He believed that all things existed in some place. Whether they were absent or conspicuous was irrelevant; they still existed. He believed that qualities came into existence, vanished away, only to return again. Anaxamnder took into consideration that “there was a storehouse or reservoir from which the qualities that now confront us have ‘separated off’ and into which, when their contraries come forth in time, they will go back; the process being repeated in reverse, and so on in never-ending cycles.” Anaxamander, unlike most philosophers of this time, assessed that the world was created from air, not water. He assumed that everything was created from nothing. This nothing, however, was actually the unknown. The unknown, as Anaxamander defines it, can best be described as the other half of what is. The undetermined is what is not and cannot be seen. Equally as important are water, land, and fire that were created by the density in the air. Each of these three things, as seen from Anaxamander’s point of view, were the origin of all the rest of what exists. Water, of course, was the origin of life. From this water, first came fish that would evolve into what is now man.
Bibliography
Kirk,G.S. and Raven, J.E. The_Presocratic_Philosophers. London: Cambridge University Press, 1957 Wheelwright, Philip. The Presocratics. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1966 15 Oct. 1999. http://viator.ucs.indiana.edu/~ancmed./foundations.htm 15 Oct. 1999. http://acnet.pratt.edu/~arch5143/help/pre-socratic.html 13 Oct. 1999. http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/instruct/div.sci/sci122/Greek/Greek.html
Editorial Comments From DB
There are several things that stand out for me about Alaxamander's philosophy. Firstly, it is dualistic, and secondly, it is dialectical. And the purpose of this section is to follow the history of the dialectic in Western -- and some early Eastern -- philosophy.
What is the difference between 'dualistic' and 'dialectic'. This is my take on the difference between the two. 'Dualistic' can imply either of two things: it can imply 'opposite polariities -- plain and simple'; and/or it can imply 'opposite polarities doing war with each other -- dualing it out with each other'. I will opt for both interpretations. Now how is a 'dialectic' similar and/or different than a 'dualism'. For me, and for DGB Philosophy, a dialectic implies an 'exchange', usually between dualistic or polar elements -- but not necessarily of the 'war-mongering type'. A dialectic can be of the 'righteous, either/or, 'will-to-power', 'control-freak', war-mongering type'. Or a dialectic can be of a more democratic, egalitarian, creative, reasonable, empathic, humanistic-existential nature.I believe that there is something seriously profound in this essay of which I will take little credit. I am the 'ideological chemist or mediator' if you will or the 'dialectical shaman'. I like nothing better than to weave my way back into time, weave my way through time, and find 'magical potions' in the form of ideas in the deepest recesses and caverns of time. I search out and bring together magical ideas so that they can 'touch' each other -- sometimes for the first time -- make contact with each other in ways which they perhaps never have made contact with each other before, adding to their healing and/or the enlightening powers -- each in it own and respective right -- by combining these ideas together into a new and perhaps even greater healing and enlightening 'gestalt-formation'. I borrow the concept of the too unknown but brilliant linguist-semanticist-scientist-mathematician-philosopher -- Alfred Koryzybski -- to describe this process (or my rendition of it); he called it 'time-binding'. Indeed, time-binding is perhaps man's greatest evolutionary asset -- the ability to learn, to remember, to write down or otherwise pass down using language as the 'time-binding' agent that allows us to pass down our individual and collective wisdoms through the ages so that the generations that follow us can build from our shoulders.
'If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.'
-- Isaac Newton
My idea -- my ideological ideal -- is to bring as many of these great ideas, these great thinkers, and these great people under one ideological roof -- call it the 'dialectical roof' -- to share in the glories of their great ideas, and to mix these ideas together -- philosophically 'dance' with them, integrate them, 'cross-fertilize' them. The name that I give to this dialectical roof and all of the great ideas, the great thinkers, and the great people that I plan to bring together under this roof is -- 'Hegel's Hotel'.
The first piece of ideological gold that I found in the history-philosophy books that I want to share with you -- it actually took me a good two or three decades to find it -- is a piece of philosophy that has a very poetic, mystical, msterious profound ring to it . Many philosophical experts and students alike have looked at it, interpreted it, torn it and reduced it to even smaller pieces than it is -- and then tried to put it back together again (like Humpty Dumpty). The philosophical piece by the man who is generally considered to be our second oldest Western (ancient Greek) philosopher is called -- Anaxamander's Fragment (Anaxamander, 610-546 B.C)
Whence things have their origin,
Thence also their destruction happens,
As is the order of things;
For they execute the sentence upon one another
- The condemnation for the crime -
In conformity with the ordinance of Time.
Now it is easy to over-interpret something like this, to perhaps put more wisdom into it than properly belongs. In the process, turn a philosopher into a saint -- or even a God.
But I cannot leave this passage alone. I am transfixed by it -- as Nietzsche would say -- intoxicated by it. It grabs me, it shakes me, it will not leave me alone. I have to keep coming back to it.
Call me hallucinatory if you will, but I look at this passage and I see the beginning of Western Dialectic Philosophy. I see the first -- and one of the most important -- entries into Hegel's Hotel. I see the begiining -- the roots -- of Hegel. These roots would have a long way to travel before they got to Hegel -- through Heraclitus (The Riddler and the second Dialectic (Polarity) Philosopher, through the Sophists (the first set of formal, relativist, Deconstructionists -- today you would call them 'lawyers'), Socrates (the second major Deconstructionist -- more ethical and more idealistic than the more pragmatic, cynical Sophists), through Plato, through Aristotle, gradually spreading and spiralling its philosophical roots through the Scholasitic (religous, philosophical) Period, through the Enlightenment -- finally getting to Fichte, and then to Hegel. Then exploding outward through Hegel to Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, Derrida -- and coutless political, legal, business, economic, scientific, medical, relgious, and artistic expressions -- 'Good' against 'Evil', 'Black 'against 'White', 'Religous' against 'Scientific', 'Left' against 'Right', 'Masculine' against 'Feminism', 'East' agaisnt 'West', 'Orthodox' against 'Unorthodox', 'Dominant' vs. 'Suppressed', 'Heterosexual' vs. 'Homosexual'...'Either/Or', 'Tit for tat'... I could go on and on.
The passage by Anaxamander, in my opinion, could have easily been written by someone living in Lebanon or Israel. The very human cost of human destructionsism and self-destructionism -- man's 'Will To Power' at its worst.
I don't know much about the history of Ancient Greek but I do know enough to know that the people lived in what have been called 'city-states' with the politics of each city-state being different. 'Different' is the crucial, operative word here -- it always has been thoughout human history. Intolerance of difference. People not letting other people be different. Intolerance leads to hate -- racism and discrimination -- and hate through these passages leads to war. Sparta invading Athens. Athens turning around and invading Sparta. Each city-state upping the ante. The weak coming back stronger and the strong coming back weaker. The victim becoming the victimizer and the victimizer becoming the victim. Trading sides in the continual battle for war supremacy. Losing but learning from one's mistakes and coming back better prepared when the victor least expects it -- to overthrow the victor. It is easier to 'conquer' a land than it is to try to 'keep' it. The loser coming back stronger than before -- better prepared to win a war that they previously lost -- from submission to dominance and then back to submission again as the pendulum of 'cosmic justice' keeps swinging back and forth from victor to loser and back again 'in conformity with the ordinance of Time'.
Anaxamander's pasage -- perhaps cynically written, in my humble opinion -- is a statement of fatalistic, deterministic, dialectical, often violent, cosmic, and particularly human, justice. An eye for an eye. For every extreme action -- for every evil action -- there is going to be an equal and opposite, often escalated, reaction. If you live in a world of frontier justice -- which war definitely is (where police and courts and democracy and rights are no longer relevant; only soldiers, war strategy, and firepower) -- and you kill someone who is 'different' than you, on the 'other' side -- you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a very good chance that someone who loved the person you killed is going to come back and try to even the score. The more you kill -- assuming you can morally live with your actions -- the more you have to worry about the friends, the family, and the descendents of the people you killed. Live by the sword; die by the sword. What goes around comes around.
'Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered is unhappy.'
I read about the politician who said he 'didn't care about civilian deaths' -- and I feel sick to my stomach. I think of Bob Dylan's song, 'The Masters of War'.
Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
Like Judas of old
You lie and deceive
A world war can be won
You want me to believe
But I see through your eyes
And I see through your brain
Like I see through the water
That runs down my drain
You fasten the triggers
For the others to fire
Then you set back and watch
When the death count gets higher
You hide in your mansion
As young people's blood
Flows out of their bodies
And is buried in the mud
You've thrown the worst fear
That can ever be hurled
Fear to bring children
Into the world
For threatening my baby
Unborn and unnamed
You ain't worth the blood
That runs in your veins
How much do I know
To talk out of turn
You might say that I'm young
You might say I'm unlearned
But there's one thing I know
Though I'm younger than you
Even Jesus would never
Forgive what you do
Let me ask you one question
Is your money that good
Will it buy you forgiveness
Do you think that it could
I think you will find
When your death takes its toll
All the money you made
Will never buy back your soul...
Copyright © 1963; renewed 1991 Special Rider Music
There are two ways the dialectic can play itself out -- through 'the will to power' which if it is not attached to the thill of competing in a sporting or game challenge, and/or not attached to the 'will to excellence in human achievement (partnered with human compassion), then it is probably a 'negative' will to power that is played out through the worst of human nature -- narcissism (selfishness) and greed and 'territorialness' and coercion, and manipulation, and hate, and force, and violence.
I think Anaxamander saw all this in human nature -- he saw how 'what goes around comes around'. He saw how 'black' and 'white' originated from the same 'Universal Souce' -- he called it 'The Boundless'. He saw how 'The Boundless Universe' differentiated into 'polar differences', 'polar opposites', 'polar extremes'... They would separate from each other, then collide with each other, each striving for total, universal dominance, and perhaps partly getting there, feeling the thrill of temporary victory, only to be eventually thwarted, brought back into line again, held back in check again, by the inevitable, rising polar strength of the opposite characteristic coming back into play again, toppling the victor off its pedestal, to take its place, but again, only temporarily again, as the cosmic pendulum of justice swings back and forth again 'in conformity with the ordinace of Time'.
Hegel -- to what extent he may or may not have been familiar with Anaxamander I don't know -- bought into Anaxamander's logic completely giving the dialectic a 'deterministic, fatalistic, inevitable clout to it' -- regardless if the dialectic is playing itself out in peace or war. And furthermore, Hegel assumed that the inevitable end to the 'determinsitic, forceful dialectic' -- regardless of how violent it is -- will be a solution that inevitablly takes man to 'The Absolute' -- and to God.
I am not nearly this optimistic in terms of the inevitable outcome of the 'forceful, violent' acting out of the dialectic in human affairs. Indeed, I am much more cynical in terms of the capability of man for ultimate destruction and self-destruction -- before he gets to any kind of ultimate 'Awareness', 'Consciousness', and 'God-like Knowledge'.
Freud viewed the ultimate acting out of man's 'positive' dialectical characteristics (debate, democracy, diplomacy, humanistic negotiation) with man's 'negative' dialectical features ('will to power', war, force, manipulation, violence, destruction and self-destruction) as the conflict between man's 'life' and 'death' instinct.
I don't look at this conflict as being one between two different sets of 'instincts'. I view it -- existentially -- as being one between two different sets of choices: 'life' choices vs. 'death' choices -- narcissistic, will to power, ignorance of human compassion, choices vs. humanistic-existential choices that build from a healthy 'homeostatic balance' between human compassion and human accountabllity.
Without a balanced leger of human compassion and human accounatability, we may indeed get to God sooner than we want to -- but it may be through a nuclear holocaust or through polluting the world we live in until it can no longer support us.
We would/will have nobody to blame but ourselves (assuming that there is someone still around to take the self-blame). Indeed, it would seem that the eerie poetry of our second oldest Western philosopher, Anaxamander -- a man who seemed to know much too much about the worst side of human nature -- would/will come back to haunt us like a voodoo spell.
The Condemnation for the Crime,
In Conformity With The Ordinance of Time
db, August 21st, 2006, updated Jan. 31st, 2007.
Sunday, September 9, 2007
Anaxamander's Room (Part 2)
Anaxamander (611BC-547BC) was an amazing man, my favorite early Greek philosopher (with only Heraclitus rivaling him in my esteem). He is usually referred to as the second oldest Western philosopher behind only Thales (624BC to 546BC).
Anaxamanader's philosophy is partly primitive -- what we have left of it in what are called 'fragments' -- but it was partly many, many years ahead of its time. Anaxamsner offered us the first philosophy of 'opposites', the first philosophy of 'dualism', the first 'dialectical philosophy', the first philosophy of 'yin' and 'yang', the first philosophy of 'dialectical evolution', the first philosophy of 'deconstruction' -- all of these without the fancy nametags that would be added on by later philosophers. But Anaxamander had the essence of some of the most important concepts in the history of both Western and Eastern philosophy that would be developed by other philosophers, such as a few hundred years down the line in China (the Han philosophers in China, 207 BC to 9AD, with their remarkable 'Han Synthesis' and the developments of the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' which would become so central to the future of Chinese philosophy.)
Is Anaxamander's early Greek philosophy and the synthesis of the Han Philosophers in China hundreds of years later comparable? I definitely think so. Is there any evidence to suggest that the Chinese may have been influenced in their thinking by the communication of early Greek philosophy to them from the west? This I cannot say but my guess is that yes, there was communication between the Greeks and Chinese -- with Miletus, the home of Anaxamander being at the hub of all trade and communication from West to East, North to South.
Maybe it was coincidence, maybe it was not, but Anaxamander's philosophy had a definitely strong Chinese ring to it -- or rather, the significantly later Han Synthesis had a definitely strong Anaxamander ring to it.
Anaxamander talked about the 'Boundless' or the 'Unlimited'; the Han philosophers talked about the 'Tao' or 'the Great Ultimate'. Anaxamander talked about the division of the world into opposites, black and white, hot and cold, etc. The two polar opposite phenomena would not always be visible at the same time; oftentimes, one would dominate while the other receded into the background, but it would only be a matter of time before the two would reverse roles as the other would come to dominate while the first receded into the background. As a critical fragment of Anaxamander stated,
As“the unlimited is the first principle of things that are. It is that from which the coming-to-be takes place, and it is that to which they return when they perish, by moral necessity, giving satisfaction to one another and making reparation for their injustice, according to the order of time.”
Thus, opposites differentiate themselves from the great unlimited with one opposite returning to the unlimited when it is being dominated by its other half. It will not stay in the unlimited forever but just long enough to replenish its energy and come back into the world stronger than every and 'making reparation for its earlier injustice at the hands of its stronger opposite' with now the tides being reversed and the previously dominant opposite receding back into the great Unlimited presumably for a recharge of new energy to take back into the world with it again, in order to do battle with its opposite again. In China, these opposites would become 'sexualized' with 'yin' representing a basic 'feminine energy' and 'yang' representing a 'masculine energy'. In evolving Chinese philosophy 'yin' and 'yang' needed to be in balance with each other in order to be healthy; when one opposite or the other was dominating then this would indicate a type of sickness (too much weakness and passivity in the body or too much fire in the body). Thus, for the Han philosophers, both opposites needed to be in the world working together in harmony and balance with each other; not one side dominating the other and sending the other to the sidelines for more reinforcements and energy. This was an aspect of Anaxamander's philosophy that would be modified and developed by Heraclitus -- the idea of the 'unification and harmony of opposites' -- an idea that would reverberate throughout the history of both Eastern and Western philosophy for thousands of years to come. Good ideas don't fade away. They just keep coming back, recyled again and again with new names.
db, May 10th, 2007.
Anaxamanader's philosophy is partly primitive -- what we have left of it in what are called 'fragments' -- but it was partly many, many years ahead of its time. Anaxamsner offered us the first philosophy of 'opposites', the first philosophy of 'dualism', the first 'dialectical philosophy', the first philosophy of 'yin' and 'yang', the first philosophy of 'dialectical evolution', the first philosophy of 'deconstruction' -- all of these without the fancy nametags that would be added on by later philosophers. But Anaxamander had the essence of some of the most important concepts in the history of both Western and Eastern philosophy that would be developed by other philosophers, such as a few hundred years down the line in China (the Han philosophers in China, 207 BC to 9AD, with their remarkable 'Han Synthesis' and the developments of the concepts of 'yin' and 'yang' which would become so central to the future of Chinese philosophy.)
Is Anaxamander's early Greek philosophy and the synthesis of the Han Philosophers in China hundreds of years later comparable? I definitely think so. Is there any evidence to suggest that the Chinese may have been influenced in their thinking by the communication of early Greek philosophy to them from the west? This I cannot say but my guess is that yes, there was communication between the Greeks and Chinese -- with Miletus, the home of Anaxamander being at the hub of all trade and communication from West to East, North to South.
Maybe it was coincidence, maybe it was not, but Anaxamander's philosophy had a definitely strong Chinese ring to it -- or rather, the significantly later Han Synthesis had a definitely strong Anaxamander ring to it.
Anaxamander talked about the 'Boundless' or the 'Unlimited'; the Han philosophers talked about the 'Tao' or 'the Great Ultimate'. Anaxamander talked about the division of the world into opposites, black and white, hot and cold, etc. The two polar opposite phenomena would not always be visible at the same time; oftentimes, one would dominate while the other receded into the background, but it would only be a matter of time before the two would reverse roles as the other would come to dominate while the first receded into the background. As a critical fragment of Anaxamander stated,
As“the unlimited is the first principle of things that are. It is that from which the coming-to-be takes place, and it is that to which they return when they perish, by moral necessity, giving satisfaction to one another and making reparation for their injustice, according to the order of time.”
Thus, opposites differentiate themselves from the great unlimited with one opposite returning to the unlimited when it is being dominated by its other half. It will not stay in the unlimited forever but just long enough to replenish its energy and come back into the world stronger than every and 'making reparation for its earlier injustice at the hands of its stronger opposite' with now the tides being reversed and the previously dominant opposite receding back into the great Unlimited presumably for a recharge of new energy to take back into the world with it again, in order to do battle with its opposite again. In China, these opposites would become 'sexualized' with 'yin' representing a basic 'feminine energy' and 'yang' representing a 'masculine energy'. In evolving Chinese philosophy 'yin' and 'yang' needed to be in balance with each other in order to be healthy; when one opposite or the other was dominating then this would indicate a type of sickness (too much weakness and passivity in the body or too much fire in the body). Thus, for the Han philosophers, both opposites needed to be in the world working together in harmony and balance with each other; not one side dominating the other and sending the other to the sidelines for more reinforcements and energy. This was an aspect of Anaxamander's philosophy that would be modified and developed by Heraclitus -- the idea of the 'unification and harmony of opposites' -- an idea that would reverberate throughout the history of both Eastern and Western philosophy for thousands of years to come. Good ideas don't fade away. They just keep coming back, recyled again and again with new names.
db, May 10th, 2007.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Chinese Philosophy: The Han Synthesis
The Han Synthesis Philosophers in China (207B.C.-9A.D.)
After the disastrous period of totalitarian government during the Ch'in dynasty (221-207 B. C.), the early Han dynasty (207 B.C.-9 A.D.) returned to older forms of imperial government. However, they adopted from the Ch'in the idea of an absolutely central government and spent most of their period in power trying to regain the same level of centrality that the Ch'in and the Legalists had so ruthlessly accomplished. This ideology of central government, along with the Legalists' attempts to standardize Chinese culture and Chinese philosophy, led thinkers of the Han to attempt to unify all the rival schools of Chinese thought and philosophy that had developed over the previous three hundred years. This unification of Chinese into a single coherent system is the most lasting legacy of the Han dynasty. Earlier, the Legalists attempted to standardize Chinese thought by burning the books of rival schools and by making it a capital crime to speak of Confucius, Lao Tzu, or Mo Tzu. The Han thinkers, who thoroughly despised the Legalists and their methods while adopting many of their goals, took a different approach. Rather than reject alternate ways of thinking, they took a syncretic approach and attempted to fuse all the rival schools of thought into a single system. This syncretic project of the early Han is known as the Han synthesis. In many ways it was similar to the larger project of unifying Chinese government.
The Han philosophers concentrated specifically on the Five Classics, attempting to derive from them, particularly the I ching , or Book of Changes, the principle of the workings of the universe, or Tao. This new theory of the universe they appended to the I ching ; this appendix explains the metaphysical workings of the entire universe. Once the overall workings of the unverse were understood, then every form of thought could be directly related to each other by appealing to the basic principles of the universe.
Chinese Philosophy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wu-hsing
Yin/Yang
The essentials of the Han synthesis are as follows: the universe is run by a single principle, the Tao, or Great Ultimate. This principle is divided into two opposite principles, or two principles which oppose one another in their actions, yin and yang. All the opposites one perceives in the universe can be reduced to one of the opposite forces. In general, these forces are distinguished by their role in producing creation and producing degeneration: yang is the force of creation and yin the force of completion and degeneration.
Yin and yang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taijitu, the traditional symbol representing the forces of Yin and Yang. The concepts of Yin and Yang originate in ancient Chinese philosophy and metaphysics, which describes two primal opposing but complementary forces found in all things in the universe.
Yin (Chinese: 陰/阴; pinyin: yīn; literally "shady place, north slope (hill), south bank (river); cloudy, overcast") is the darker element; it is sad, passive, dark, feminine, downward-seeking, and corresponds to the night.
Yang (陽/阳; yáng; "sunny place, south slope (hill), north bank (river); sunshine") is the brighter element; it is happy, active, light, masculine, upward-seeking and corresponds to the day. Yin is often symbolized by water or earth, while Yang is symbolized by fire, or wind. Yin (receptive, feminine, dark, passive force) and Yang (creative, masculine, bright, active force) are descriptions of complementary opposites rather than absolutes. Any Yin/Yang dichotomy can be seen as its opposite when viewed from another perspective. The categorization is seen as one of convenience. Most forces in nature can be seen as having Yin and Yang states, and the two are usually in movement rather than held in absolute stasis.
[edit] Summary of Yin and Yang concepts
Everything can be described as both Yin and Yang.
1. Yin and Yang do not exclude each other.
Everything has its opposite—although this is never absolute, only relative. No one thing is completely Yin or completely Yang. Each contains the seed of its opposite. For example, winter can turn into summer; "what goes up must come down".
2. Yin and Yang are interdependent.
One cannot exist without the other. For example, day cannot exist without night. Light cannot exist without darkness. Death cannot exist without Life.
3. Yin and Yang can be further subdivided into Yin and Yang.
Any Yin or Yang aspect can be further subdivided into Yin and Yang. For example, temperature can be seen as either hot or cold. However, hot can be further divided into warm or burning; cold into cool or icy. Within each spectrum, there is a smaller spectrum; every beginning is a moment in time, and has a beginning and end, just as every hour has a beginning and end.
4. Yin and Yang consume and support each other.
Yin and Yang are usually held in balance—as one increases, the other decreases. However, imbalances can occur. There are four possible imbalances: Excess Yin, excess Yang, Yin deficiency, and Yang deficiency. They can again be seen as a pair: by excess of Yin there is a Yang deficiency and vice versa. The imbalance is also a relative factor: the excess of Yang "forces" Yin to be more "concentrated".
5. Yin and Yang can transform into one another.
At a particular stage, Yin can transform into Yang and vice versa. For example, night changes into day; warmth cools; life changes to death. However this transformation is relative too. Night and day coexist on Earth at the same time when shown from space.
6. Part of Yin is in Yang and part of Yang is in Yin.
The dots in each serve:
as a reminder that there are always traces of one in the other. For example, there is always light within the dark (e.g., the stars at night); these qualities are never completely one or the other.
as a reminder that absolute extreme side transforms instantly into the opposite, or that the labels Yin and Yang are conditioned by an observer's point of view. For example, the hardest stone is easiest to break. This can show that absolute discrimination between the two is artificial.
Nor was it a coincidence or a first time appearance of the dialectic in China when the Chinese suddenly took to Marxian philosophy. Dialectical 'links' and a 'generology tree' can be made between Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Plato, Confuscious, the Han philosophers, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, and Derrida. Now the big geneological question here which I don't know whether any student of Western and Eastern philosophy has fully investigated, is whether there was any 'cross-link' between early pre-Socratic Greek philosophy and early Chinese philosophy (Confuscious, the Han philosophers). Anaxamander (611 BC-547 BC, preceded Confucious 551 BC-479 BC, who in turn preceded Heraclitus, 535 BC -475 BC so if there was any flow of influence it would probably have had to start from from West (Anaxamander) to East (Confucious and/or the Han philosophers) -- and then perhaps (although unlikely) gone back to West (Heraclitus and/or afterwards) again. From my admittedly limited knowledge in this area of Eastern, Middle Eastern, and Western history, I believe that the Egyptians may have had contact with the Chinese, and the pre-Socratic Greeks may have had contact with the Egyptians. So it is not impossible -- albeit unlikely with the language barriers -- that there might have been some sort of philosophical exchange of ideas between the Greeks and the Chinese. (Incidently, I have no knowledge of Egyptian philosophy at this time, and whether there were any ideas being developed by the Egyptians at this time which would coincide in any way with either the Chinese philosophers or the pre-Socratic philosophers.)
I also do not know whether the Chinese dialectical (dual) principle of 'yin' and 'yang' originated with Confucious or with the Han philosophers. I believe I have read conflicting information on the internet in this regard. The last essay I read suggested that the principle of yin and yang originated with the Han philosophers as part of the 'Han synthesis'.
Now let us assume for the moment that there was no philosophical integration between early pre-Socratic and early Chinese thought. If this was indeed the case, then what amazes me is the remarkable similarity in philosophy between Anaxamander and the Han philosophers (if not Confucious). Indeed, it would seem that the Han philosophers were using Anaxamanderian philosophy -- and no where have I seen on the internet that this was in fact the case -- as the basis, the foundation for the system of integrative Chinese philosophy that they developed including putting labels (such as 'yin' and 'yang') on Anaxamanderian concepts! 'Astounding' is the most appropriate word I can come up with that seems to best fit the remarkable coincidence of the amazing similarity in thought between Anaxamanderian and about 350 years later Chinese (Han) philosophy. Or maybe it is not a coincidence. A lot of even slow travelling and slow integrating of ideas can happen in 350 years. So maybe it is not completely outrageous to think that Anaxamander might have influenced the evolution of early Chinese (Han) philosophy. Let us look at the similarities not only embraces the whole history of Western philosophy going back to at least 550-600BC to Anaxamander and Heraclitus but also goes almost as far back into the history of Eastern philosophy (but not quite as far as my research tells me so far), back to the philosophy of Confucious, the beginning of Taoism (the beginning of the concept of 'yin' and 'yang'), culminating in the massive philosophical integrations of the Han Dynasty.
Now Western philosophy I feel I have something of a handle on -- although even with Western philosophy I can be put in my place fairly quickly by people who specialize in the different areas that I am investigating. But Eastern philosophy -- and Middle Eastern philosophy for that matter -- goes much deeper into my 'quicksand quagmire' or 'philosophical area of the unknown'. Do I keep digging, I ask myself? -- even with an excavator? -- or turn back?
One can say -- as with many different important ideas that have evolved through man's history -- that the idea of the 'dialectic' has many different 'dialects' (sounds like these two words with their different meanings have the same root). Some of these different dialects we will talk about either briefly or in more detail while others we may let slip to the wayside predominantly because they are of less interest to me, and/or I just do not have the required time and energy to investigate them all. Some of these different 'dialectic dialects' have already been investigated in greater or lesser detail, some I still feel are 'virgin territory'. We can and will talk about the 'Anaxamanderan Dialectic', the 'Heraclitean Dialectic', the 'Socratean Dialectic', the 'Platonic Dialectic', if we get braver, the 'Confucian Dialectic', the the 'Taoism Dialectic', the 'Han Dialectic' -- and then leaving some significant gaps for the time being in both Western and Eastern philosophical history -- we will fastforward to the 'Fichtean Dialectic', the 'Hegelian Dialectic', the 'Marx-Engels Dialectic', the 'Nietzschean Dialectic', the 'Freudian Dialectic', the 'Jungian Dialectic', the 'Adlerian Dialectic', the 'Gestalt Dialectic'. We will even get braver still and poke our way into an investigation on the significance of the 'dialectic' relative to 'biology', 'evolution', 'Darwin', 'intelligent design', 'medicine', 'natural health', 'religion', 'pantheism', 'politics', 'economics', 'law', and -- leaving some room for the unknown, some room for even deeper elements of my 'quicksand quagmire' -- any discussion of the 'dialectic' that is not coming to the top of my head at this precise moment.
It sounds like we have more than the potential for a Masters or PHD thesis here -- even if I don't exactly jump through all of the 'academic hoops' that might get me there. Oh yes, that reminds me of one other type of 'dialectic' that I have already written about in Part 1 of this philosophical project -- the dialectic between 'academic philosophy' and 'pragmatic, common sense, lay philosophy'.
Before we start, there is a need to establish our general 'overall range of meaning for the dialectic', and then we can zero in, individually, on what each and every philosopher means similarly and differently by the dialectic (the different dialects of the dialectic), and on how our discussion of the dialectic as a whole theoretically and pragmatically affects each and every element of man's history, culture, and evolution -- indeed, some might say, including myself, the very history and evolution of biology and life itself.
The Hegelian idea of the dialect (which entails the idea of opposite phenomena, ideas, and/or lifestyles coming into contact with each other, often colliding with each other in aggressive fashion, and either trying to conquor each other, and/or reaching an impasse and separating from each other again, and/or reaching some sort of integrative compromise and/or synthesis in the familiar Hegelain forumula of 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', 'synthesis', and start all over again) I traced this idea back to the Pre-Socratic philosophy of Heraclitus, and from Heraclitus back to Anaxamander. I could trace it no further. I couldn't find any trace of the Hegelian dialectic in Thales who is generally considered to be the oldest Western philosopher -- at least among those who's ideas have been carried through history. Before Thales we would have to dip into either pre-Pre-Socratic ancient Greek literature (Homer), mythology and/or religion which I intend partly to do in the DGB religion section, but for our purposes here it looks to me like the Hegelian idea of the dialectic starts with Anaxamander. It is for this reason that our investigation into the history of Western dialectic philosophy starts with Anaxamander and moves forward. A huge sidewards step could be taken with a lot more 'cloudy mud' involved (particularly for someone like me who has little knowledge here) if we wander into ancient Chinese philosophy and examine the 'dialectic' as it has evolved in Chinese philosophy, religion, and culture. In Western philosophy (as in Eastern philosophy) a distinction can be made between those philosophers who specialized in some semblence of the Hegelian dialectic (eg. Anaxamander and Heraclitus in Greece, Confucious and Lao Tze in China) vs. those philosophers who fought long and hard for a particular philosophical perspective and left their legacy in the history of dialectical philosophy not so much as a dialectic philosopher per se but rather as one part of a 'Fichtean-Hegelian dialectic philosophical-historical triangle' (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis). In this regard I am thinking of Plato (the rationalist) vs. Aristotle (the empiricist) or Scholastic (religous) philosophy vs. Enlightenment (scientific) philosophy, or Enlightenment philosophy (reason and the rational) vs. Romantic Philosophy (passion and the irrational), or Structuralism vs. Deconstructionism. These polar swings in the history of philosophy we will discuss as we move along here, but first, let us start with Anaxamander (610 BC to 546 BC), the person who I consider to be the oldest dialectical philosopher in the history of Western philosophy -- perhaps relative to Eastern philosophy too as his idea pre-date the philosophy of the Chinese Hans philosopers (207 BC to 9 AD) who came up with the distinction between 'yin' and 'yang'. Before we start with Anaxamander, I would like to pull a short exerpt from the internet regarding the Han Philosophers and the development of the Han Dynasty because the goals of the Han Philosophers are to my limited knowledge exactly the same as my goals here only in Hegel's Hotel -- only in a different cultural, historical, philosophical, political, and economic context. The primary similarity in our goals is/was the move away from 'righteous, authoritarian, either/or' thinking in favor of 'integrative thinking that aims to unite opposing perspectives and alternatives'.
Having read what you just read above about the Han Philosophers, I want you now read the next series of essays on Anaxamander who was operating around Greece about 350 years before the Han Philsophers were operating in China -- and ask yourself whether you do not see a startling similarity in the the two philosophies. If during this 350 year period, following Anaxamander's death, there was any contact between the teachings of the second oldest Western philosopher and one of the most esteemed group of ancient Chinese philosophers -- not taking into account at the moment older pre-Han Chinese philosophy influences which to be sure were and still are extremely significant -- then that would indicate that Anaxamander has perhaps had an even greater influence on the evolution of Eastern Philosophy than he has on Western Philosophy, although that is hard to imagine because indirectly at least I believe that Anaxamander's Dialectical Philosophy, as sparse and fragmented as it may be to us today, still provides, known or unknown, the basement foundation of all Western Dialectical Philosophy -- which includes the philosophy of Heraclitus, maybe Socrates to some extent, Plato, Aristotle, Scholastic Philosophy, Enlightenment Philosophy, Romantic Philosophy, Rationalism (Plato, Descartes), Emiricism (Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume), Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Adam Smith, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, The Structuralists, Deconstructionists, The Modernists, The Post-Modernists...and I haven't even broken a sweat.
With all due respect to Plato, what Whitehead wrote about Plato: 'that all of Western Philosophy is footnotes to Plato', I believe that that statement is equally if not more applicable to Anaxamander in the sense that I have demonstrated above, and will demonstrate further below...
After the disastrous period of totalitarian government during the Ch'in dynasty (221-207 B. C.), the early Han dynasty (207 B.C.-9 A.D.) returned to older forms of imperial government. However, they adopted from the Ch'in the idea of an absolutely central government and spent most of their period in power trying to regain the same level of centrality that the Ch'in and the Legalists had so ruthlessly accomplished. This ideology of central government, along with the Legalists' attempts to standardize Chinese culture and Chinese philosophy, led thinkers of the Han to attempt to unify all the rival schools of Chinese thought and philosophy that had developed over the previous three hundred years. This unification of Chinese into a single coherent system is the most lasting legacy of the Han dynasty. Earlier, the Legalists attempted to standardize Chinese thought by burning the books of rival schools and by making it a capital crime to speak of Confucius, Lao Tzu, or Mo Tzu. The Han thinkers, who thoroughly despised the Legalists and their methods while adopting many of their goals, took a different approach. Rather than reject alternate ways of thinking, they took a syncretic approach and attempted to fuse all the rival schools of thought into a single system. This syncretic project of the early Han is known as the Han synthesis. In many ways it was similar to the larger project of unifying Chinese government.
The Han philosophers concentrated specifically on the Five Classics, attempting to derive from them, particularly the I ching , or Book of Changes, the principle of the workings of the universe, or Tao. This new theory of the universe they appended to the I ching ; this appendix explains the metaphysical workings of the entire universe. Once the overall workings of the unverse were understood, then every form of thought could be directly related to each other by appealing to the basic principles of the universe.
Chinese Philosophy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wu-hsing
Yin/Yang
The essentials of the Han synthesis are as follows: the universe is run by a single principle, the Tao, or Great Ultimate. This principle is divided into two opposite principles, or two principles which oppose one another in their actions, yin and yang. All the opposites one perceives in the universe can be reduced to one of the opposite forces. In general, these forces are distinguished by their role in producing creation and producing degeneration: yang is the force of creation and yin the force of completion and degeneration.
Yin and yang
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Taijitu, the traditional symbol representing the forces of Yin and Yang. The concepts of Yin and Yang originate in ancient Chinese philosophy and metaphysics, which describes two primal opposing but complementary forces found in all things in the universe.
Yin (Chinese: 陰/阴; pinyin: yīn; literally "shady place, north slope (hill), south bank (river); cloudy, overcast") is the darker element; it is sad, passive, dark, feminine, downward-seeking, and corresponds to the night.
Yang (陽/阳; yáng; "sunny place, south slope (hill), north bank (river); sunshine") is the brighter element; it is happy, active, light, masculine, upward-seeking and corresponds to the day. Yin is often symbolized by water or earth, while Yang is symbolized by fire, or wind. Yin (receptive, feminine, dark, passive force) and Yang (creative, masculine, bright, active force) are descriptions of complementary opposites rather than absolutes. Any Yin/Yang dichotomy can be seen as its opposite when viewed from another perspective. The categorization is seen as one of convenience. Most forces in nature can be seen as having Yin and Yang states, and the two are usually in movement rather than held in absolute stasis.
[edit] Summary of Yin and Yang concepts
Everything can be described as both Yin and Yang.
1. Yin and Yang do not exclude each other.
Everything has its opposite—although this is never absolute, only relative. No one thing is completely Yin or completely Yang. Each contains the seed of its opposite. For example, winter can turn into summer; "what goes up must come down".
2. Yin and Yang are interdependent.
One cannot exist without the other. For example, day cannot exist without night. Light cannot exist without darkness. Death cannot exist without Life.
3. Yin and Yang can be further subdivided into Yin and Yang.
Any Yin or Yang aspect can be further subdivided into Yin and Yang. For example, temperature can be seen as either hot or cold. However, hot can be further divided into warm or burning; cold into cool or icy. Within each spectrum, there is a smaller spectrum; every beginning is a moment in time, and has a beginning and end, just as every hour has a beginning and end.
4. Yin and Yang consume and support each other.
Yin and Yang are usually held in balance—as one increases, the other decreases. However, imbalances can occur. There are four possible imbalances: Excess Yin, excess Yang, Yin deficiency, and Yang deficiency. They can again be seen as a pair: by excess of Yin there is a Yang deficiency and vice versa. The imbalance is also a relative factor: the excess of Yang "forces" Yin to be more "concentrated".
5. Yin and Yang can transform into one another.
At a particular stage, Yin can transform into Yang and vice versa. For example, night changes into day; warmth cools; life changes to death. However this transformation is relative too. Night and day coexist on Earth at the same time when shown from space.
6. Part of Yin is in Yang and part of Yang is in Yin.
The dots in each serve:
as a reminder that there are always traces of one in the other. For example, there is always light within the dark (e.g., the stars at night); these qualities are never completely one or the other.
as a reminder that absolute extreme side transforms instantly into the opposite, or that the labels Yin and Yang are conditioned by an observer's point of view. For example, the hardest stone is easiest to break. This can show that absolute discrimination between the two is artificial.
Nor was it a coincidence or a first time appearance of the dialectic in China when the Chinese suddenly took to Marxian philosophy. Dialectical 'links' and a 'generology tree' can be made between Anaxamander, Heraclitus, Plato, Confuscious, the Han philosophers, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, Freud, Jung, Perls, and Derrida. Now the big geneological question here which I don't know whether any student of Western and Eastern philosophy has fully investigated, is whether there was any 'cross-link' between early pre-Socratic Greek philosophy and early Chinese philosophy (Confuscious, the Han philosophers). Anaxamander (611 BC-547 BC, preceded Confucious 551 BC-479 BC, who in turn preceded Heraclitus, 535 BC -475 BC so if there was any flow of influence it would probably have had to start from from West (Anaxamander) to East (Confucious and/or the Han philosophers) -- and then perhaps (although unlikely) gone back to West (Heraclitus and/or afterwards) again. From my admittedly limited knowledge in this area of Eastern, Middle Eastern, and Western history, I believe that the Egyptians may have had contact with the Chinese, and the pre-Socratic Greeks may have had contact with the Egyptians. So it is not impossible -- albeit unlikely with the language barriers -- that there might have been some sort of philosophical exchange of ideas between the Greeks and the Chinese. (Incidently, I have no knowledge of Egyptian philosophy at this time, and whether there were any ideas being developed by the Egyptians at this time which would coincide in any way with either the Chinese philosophers or the pre-Socratic philosophers.)
I also do not know whether the Chinese dialectical (dual) principle of 'yin' and 'yang' originated with Confucious or with the Han philosophers. I believe I have read conflicting information on the internet in this regard. The last essay I read suggested that the principle of yin and yang originated with the Han philosophers as part of the 'Han synthesis'.
Now let us assume for the moment that there was no philosophical integration between early pre-Socratic and early Chinese thought. If this was indeed the case, then what amazes me is the remarkable similarity in philosophy between Anaxamander and the Han philosophers (if not Confucious). Indeed, it would seem that the Han philosophers were using Anaxamanderian philosophy -- and no where have I seen on the internet that this was in fact the case -- as the basis, the foundation for the system of integrative Chinese philosophy that they developed including putting labels (such as 'yin' and 'yang') on Anaxamanderian concepts! 'Astounding' is the most appropriate word I can come up with that seems to best fit the remarkable coincidence of the amazing similarity in thought between Anaxamanderian and about 350 years later Chinese (Han) philosophy. Or maybe it is not a coincidence. A lot of even slow travelling and slow integrating of ideas can happen in 350 years. So maybe it is not completely outrageous to think that Anaxamander might have influenced the evolution of early Chinese (Han) philosophy. Let us look at the similarities not only embraces the whole history of Western philosophy going back to at least 550-600BC to Anaxamander and Heraclitus but also goes almost as far back into the history of Eastern philosophy (but not quite as far as my research tells me so far), back to the philosophy of Confucious, the beginning of Taoism (the beginning of the concept of 'yin' and 'yang'), culminating in the massive philosophical integrations of the Han Dynasty.
Now Western philosophy I feel I have something of a handle on -- although even with Western philosophy I can be put in my place fairly quickly by people who specialize in the different areas that I am investigating. But Eastern philosophy -- and Middle Eastern philosophy for that matter -- goes much deeper into my 'quicksand quagmire' or 'philosophical area of the unknown'. Do I keep digging, I ask myself? -- even with an excavator? -- or turn back?
One can say -- as with many different important ideas that have evolved through man's history -- that the idea of the 'dialectic' has many different 'dialects' (sounds like these two words with their different meanings have the same root). Some of these different dialects we will talk about either briefly or in more detail while others we may let slip to the wayside predominantly because they are of less interest to me, and/or I just do not have the required time and energy to investigate them all. Some of these different 'dialectic dialects' have already been investigated in greater or lesser detail, some I still feel are 'virgin territory'. We can and will talk about the 'Anaxamanderan Dialectic', the 'Heraclitean Dialectic', the 'Socratean Dialectic', the 'Platonic Dialectic', if we get braver, the 'Confucian Dialectic', the the 'Taoism Dialectic', the 'Han Dialectic' -- and then leaving some significant gaps for the time being in both Western and Eastern philosophical history -- we will fastforward to the 'Fichtean Dialectic', the 'Hegelian Dialectic', the 'Marx-Engels Dialectic', the 'Nietzschean Dialectic', the 'Freudian Dialectic', the 'Jungian Dialectic', the 'Adlerian Dialectic', the 'Gestalt Dialectic'. We will even get braver still and poke our way into an investigation on the significance of the 'dialectic' relative to 'biology', 'evolution', 'Darwin', 'intelligent design', 'medicine', 'natural health', 'religion', 'pantheism', 'politics', 'economics', 'law', and -- leaving some room for the unknown, some room for even deeper elements of my 'quicksand quagmire' -- any discussion of the 'dialectic' that is not coming to the top of my head at this precise moment.
It sounds like we have more than the potential for a Masters or PHD thesis here -- even if I don't exactly jump through all of the 'academic hoops' that might get me there. Oh yes, that reminds me of one other type of 'dialectic' that I have already written about in Part 1 of this philosophical project -- the dialectic between 'academic philosophy' and 'pragmatic, common sense, lay philosophy'.
Before we start, there is a need to establish our general 'overall range of meaning for the dialectic', and then we can zero in, individually, on what each and every philosopher means similarly and differently by the dialectic (the different dialects of the dialectic), and on how our discussion of the dialectic as a whole theoretically and pragmatically affects each and every element of man's history, culture, and evolution -- indeed, some might say, including myself, the very history and evolution of biology and life itself.
The Hegelian idea of the dialect (which entails the idea of opposite phenomena, ideas, and/or lifestyles coming into contact with each other, often colliding with each other in aggressive fashion, and either trying to conquor each other, and/or reaching an impasse and separating from each other again, and/or reaching some sort of integrative compromise and/or synthesis in the familiar Hegelain forumula of 'thesis', 'anti-thesis', 'synthesis', and start all over again) I traced this idea back to the Pre-Socratic philosophy of Heraclitus, and from Heraclitus back to Anaxamander. I could trace it no further. I couldn't find any trace of the Hegelian dialectic in Thales who is generally considered to be the oldest Western philosopher -- at least among those who's ideas have been carried through history. Before Thales we would have to dip into either pre-Pre-Socratic ancient Greek literature (Homer), mythology and/or religion which I intend partly to do in the DGB religion section, but for our purposes here it looks to me like the Hegelian idea of the dialectic starts with Anaxamander. It is for this reason that our investigation into the history of Western dialectic philosophy starts with Anaxamander and moves forward. A huge sidewards step could be taken with a lot more 'cloudy mud' involved (particularly for someone like me who has little knowledge here) if we wander into ancient Chinese philosophy and examine the 'dialectic' as it has evolved in Chinese philosophy, religion, and culture. In Western philosophy (as in Eastern philosophy) a distinction can be made between those philosophers who specialized in some semblence of the Hegelian dialectic (eg. Anaxamander and Heraclitus in Greece, Confucious and Lao Tze in China) vs. those philosophers who fought long and hard for a particular philosophical perspective and left their legacy in the history of dialectical philosophy not so much as a dialectic philosopher per se but rather as one part of a 'Fichtean-Hegelian dialectic philosophical-historical triangle' (thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis). In this regard I am thinking of Plato (the rationalist) vs. Aristotle (the empiricist) or Scholastic (religous) philosophy vs. Enlightenment (scientific) philosophy, or Enlightenment philosophy (reason and the rational) vs. Romantic Philosophy (passion and the irrational), or Structuralism vs. Deconstructionism. These polar swings in the history of philosophy we will discuss as we move along here, but first, let us start with Anaxamander (610 BC to 546 BC), the person who I consider to be the oldest dialectical philosopher in the history of Western philosophy -- perhaps relative to Eastern philosophy too as his idea pre-date the philosophy of the Chinese Hans philosopers (207 BC to 9 AD) who came up with the distinction between 'yin' and 'yang'. Before we start with Anaxamander, I would like to pull a short exerpt from the internet regarding the Han Philosophers and the development of the Han Dynasty because the goals of the Han Philosophers are to my limited knowledge exactly the same as my goals here only in Hegel's Hotel -- only in a different cultural, historical, philosophical, political, and economic context. The primary similarity in our goals is/was the move away from 'righteous, authoritarian, either/or' thinking in favor of 'integrative thinking that aims to unite opposing perspectives and alternatives'.
Having read what you just read above about the Han Philosophers, I want you now read the next series of essays on Anaxamander who was operating around Greece about 350 years before the Han Philsophers were operating in China -- and ask yourself whether you do not see a startling similarity in the the two philosophies. If during this 350 year period, following Anaxamander's death, there was any contact between the teachings of the second oldest Western philosopher and one of the most esteemed group of ancient Chinese philosophers -- not taking into account at the moment older pre-Han Chinese philosophy influences which to be sure were and still are extremely significant -- then that would indicate that Anaxamander has perhaps had an even greater influence on the evolution of Eastern Philosophy than he has on Western Philosophy, although that is hard to imagine because indirectly at least I believe that Anaxamander's Dialectical Philosophy, as sparse and fragmented as it may be to us today, still provides, known or unknown, the basement foundation of all Western Dialectical Philosophy -- which includes the philosophy of Heraclitus, maybe Socrates to some extent, Plato, Aristotle, Scholastic Philosophy, Enlightenment Philosophy, Romantic Philosophy, Rationalism (Plato, Descartes), Emiricism (Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume), Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Marx, Adam Smith, Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, The Structuralists, Deconstructionists, The Modernists, The Post-Modernists...and I haven't even broken a sweat.
With all due respect to Plato, what Whitehead wrote about Plato: 'that all of Western Philosophy is footnotes to Plato', I believe that that statement is equally if not more applicable to Anaxamander in the sense that I have demonstrated above, and will demonstrate further below...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
