|
| |
political correctness
Regarding political correctness ("pc"), the rules behind this usually
contain a valid thought (but isn't that the case with everything?), the
problem is that it is no more argued for it, so the reason might no more be known, it is just applied. In this sense it is similar to conventions, traditions, taboos etc.
While the englightment questioned everything and scrutinized everything
to give a good valid reason for it, otherwise it would be banned destroyed, romanticism in a critique of these exaggerations argued for conventions, traditions etc as a counter position.
Hegel's solution, as far as I see, is to have a synthesis of both where he shows the rational in conventions, traditions etc. But as he does this, he makes them also open to change on a higher level, as their reason is mainly relative to the reasons given.
For political correctness, while it is similar to traditions etc, the
interesting thing is that here the usual parties changed: the "leftist" people, who would usually scrutinize traditions, are in favor of pc because they think the "content" of that rules is according to reason, while the conservative "right" people are against it as a mean of limitating their freedom of speech.
I think the importance here (as everywhere) is not to fall in a dualistic trap, but to try to see the validity of both sides *together*.
While the pc-rules are based on some of the "content" of the enlightment (that is the explanation why leftists are in favor of it), the conservative critiques also shares a heritage of enlightment and modern time, as it is scrutinizing a given subject for its reason. You may say, that the leftists are applying content from the enlightment, while the conservative apply the form/method, so in that aspect they are part of the enlightment as well.
And rightly so: after the "ghost" of enlightment, of scrutinizing everything for its reason has been unleashed freed out of its bottle (I am referring in this picture to a story of "1001 nights"), it can not be placed in there again.
This is because it is also something good, it is in tune with the nature (concept/ Begriff") of spirit ("Geist") and its freedom and also with a valid key principle of science (intellectual freedom). Hegel makes a similar remark also when he discusses the story of Adam and Eve, btw.
However, while you may have reached such freedom in a formal way by
asking for reasons, you may not have reached the correct answer and found the correct reason. So you might very well be misleaded by thinking that while you (applying you in this context is just a rhetorical measure, in the sense of "a given person", I do not want to imply that you share this position) can't see a reason for a given (in the sense: existing) thing, it doesn't mean that such a reason doesn't exist.
While the Christian / conventional tradition was sure that even when one doesn't know such a reason, there must be one for God (so they might have exaggerated in the favor of accepting too much), the enlightment made the other exaggeration. Romanticism tried to restore the position of the time before enlightment but weren't able, because the innocence of the time before enlightment had been gone.
That is one of the tragic of our modern time (especially as it is able to criticize everything, however has not the mental power yet to give the valid reasons so needs to appeal for conventions, positive law etc where it should give satisfying reasons) and one of the reasons why I think Hegel to be invaluable, as he showed so far the only reasonable answer to this (see above).
So the solution here as well is to look for the rational in every pc rule and to be aware of it, so that we can apply it (or not) in tune with our own thoughts. This will give us freedom in what we do and so we will be "schoene Seelen" (Schiller, transl. to sthg. like "beautiful souls"). Schiller's theoretical works have heavily been recepted by Hegel btw, a fact that to my knowledge is not that much paid attention to in the current Hegel literature.
Democracy
Now regarding the specific subject of democracy, as it is the ruling
value of our time, applied in all major states of the world today, we
need to look into the reasons for this also. OTOH, as stated, it is
important for intellectual freedom to not be biased and look calmly on
all arguments. Also, questioning some key axioms, which no one is
complaining about, is one key factor for creative advance of science (in the case the questioning turns out to be correct - of course on has to be well aware that so much more questionings of established standards/ axioms turn out to be wrong themselves).
Now it is clear that democracy as such and the modern type of democracy
as it shows up especially in America (or in slightly different forms: in Germany) has several draw backs (which per se doesn't mean that it is bad in total) and former philosophers were well aware of this. I guess you are aware e.g. of the critique of Aristotle or that of Burke and others.
I think to think about these arguments can only be good.
Vittorio Hoesle, a young
(conservative) teacher (only by books) of mine, wrote a big book 'Moral and politics' , where he tried to update Hegel's 'Philosophy of Mind' and carefully looked at such arguments in favor and against democracy as such as well as for its different aspects and the different versions. I heard that an english version may come up within the next few years (BTW I have many critique in the content if the book, however, as material to think
about, it is very valuable. Hoesle might be a bit naive / "weltfremd" about some aspects of modern society IMHO, however he
is very intelligent and knows a lot).
Regarding Hegel's position on democracy, he is of course very well aware of it's deficits. If he is in the same way also aware of deficits of monarchy is less known, as his prudent way would have forbidden him to emphasis on this in a time where the ruling monarchy was very much
suppressing any critique.
However, when you look at Hegel's arguments in favor for a monarch in his philosophy of right carefully, you will find that as such a president of the US has a similar logical position (which, btw, is no wonder. As far as I know, the founding fathers of the US considered to establish an own constitutional monarchy, and only in a later stage decided to call the position of the king "president" and let him be elected, with the other attributes of the "king" unchanged).
When, as Hegelians, we want to see the reasonable in what is, we have a
different task in Hegel's time, where monarchies were the common standard and in our time, where democracies are.
So our current task in this field / directions seems to me to understand the reasonable in democracies.
But Hegel is not a positivist (he opposed in his books 'Encyclopedia' and 'Philosophy of Right' for example in several places against legal
positivism), he does not simply take his standards from given reality to accept it blindly.
From a bottom-up aproach, one could always investigate closely the
arguments given for a given object / state, follow it with ones own
thinking and so come to a stage where this is not just an assurance but
you are thinking this yourself, so you also know about its relative truth and its weaknesses / limitations.
(In parentheses:
Hegel studies I would encourage would go dialectically the process of
understanding Hegel so much that then we can look thru the arguments and value them. (But the emphasis on not criticizing but understanding Hegel is very right in so far that usually, in nearly all cases, people tend to criticize Hegel not by following his thoughts but by applying the external measure if he has the same / compatible opinion than they have, or they criticize Hegel for things he has either not said / meant in that way or which are not fully understood).
)
To come back to the thought I left in the previous paragraph:
this means that when we look at the arguments Hegel gives for monarchy,
we might see how important these are, in itself and in the context of the book and the system as such and whether they can not also be reached by other means.
For example, as I mentioned, I see the possibility to understand the
elements of a democracy to include those of the other: monarchy in the
head of the state (president in the US), aristocracy in at least one of
the houses of parliaments (e.g. senate in the US).
In a similar way, Hegel has seen the principles of aristocracy (house of lords) and democracy (house of parliaments) been sublated in a
(constitutional, representative) monarchy. According to a friend of him, Vernhagen, Hegel was "more in admiration of [constitutional] England in his ideas than people would think" [as this seems to have been one of the most advanced/free constitutional monarchies at Hegel's time]
From an top-down aproache ("An und fuer sich", "Begriff", "Idee"), you also have a measure to judge existing "formations" how
much they are in tune with the "spirit" by looking how much they resemble the later categories of the logic. A progress to the good that will last in our judgment as good is one that makes one aspect or another of our objective spirit more according to the highest categories of the 3rd book of the logic (preferable of those of the 1st or 3rd stage, e.g. concept or idea).
However, Hegel was very rightly prudent here not to overemphasis this too much, as this is otherwise an area where you very easily could come to wrong results by getting tempted to state your own thoughts as Hegel's and so to ask people to burn down everything in the name of a wrong utopism which is not backed at all by Hegel, but only by misunderstanding his logic.
As I mentioned, it is possible and I think also correct to read his logic as a kind of measure for reality, people like Hoesle and, in an other way, Theunissen, for example have shown this with good results.
Our situation at Hegel.Net:
To come back to your basic question here: as you have read, I am not in
favor of discussing / emphasizing such controversional topics at this
stage.
For the moment, it is most important for me that we create a space where open scientific thought in the spirit of Hegel can flourish / grow. When this is established, and we have such a culture of open discussion only committed to truth, we can think of also handling more controversial topics.
I should mention as a last comment on this topic, that while I myself
have some reasons for democracy as such, I do share much of the critiques of the real existing democracies we see today ("real existing" as a funny paraphrase of the term "real existing socialism" which was the common self description in former east block countries). So I am open to any result such a later debate might leads to, as long as it is the result of a careful, responsible and truthful scientific process.
However this later might be the crux. On such touchy subjects like this, people tend to go into a debate with their mind made up first, than they exchange arguments only to prove that they are right, they are less interested in just finding out the truth. Everyone says he is in the favor of truth (where not, this can easily be shown to lead to self contradictions), however, the normal way this is applied is that people are just sure that they are right, what they say think is the truth. Where not, they are not that much in favor of the truth. So this is the position which has to be overcome first before touching / debating any such touchy topic.
Also, emphasing the point of focussing on truth more than on ones own
beliefs (more to see that oneself is right than to look that
oneself is right), of course is the standard mouse trap, that
everyone, who wants people to change their mind, is applying, and the
dishonesty here is that those people who usually talk about "truth" just only mean their own truth, they only want to change others, but are unwilling to also consider to change their own assumptions / axioms.
So here again we find rationality in both positions: people have fear of people who tell them to look for truth instead of their own beliefs,
because they know of the many charlatans applying this trick, either from personal experience or from history. The talk of truth has been in the past both been a mean for people in the enlighting tradition (who usually have then some "Verstand" reasons to challenge a given thing as untruth because they don't know its better reason, see above) as well as from mystics, who apply to a given truth which others are just not able to see (yet). Both have their implicit blind spots.
OTOH, these peoples who think they are in tune with the truth and want to change others but not themselves I mentioned above also have their valid reasons (but then so have their counterparts in not wanting to be
convinced/change their minds), because, as I stated, it is so much easier to question a position than to find a good reason for it, so chances are good that you fall when you just rely on your own thoughts when these are in heavy contrast to all wisdom of your time and your tradition (see above. So for example Descartes, when he was starting his radical critique, was well aware of this danger and so moved to Holland, where he would live all the time a very conventional life until he would have made up his mind).
As a last word, one has to be very prudent and responsible about the topic of "Objective Spirit" (as well as Religion). It is something, where we all need to take care for each other and we have already too much fanatics in the world and so I better would see Hegel studies used to bring the world back to its sense instead of adding a new one sided fanatic tastefraction into the "discourse".
|
