HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Nov. 29, 2004 In G.W.F. Hegel’s “Philosophy of History” he superimposes the general trends of societal development onto each and every individual in a society, as if every single individual partakes in that specific “Human Nature” of the general society – this is a flawed theory: there is no single “Human Nature” present in each different epoch of human history, but only a general or prevalent majority of character in any society at any given time. There are always individuals who differ from that norm. Hegel, for instance, describes the different movements in societal structure such as Despotism, Roman Law, Christianity, etc. as waves of progress of a single “Human Nature” and only regards those movements of general society as Human development or character. It is rather that in any epoch of Human history there are always a variety of distinct “Human Natures”, comprised by different individual characters. Each and every one of these “Human Natures” is always present in the characters of individuals; a human nature applicable to everyone does not develop from one form into another on the whole, because it does not exist in such a context. No single human nature is shared by everyone. There are always all of the different kinds of human natures present in whatever historical epoch. These natures are divided among individuals, but Hegel only seems to recognise the general prevalent nature and applies it to everyone at once. Hegel failed to see that in every society there is a majority and minorities. He only saw the majority and neglected the minorities. Each society or epoch is the same in the sense that it is constituted by the combination of the majority and the minorities which make up the static, unchangeable “Human Nature”. Any society always consists of all possible “Human Natures”. One cannot say that a specific epoch was a Despotic society, a Patriarchal one, or any other form – in each society at any given time there are always something of everything – theists, atheists, despots, anarchists, free thinkers, etc. The kind of people we get today was always there from the beginning of civilisation. Another critical flaw in Hegel’s thought is that he holds that an individual cannot identify himself with the "Absolute Spirit"; conversely, he includes that for the "universal", to be universal proper, it is imperative to include within itself that which comprises the "particular". Thus, Hegel decided that all individuals were part of the Absolute Spirit, and that the Absolute Spirit is actually self- conscious, through the activity of the individuals. One can, according to this screwed notion of Hegel, form the following analogy: “I am aware of the Absolute through the same vein of consciousness than the Absolute is aware of me.” This is a maladroit argument, as it assumes that there is, first off all, an Absolute; and secondly, that this Absolute is self-conscious. Moreover, if each individual is in fact, as Hegel argues, part of the Absolute, and if this Absolute is self-conscious, then why do we as individuals not entirely know ourselves and indeed the entire truth of existence? Nothing can know itself completely as that would require an object-subject separation. Hegel also implies that we individuals are not individuals at all (hence freedom and individuality – a corner stone of his philosophy - ceases to exist) anymore, because an individual and the Absolute are now one and the same thing. He also implies that all individuals, being part of the same absolute, logically must have the same consciousness, the same thoughts in other words; this all consequently reduces to one individual which is also the one absolute. What would make more sense, however, is if one rather says that there are infinitely many individuals, each of which is its own absolute; the world of consciousness is thus a construction of an individual’s idea or sense of an absolute which is only absolute in the mind of an individual. We are thus left with the relative-absolute, which makes more sense in an existential context, and leaves space for infinity, as a one true absolute represents a limit to Being as such. Any ideas about Absoluteness are the result of individuals inside an infinite continuity experiencing the illusion of a seeming absolute, due to the inability of the mind to grasp infinity. “Grasp” is the key here: the mind wants to “grasp” something – it wants to be able to wrap around its subject of inquiry, in other words, it needs something that has boundaries in order to really comprehend – this is the problem with infinity… ------------ About the author Werner Reyneke: I am a 23 year old passionate writer/poet in my spare time and a computer programmer by proffession. Visit my website to see my first published book. I live in South Africa and have been published in a local newspaper (some poems in Haiku form) for the first time in February 2000. I have also been selected for publication in a VoicesNet Anthology (visit www.Voicesnet.org) and a Poetry.com (ILP Publishers) anthology called "Eternal Portraits"). Visit my website at: http://myweb.absa.co.za/wreyneke/Mybook.htm Email: wreyneke@absamail.co.za Tell a friend about this site! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
