The terminal defect of the utopian social experimenters was their being completely divorced from national cultures, traditions, etc. They, too, can be compared to those structural linguists who have tried to improve on the natural languages of humanity (just like I applied the same parallel to the utilitarians), inside a lab of their own making and in isolation from what can be literally called “the real world.” And, like them, in spite of certain in-the-lab successes, they failed to project their ideas outside the lab.
A totally different type of political philosophy was offered by Hegel. Although most serious thinkers have since rejected his positive theories as false, these theories have by no means lost their symbolic appeal, and have been found attractive by a broad and diverse spectrum of thinkers, from the incorrigible believers in the spiritual Absolute to Karl Marx and post-Marxian nationalists and totalitarians.
In spite of Hegel’s glaring basic mistakes, inconsistencies, and non sequiturs, his idea of the perfect state is so appealing and promising in a wide variety of practical political applications, that it has risen for eternity above the mundane into the rarefied stratosphere which is much more conducive to abstract marvel than to dogged scientific study under the microscope.
There are several points of interest which have attracted me to Hegel, my particular fascination starting at a fairly early age, on account of his special importance to Marx and Marxism.
I have enjoyed Hegel’s radical revision of dialectics, not only as the old science which the Greeks used to be skillful in, but, under Hegel’s new definition, a brand new science, laying down a new strain of thought. I have equally enjoyed his take on freedom, stating that the essence of matter is gravity (therefore, matter is unfree), but the essence of Spirit is Freedom, as Spirit is self-contained existence. And, of course, Hegel’s famous glorification of the State (the State in general, which can apply to a particular state only as long as that State is on the right course, I imagine) has brought me to the conclusion that Hegel, more than anyone else, can be credited with laying the philosophical foundation of the modern idea of totalitarianism, both as an idea per se, and in its practical applications in the twentieth century.
In the world-historical progression of Spirit there have been three stages (and here, as he becomes specific, he becomes, understandably, a Great-Power nationalist-chauvinist of his native Germany):
“The history of the world is the discipline of the uncontrolled natural Will, bringing it into obedience to a universal principle, and conferring subjective freedom. The East knew, and to the present day knows, only that One is free; the Greek and Roman world, that Some are free; the German world knows that All are free.”
Digesting now the peculiar understanding of freedom by Hegel, the East is associated with despotism, which in Hegel’s treatment is “freedom of one,” the Graeco-Roman world, with democracy and aristocracy, which represent “freedom of some,” but the German world representing monarchy is to him “freedom of all.” There can be no freedom, according to him, without the Law. Where there is Law, there is freedom, thus, freedom exists as the citizens’ right to obey the law, or something like that.
Paying tribute to his native Germany, Hegel writes: “The German spirit is the spirit of the new world. Its aim is the realization of absolute Truth as the unlimited self-determination of freedom--that freedom that has its own absolute from itself as its purport.”
But geographically, it is not Europe. or Hegel’s beloved Germany, which is designated by him as the land of the future. America is such promised land, “where in the ages that lie before us the burden of the world’s history shall reveal itself in a contest between North and South America.” (I used to sneer at this awkward prediction, attributing it to Hegel’s limitations in geopolitical understanding, but not anymore, since in the present-day reality, the ongoing contest of the white Anglo-American race versus its Hispanic counterpart is shaping up as a socio-political American “Armageddon” of sorts, with the outcome still unclear, but gradually tilting toward the political and physical triumph of the Hispanic race.)
Returning now to Hegel’s idea of the perfect State, in his Philosophy of History he writes that “the State is the actually existing realized moral life.” (Thus the spiritual reality possessed by any individual is available to him through the medium of the State---) “For his spiritual reality consists in this, that his own essence--- Reason-- is objectively present to him, that it possesses objective immediate existence for him… For truth is the unity of the universal and subjective Will, and the universal is to be found in the State-- in its laws, in its universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea, as it exists on earth. The State is the embodiment of rational freedom, realizing and recognizing itself in an objective form… The State is the Idea of Spirit in the external manifestation of Human Will and its Freedom.”
Speaking of the State, Hegel never suggests, though, that there is only one State qualified for his distinction. Otherwise his totalitarian universality would be impossible to maintain, as it would be instantly reduced to an imperial power trying to justify its ambition for world domination by yet another excuse. In my opinion, Hegel’s State is a model, to which all other national states are supposed to conform. This does not preclude such qualified states from clashing with each other, resulting in wars. But, like to Dostoyevsky after him, [a good] war is “good”--- “War has the higher significance that through it the moral health of peoples is preserved in their indifference towards the stabilizing of finite determinations.” In other words, wars (need I say “legitimate,” not bogus wars) do make people better, in the sense of their overall moral values, and in turning them away from money worship and trivial pursuits toward a higher, national goal, more in tune with the calling of the Spirit.
(Having reread what I have written so far, I realize that my subject matter is bound to raise some disoriented questions. The concept of the State has become too diffused these days, and many states of today cannot be seen as anything short of dysfunctional. Ironically, there are still quite a few men and women professing the idea of citizenship with pride and conviction, while the states which they are so proud to be citizens of, have been steadily disintegrating in front of our eyes. Well, I hope that the reader understands that I am talking of a genuine healthy breathing and living state, not a symbolic token state, growing in prominence as an object of our wishful thinking just as it is losing across the board in every medical metric of its vital signs.)
Coming back to Hegel’s idea of the State and its functioning in the broad wide world, he objects to the idea of a world government, and he rejects Kant’s call for a League of Peace. Perhaps, he is skeptical about the ability of a State to retain its independence within the constraints of a world body. But the experience of the Soviet State in the League of Nations, and even more demonstrably, its experience in the United Nations in the Cold War era shows that Hegel’s fears have been unfounded. As long as our State is powerful enough to stand its own ground, no participation in world or regional organizations can ever be harmful to its national interest. Thus Kant is much more correct than Hegel on this point.
So, to wrap this up in style and with a direct tie-in with the title of our present entry, only those States which are nationalistically self-aware (sine qua non!), militarily strong and politically assertive are qualified under Hegel’s definition of the State (and under the general law of common sense) to count “in that number when the [States] go marching in.”
A totally different type of political philosophy was offered by Hegel. Although most serious thinkers have since rejected his positive theories as false, these theories have by no means lost their symbolic appeal, and have been found attractive by a broad and diverse spectrum of thinkers, from the incorrigible believers in the spiritual Absolute to Karl Marx and post-Marxian nationalists and totalitarians.
In spite of Hegel’s glaring basic mistakes, inconsistencies, and non sequiturs, his idea of the perfect state is so appealing and promising in a wide variety of practical political applications, that it has risen for eternity above the mundane into the rarefied stratosphere which is much more conducive to abstract marvel than to dogged scientific study under the microscope.
There are several points of interest which have attracted me to Hegel, my particular fascination starting at a fairly early age, on account of his special importance to Marx and Marxism.
I have enjoyed Hegel’s radical revision of dialectics, not only as the old science which the Greeks used to be skillful in, but, under Hegel’s new definition, a brand new science, laying down a new strain of thought. I have equally enjoyed his take on freedom, stating that the essence of matter is gravity (therefore, matter is unfree), but the essence of Spirit is Freedom, as Spirit is self-contained existence. And, of course, Hegel’s famous glorification of the State (the State in general, which can apply to a particular state only as long as that State is on the right course, I imagine) has brought me to the conclusion that Hegel, more than anyone else, can be credited with laying the philosophical foundation of the modern idea of totalitarianism, both as an idea per se, and in its practical applications in the twentieth century.
In the world-historical progression of Spirit there have been three stages (and here, as he becomes specific, he becomes, understandably, a Great-Power nationalist-chauvinist of his native Germany):
“The history of the world is the discipline of the uncontrolled natural Will, bringing it into obedience to a universal principle, and conferring subjective freedom. The East knew, and to the present day knows, only that One is free; the Greek and Roman world, that Some are free; the German world knows that All are free.”
Digesting now the peculiar understanding of freedom by Hegel, the East is associated with despotism, which in Hegel’s treatment is “freedom of one,” the Graeco-Roman world, with democracy and aristocracy, which represent “freedom of some,” but the German world representing monarchy is to him “freedom of all.” There can be no freedom, according to him, without the Law. Where there is Law, there is freedom, thus, freedom exists as the citizens’ right to obey the law, or something like that.
Paying tribute to his native Germany, Hegel writes: “The German spirit is the spirit of the new world. Its aim is the realization of absolute Truth as the unlimited self-determination of freedom--that freedom that has its own absolute from itself as its purport.”
But geographically, it is not Europe. or Hegel’s beloved Germany, which is designated by him as the land of the future. America is such promised land, “where in the ages that lie before us the burden of the world’s history shall reveal itself in a contest between North and South America.” (I used to sneer at this awkward prediction, attributing it to Hegel’s limitations in geopolitical understanding, but not anymore, since in the present-day reality, the ongoing contest of the white Anglo-American race versus its Hispanic counterpart is shaping up as a socio-political American “Armageddon” of sorts, with the outcome still unclear, but gradually tilting toward the political and physical triumph of the Hispanic race.)
Returning now to Hegel’s idea of the perfect State, in his Philosophy of History he writes that “the State is the actually existing realized moral life.” (Thus the spiritual reality possessed by any individual is available to him through the medium of the State---) “For his spiritual reality consists in this, that his own essence--- Reason-- is objectively present to him, that it possesses objective immediate existence for him… For truth is the unity of the universal and subjective Will, and the universal is to be found in the State-- in its laws, in its universal and rational arrangements. The State is the Divine Idea, as it exists on earth. The State is the embodiment of rational freedom, realizing and recognizing itself in an objective form… The State is the Idea of Spirit in the external manifestation of Human Will and its Freedom.”
Speaking of the State, Hegel never suggests, though, that there is only one State qualified for his distinction. Otherwise his totalitarian universality would be impossible to maintain, as it would be instantly reduced to an imperial power trying to justify its ambition for world domination by yet another excuse. In my opinion, Hegel’s State is a model, to which all other national states are supposed to conform. This does not preclude such qualified states from clashing with each other, resulting in wars. But, like to Dostoyevsky after him, [a good] war is “good”--- “War has the higher significance that through it the moral health of peoples is preserved in their indifference towards the stabilizing of finite determinations.” In other words, wars (need I say “legitimate,” not bogus wars) do make people better, in the sense of their overall moral values, and in turning them away from money worship and trivial pursuits toward a higher, national goal, more in tune with the calling of the Spirit.
(Having reread what I have written so far, I realize that my subject matter is bound to raise some disoriented questions. The concept of the State has become too diffused these days, and many states of today cannot be seen as anything short of dysfunctional. Ironically, there are still quite a few men and women professing the idea of citizenship with pride and conviction, while the states which they are so proud to be citizens of, have been steadily disintegrating in front of our eyes. Well, I hope that the reader understands that I am talking of a genuine healthy breathing and living state, not a symbolic token state, growing in prominence as an object of our wishful thinking just as it is losing across the board in every medical metric of its vital signs.)
Coming back to Hegel’s idea of the State and its functioning in the broad wide world, he objects to the idea of a world government, and he rejects Kant’s call for a League of Peace. Perhaps, he is skeptical about the ability of a State to retain its independence within the constraints of a world body. But the experience of the Soviet State in the League of Nations, and even more demonstrably, its experience in the United Nations in the Cold War era shows that Hegel’s fears have been unfounded. As long as our State is powerful enough to stand its own ground, no participation in world or regional organizations can ever be harmful to its national interest. Thus Kant is much more correct than Hegel on this point.
So, to wrap this up in style and with a direct tie-in with the title of our present entry, only those States which are nationalistically self-aware (sine qua non!), militarily strong and politically assertive are qualified under Hegel’s definition of the State (and under the general law of common sense) to count “in that number when the [States] go marching in.”
No comments:
Post a Comment