Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries

Choosing "Origin of Species" is hilarious.

This is a text about pidgeons, barnicles and fossils, whose scientific importance cannot be seriously questioned, even by those who profess to have doubts about it.

Ostrich style conservatism: head planted firmly in sand.

 

I am very familiar with Hegel's writings and I understand and have studied his influence on Marx. And yes I understand the dialectic very well. Just the premise of thesis+antithesis=synthesis has wrought great misery when applied to governments. And today it is at work in the churches and is causing great damage. As a pastor I am very concerned with the dialectic process as it is rapidly changing Christianity's philisophy especially in America.

Not to get into a ten page explanation send me an email if you have any interest. Hegel's writings are critical to understand if anyone wants to know what is moving politics and governments in the world today.

 

Methinks the Human Events crowd ("of 15 conservative scholars and public policy leaders") would not get this point or even be able to explain it. I think they are just hung on

Pinko commie god-hating fags bad. Christian god-fearing capitalists good.

Let that be our mantra and repeat after me ...

 

I am confused. Are you now offering to explain Hegel to me? If so, I am fine thanks.

I guess since you left out the main thing we were discussing then we are finished here?

Mr Brightside - Satanic Verses is great satire. These guys wouldn't have included it, though, because they are conservative Christians and don't care about what would offend devout muslims.

No Worries - agreed. Extended further, they probably have not read 80% of what is on their list.

 

rimbaud- in no way did I mean you didn't understand Hegel's dialectic. I am interested in its philisophy and affect upon the world today.

Our congress is just one of many examples of its breadth and power at work today. Do you think for a minute that anyone other than a Democrat or a Republican could possibly be elected as president? Do you think it is by some accident that we have the Democrats (thesis) and the Republicans (antithesis) continually butchering government creating a larger and stronger beaurocracy with more and more executive power in the presidency (synthesis).

Nations under the dialectic process always end up enslaved to its powers. Life in Russian, Chinese, Vietnemese, North Korean and (once German) prison camps or re-educational camps or slave labor camps (there are many names) have always bloomed from the shoots of this philosophy.

Well how many Presidential Executive Orders do you think there are in America and have you read them?

Capitalism is a necessary part of Dialectic Materialism. If there were no capitalism the dialectic would create it.

The whole 'convervative vs. liberal' is the perfect example of the dialectic at work.

There is so much to say about this. Hegel's work is not hard to understand, Marx's applications are not difficult either, but to see it at work is not always easy. Strong is the dark side.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

This is a fascinating discussion on soooo many levels. I get to be on your side for the most part in this one rimbaud!

Communism:
…c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away...

It always amazes me that conservative groups attack Marx on ideological grounds. I completely understand it on opportunistic grounds however.

Marx described what he saw evolving in his lifetime and what led up to it and projected a likely outcome. He saw a world where the power was concentrated in the hands of the royalty and the aristocracy. He saw the excesses and abuses and the injustices and he applauded, in general terms, the rise of the bourgeoisie and the over throw of the monarchy in the French revolution. This was a devolution of power from the few to a much broader class. It was a step toward freedom and justice. Marx saw the evolution of society and he projected where this trend would go. He saw a continual rise of freedom and justice where ruling structures would be continually dismantled eventually leaving a state where there was no government at all. It seems to me that those who always call for less government should be trumpeting Marx, not bashing him.

Of course Lenin significantly modified what Marx said maybe most importantly by saying that the revolution needed a push. Marx saw it essentially as a natural evolution. Stalinism is of course almost the polar opposite of Marxism. If you look at the full definition of communism in the dictionary it’s either a state where no government exists, or it is a totalitarian government. The first was Marx’s ideal and the latter Stalin’s corruption.


Regarding the dialectical learning process, in general terms this is how all people learn, or perhaps a better way to descraibe it is that it is how people become aware. It is not related to rote learning. It is the kind of learning that leads to understanding and awareness. It is how children learn. The processes Piaget and Kohlberg describe are essentially dialectical processes. Kohlberg talks about life’s dilemmas and engaging them and coming to a higher level of understanding.

From a Christian standpoint the bible itself progresses through a dialectical like process embracing a series of dilemmas that invite people to become aware of the ever broader reality of God. We need to be sinless to be justified before God, but we can’t live sinlessly. The synthesis of this dilemma does not exist on the same plane of understanding that is defined by the points in the dilemma, but it does include that plane. The realisation of the meaning of salvation by faith through grace opens up a whole new level of understanding of the nature of God. It doesn’t negate what went before. It includes it and transcends it. The plane becomes but one plane in a 3 dimensional understanding of God. This is the most dramatic example and what is occurring here includes and transcends this example, but anther example would be the change from the early tribal worldview described in the OT to the legalistic worldview introduced with the law and the 10 commandments. Jesus himself teaches through the use of parables and teachings that present dilemmas for the listener to work through. This is a call on the listener to engage in a dialectical like learning process rather than a rote learning process.

Rhester:
I’m guessing that you are thinking of some specific issues rather than the dialectical process in general. Which issues are you thinking of?

 

I think we need to define our terms for the purpose of this discussion more carefully. I believe that rimbaud is the only academic here so let’s come to an agreement on what we’re meaning here by certain terms in layman’s language.

By my understanding the synthesis you speak of is not a synthesis in Hegelian terms. It does not define a transcendent level of understanding. It seems to be more like the overlap in their love of bureaucracy. Can you elaborate on what you mean?

Also, all nations are under the dialectic process. It’s how our collective worldview evolves. Note that to a significant extent this also follows the evolution that takes place in the Bible itself, but this is a much more involved discussion.

I agree that the conservative and liberal opposition in our society today is in many ways and example of a dialectic, but IMO it’s one that is not working. For the most part we have two tribes at war and there are only a few voices rising these days who are trying to engage the dilemma that is posed by the two points of view. The dialectical process tells us that neither is likely to be all right or all wrong, and that there will be a worldview that includes the positives of each and acknowledges the negatives of each and places them all in a greater context defined by a broader level of understanding. Of course the world will continue to evolve in many ways and this next level will itself be opposed and transcended at some point in the future.

 

Yes, I am thinking of specific issues and specific processes.

The question is are there absolute truths?

That's the question where the dialectic begins its process. And it would take a lot of discussion to get to specific issues.

I would just like to have time to discuss this part of your post-

"From a Christian standpoint the bible itself progresses through a dialectical like process embracing a series of dilemmas that invite people to become aware of the ever broader reality of God. We need to be sinless to be justified before God, but we can’t live sinlessly"

I like to read your posts, this is deep water and probably not worth discussing.

On another day I could talk adnauseum about how the Bible actually refutes the dialectic process.

The dilemma of man's sin is not solved by synthesis but by truth.

Here is a question just to think about- In God's mind how much truth is absolute and how much is relative? Let me state it clearer- when is God unsure of right and wrong?

If all man's problems could be solved by getting the whole world to agree - I feel confident the result would not be absolute truth.

 

an objective application of hegelian dialectic?

 

Made my day.

 

If god is never unsure, then why would he need a mind?

 

I'm very rusty on my Hegel but I find this discussion you're having fascinating.

From what you're saying it sounds that our Constitution is constructed as a dialectic and that the idea of democracy itself is a dialectic. There are opposing points of view that are placed in a larger context through the checks and balances and democratic process.

Thoughts?

 

A lot of this stuff is over my head but I find it too intellectually interesting to lay off.

Meowgi's point makes sense to me that an all knowing God would never have to ponder on right or wrong because he is always right but since we're not God its up to us to determine right from wrong.

The contradiction that I see in Christianity is that it acknowledges that as humans we are inherently flawed and are saved through Truth. As flawed humasn though how are we to determine absolute truth?

I understand that the Christian viewpoint is that absolute truth is revealed through the Bible but as humans reading the Bible our reference point is human and not God's. So at that point isn't our acceptance of the truth as Bible states it relative since we're coming at it from a relative and not an absolute viewpoint?

 

I think our problem with Hegel’s dialectic may be in which parts we’re focusing on and which movements evolved from it. In its basic form it’s really just a description of how we learn. The key part for me is that it’s a process that leads to understanding and higher levels of awareness rather than rote learning. This is something the bible also calls us to do.

Ah, the absolute truth issue. This is a great one because it’s a classic example of a lot of the things we’re discussing here. First I’ll answer your questions. Do I believe that there is absolute truth? Absolutely, but of course no man and no Christian knows exactly what it is. We all know parts of it, but strictly speaking we don’t even know what parts. We all have blind spots and misperceptions. This is why we are told we are not to judge one another. Indeed we are told that by judging someone else we are judging ourselves. (Rom 2)

So what becomes of “truth” then? We all do need to discern for ourselves what we believe is right and wrong. Saying that we cannot guarantee what is right and wrong doesn’t mean that we don’t have to try to do what we genuinely believe is right and stay away from what we believe is wrong. This is where we’re bridging the gap. Saying that our beliefs are not guaranteed to be 100% correct doesn’t open the door to a postmodern, make up whatever you want kind of worldview.

From a Biblical standpoint we are told that we can offer no absolute guarantees that we know the whole truth, and we are told not to. We are told not to swear to anything. In the NT understanding truth in practical terms is more associated with the fruits of the spirit and the foundation of faith, hope and love. I haven’t really thought this problem through but are there any circumstances where not conducting ones self in a spirit of faith, hope and love is justifiable? That might be as close as we can get to defining what we are allowed to call absolute truth as Christians. Talking about what we believe, however, is an entirely different matter. We can do that in detail and with relish as we describe our life’s journey and the joy and love that lives within us (most of the time) and in people who have had similar experiences.

The "truth" word is often very problematic these days, though. There is a real problem today with legalism in the church, as I’m sure you know, and “truth” is often held up and wielded in very manipulative and un-Christian ways. Matt 12 is a good reminder of how some church leaders can stray and be corrupted by the power of their positions, and it’s a good reminder of what Godly truth and justice really is.

Matthew 12
Lord of the Sabbath
1At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. 2When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

3He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread—which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. 5Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? 6I tell you that one[a] greater than the temple is here. 7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"

11He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

13Then he said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." So he stretched it out and it was completely restored, just as sound as the other. 14But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=12&version=31

 

I love breaktime.

Thanks for the response Grizzled.

Yes, the whole 'truth' can of worms ahhh, there lies the rub...


Here is one for you-

Ten out of ten people die. True?

It is one of my favorite statistics.

There in the middle of the dialectic (what the Pharisees had synthesized) was the truth- "7If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. 8For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

 

I would agree with that in a general sense. Rimbaud? Be warned that in a strictly academic context I think Hegel is a difficult guy to grapple with as he had some evolving view and he spawned many followers who took his ideas in many directions. Marx used them to build dialectical materialism on, for example, and there are many others.

W.r.t. the basics of his dialectic, however, I believe that that is true. Hegel believed that this process came to an end at some point and I would differ with him on that as I think it could go on indefinitely.

 

This depends on what you mean by “die”. It’s in the deeper understanding of what death is that a question even a seemingly simple as this opens up to higher levels of understanding.

 

no need to go higher, I was talking about the ones you read about in the newspaper

last breath death- heart stops- brain function ends- followed by cremation, burial or various other situations

the ones I do funerals for

 

We probably wouldn't be the world power we are now if we didn't have an enemy. I think that is the truth. Communism, and the Nazi movement may have been neccesary evils in order to privde for a safer world and eventual world peace.

 

Even to this question the answer has to be only probably. Christ didn’t die so we don’t get a perfect 10 out of 10 at least. You are right that by all we understand now essentially 10 out of 10 die, but the same could have been said for the conclusion that the world was flat 2000 years ago. That was obvious and common knowledge at the time, and yet it turned out not to be the truth. We can point to countless other discoveries over the years like this. In your spiritual life I’m sure there were things that you were convinced were true, or just, or even just ok, and that you were later convicted of (in a spiritual sense) and came to understand differently. It happens to all Christians, and it’s a “wonderfully humbling process.” The point is, as humans we’re just no good enough to declare any absolutes. This doesn’t stop us from stating what we believe, however. In fact it makes it all the more important.