“Good for its own sake has no place in living reality. If men are to act, they must not only intend the good but must have decided for themselves whether this or that particular thing is good”
Is a txt from Hegel that stood out to me because it has so much depth. It illustrates the meaning of good and how being good is not only “being good” but that you have to have reason of why it is your doing good. Furthermore, if that thing itself is good. This has a different meaning to every individual, what may seem good to me may be bad to you. That’s where your own judgment comes in and your values. It really makes you think and makes you sink in the actual term of being good overall.
Hegel’s text fits into my life by simply being myself. There are many people that do things because of others. Or by society’s standards they’ve been brought up that way and don’t really question why their doing it in the first place. For example I’m a very curious being so whenever I decide to do something I question it to myself and if it’s something I truly want to do.
Others which conform to things “followers” as I would call them wouldn’t really think about if that’s what they want or if the thing their doing is good for them. This is where I agree with Hagels quote many people do things but don’t find out in depth if that thing itself is benefiting them in the long run. Which, easily can be done if people took the time to really tap into things further. Otherwise they are just doing instead of finding out and questioning as I presume Hegel wants us “agents” to do.
Monday, January 31, 2011
No such thing as positive history
Honestly, most of what I read in this book makes no sense to me whatsoever. There was one portion, however, that I was able to identify with and so have made a decision about Hegel, and for that matter the validity of what Hegel claims.
"At this point we leave Africa, not to mention it again. For it is no historical part of the World; it has no movement or development to exhibit. Historical movements in it- that is in the northern part- belong to the Asiatic or European World." (99)
I noticed someone else wrote on this topic too, and had some questions about why it is that Africa "has no history." The answer is simple. It DOES. But I have taken two African History courses in the past year, and have learned that Africa has quite the substantial history. To begin, Africa was home to several great empires that realized a way to govern peacefully with minimal conflicts and specific plans.
And I just made a realization; that because Africa has been a peaceful continent, it is perceived to have no history, when in actuality it has an extensive history. Hegel tells about slavery and says "...we may conclude slavery to have been the occasion of the increase of human feeling among the negroes" (98) While it's true, the African people used two different systems of slave trade, before the 19th century it was, for the most part, also a peaceful situation. The slaves had rights and were able to gain their freedom back. And for that matter, a good portion of the slaves were prisoners of war, which was the agreement for war in Africa (that rather than aiming to kill, they would aim to capture prisoners).
Overall, I think this helped me come to the conclusion that although Hegel claims Africa to have no history (which is simply not true), he does it because he is asserting that history is equivalent to conflict and negativity. I'll back this up with one more quote:
"The history of the world is not the theatre of happiness. Periods of happiness are blank pages in it, for they are periods of harmony-periods when the antithesis is in abeyance." (27)
"At this point we leave Africa, not to mention it again. For it is no historical part of the World; it has no movement or development to exhibit. Historical movements in it- that is in the northern part- belong to the Asiatic or European World." (99)
I noticed someone else wrote on this topic too, and had some questions about why it is that Africa "has no history." The answer is simple. It DOES. But I have taken two African History courses in the past year, and have learned that Africa has quite the substantial history. To begin, Africa was home to several great empires that realized a way to govern peacefully with minimal conflicts and specific plans.
And I just made a realization; that because Africa has been a peaceful continent, it is perceived to have no history, when in actuality it has an extensive history. Hegel tells about slavery and says "...we may conclude slavery to have been the occasion of the increase of human feeling among the negroes" (98) While it's true, the African people used two different systems of slave trade, before the 19th century it was, for the most part, also a peaceful situation. The slaves had rights and were able to gain their freedom back. And for that matter, a good portion of the slaves were prisoners of war, which was the agreement for war in Africa (that rather than aiming to kill, they would aim to capture prisoners).
Overall, I think this helped me come to the conclusion that although Hegel claims Africa to have no history (which is simply not true), he does it because he is asserting that history is equivalent to conflict and negativity. I'll back this up with one more quote:
"The history of the world is not the theatre of happiness. Periods of happiness are blank pages in it, for they are periods of harmony-periods when the antithesis is in abeyance." (27)
Sunday, January 30, 2011
"Western" Philosophy in "Eastern" History
(Before I start, I just have to state this every blog. Please pardon my bad English and grammar.)
When I read Hegel’s book, “Philosophy of History,” there is one moment that I feel “Dead Agree!!!” to, “… [I]n history an additional result is commonly produced by human actions beyond that which they aim at and obtain—that which they immediately recognize and desire…. Such individuals had no consciousness of the general Idea they were unfolding, while prosecuting those aims of theirs; on the contrary, they were practical, political men. But at the same time they were thinking men, who had an insight into the requirements of the time—what was ripe for development” (Hegel, 27 & 30). I take the quotes from two different pages but they are like the beginning and end of each other so I have to put them together. To my understanding/feelings (common senses), Hegel simply says that these “historical men” are “historically great men” because even though whatever they have done is only from (and for) their own self-interests, they accidentally do something good for the people at the time. As far as I know about history, it’s all about great men and what they do/contribute to this world. When I read these parts of the book, I keep thinking about “The Romance of Three Kingdoms” (intertextuality) and keep thinking to myself “Yeah, that’s right!!!”
In the “Romance of Three Kingdoms” (RoTK), there are 3 notable factions lead by 3 “great men”: Liu Bei, Cao Cao, and Sun Quan. Even though Sun Quan was the last one of the three, the figure of Liu Bei and Cao Cao are much better remembered by the people (us/or most Asians).
At first (before read this book), I thought that maybe the time that Liu Bei and Cao Cao are in are much more chaotic than of Sun Quan, but anytime during “The Three Kingdoms” period is chaotic. After reading this book, I can see now that Liu Bei and Cao Cao’s actions, even though they both acted on their own ambition of having the throne, actually had an “additional result” of uniting the 3 kingdoms, which is also the will of the people and “the requirements of the time.” Compared to these two, Sun Quan doesn’t have such an ambition and only tried to keep his kingdom survive through such time. Now, that maybe a good thing but because it is not the will of the people, Sun Quan isn’t well known as a part of history. Now between Cao Cao and Liu Bei, Liu Bei is better received among the people at the time and even to this day, all production made based on “Romance of Three Kingdoms,” Liu Bei is portrayed as a righteous figure while Cao Cao is made to look like a monster (ex: Dynasty Warriors); but as proven by the primary source (a drawing of them at the time) they don’t look so much different (obviously none look like a monster). Now after the reading, I see the thing that stands out so much from Liu Bei that’s not in Cao Cao, loyalty and brotherhood. At the time, these two things decide how righteous a man is (not so much these days so maybe I look like an idiot for saying this) therefore Liu Bei is considered a greater man than Cao Cao. As for “the requirements of the time,” Liu Bei wins big time. A word of conclusion, everything about history is in the hand of the historians, who are first the people before they are historians. As for the question, “Why read a 200 year-old book written by a racist privileged dead white straight European Christian academic male?” I kind of answered it through the examples but in few simple words, because whatever he wrote is still alive to this day…
Hegel, the love doctor
"In history an additional result is commonly produced by human actions beyond that which they aim at and obtain—that which they immediately recognize and desire. They gratify their own interest; but something further is thereby accomplished, latent in the actions in question, though not present to their consciousness, and not included in their design... "
From my understanding of anything in the ridiculousness of life, intentions may not be commonly met by its consequences. As such with history, as Hegel argues, humans may produce additional results from which they pursue. My common sense tells me that this rings truth for mankind and their intentions as a whole. We may always approach situations with specific intentions, but leave an experience gaining added results. He mentions that although unaware to consciousness, "something further is thereby accomplished" which I interpret as a valid observation.
I can apply Hegel's quote to my life in a variety of contexts, but one in particular stands out. I am currently undergoing a self-awareness-promoting (to say the least) experience in which I claim to be completely aware and conscious of my thoughts and actions when in reality, I end up finding myself in situations I never would have imagined. In reaction to a mass destruction of a break up, I acted on impulses that seemed harmless- fun even. I felt self-aware enough to act on these impulsive thoughts, and lo and behold, I realize that I was driven much more by sub-conscious ideas. I did indeed gain excess results aka oober obnoxious attachment issues and enough sad song lyrics to last me a lifetime. Did I intend for these results? Hell no. Some enter situations not wanting to know how they truly and deeply feel about a subject because they might feel weak, or hell- they're just unprepared. This time, I was both.
I highly doubt Hegel is referring to stupid girls and the revelations they come to post-heartbreak, but you know- that's the only way I can have his words speak to me.
Along with Hegel's love advice, I can also apply this particular tune to my life and it relates to Hegel's words... ish.
Enjoy.
'The Cave" by Mumford & Sons. It reflects on how sub-conscious plays a role in human actions- whatup Hegel.
Why not Africa
"At this point we leave Africa, not to mention it again. For it is no historical part of the World; it has no movement or development to exhibit. Historical movements in it- that is in the northern part- belong to the Asiatic or European World." (99)
This quote from Hegel stuck out to me as the "common sense" of the understanding of history since although I do not agree that Africa has no "movement or development" it is interesting that we do not learn about Africa in our history books. Which makes it appear that Africa is an underdeveloped country that has not changed while all other countries have progressed. So I found it interesting to have Hegel come out and state that "it is no historical part of the World"
Growing up all of my history classes I had never studied the history of Africa. I sadly do not have a link for this but I will describe what moments I mean. The most we looked at African history was when the Europeans/ Americans took Africans for the use of slavery or how their land was conquered. Them main point is that the history I have read was told in the point of view of the white man. The man that took the land rather than the slave or the person to had their land conquered. Hegel is arguing that the only history that is worth learning about is the history that progressed the European/ Americans. He considers them the developing culture while Africa just sits there?
Hegel helped me understand why all my history books were so biased. I really had never thought about why I only learned where Africa was on the map rather than any of its history growing up. The men that wrote the history books were white men. They chose to focus on the growth of white countries rather than Africa's history. This was highly supported when Hegel says that the historical movements from the northern parts (that were colonies of white males).
One reason to why we should read Hegel is because he gives an insight to the history we know since many of the books we have learned from are written by men with the same mind set of Hegel. Men that were also possibly racist privileged dead white straight European christians that are educated. We can use Hegel as data to interpret what really happened and what our history books leave out.
Why Read Hegal?
After reading the assigned pages with much contemplation and confusion, the one passage that interested me was on page 104, "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. The first political form therefore which we observe in History, is Despotism, the second Democracy and Aristocracy, the third Monarchy." I am personally interested in the types of governments there are, but not necessarily how they run or what goes about it. I find it most interesting that Hegal goes and labels these countries with what government they have. By the "East" I would assume that he meant the Asian countries. I know we are supposed to write about what feels right, but I don't feel right about anything that Hegal has said so far or what I have read so far from his book. I sort of find it really confusing like he wasn't in his right mind when he wrote this. However, I find with this statement that it was offensive to be labeling countries and maybe Hegal was from Germany that's why he labeled Germany as being "All are free" when Germany has a history of oppression also.
Something in relation to what I have just said about Hegal's labeling countries here is my boyfriend who goes on labeling people to which political party he thinks they are in. He labels me a democrat, which I am an Independent. I get offended and angry because he's Republican and goes on about how much he hates Democrats and puts it on me.
The only thing that would answer the question of how did reading Hegal make me understand my situation with my boyfriend is that he is to politically involved and that can be dangerous if not annoying. Like one of the group members from Thursday's class activity said, "Some people takes things way too serious that it just becomes ridiculous and funny." One example was from Glenn Beck where he referenced the United State's government to the Holocaust.
And finally to answer the question of "Why read a 200 year old book written by a racist privileged dead white straight European Christian academic male?" Well, personally I would say that it is to laugh at how silly and serious Hegal makes his book seem. It is not entertaining at all and I would not blame schools for only reading his intro. From reading his book is to study the time period that Hegal lived then and to study his type of language he used, which was clearly different from today.
Something in relation to what I have just said about Hegal's labeling countries here is my boyfriend who goes on labeling people to which political party he thinks they are in. He labels me a democrat, which I am an Independent. I get offended and angry because he's Republican and goes on about how much he hates Democrats and puts it on me.
The only thing that would answer the question of how did reading Hegal make me understand my situation with my boyfriend is that he is to politically involved and that can be dangerous if not annoying. Like one of the group members from Thursday's class activity said, "Some people takes things way too serious that it just becomes ridiculous and funny." One example was from Glenn Beck where he referenced the United State's government to the Holocaust.
And finally to answer the question of "Why read a 200 year old book written by a racist privileged dead white straight European Christian academic male?" Well, personally I would say that it is to laugh at how silly and serious Hegal makes his book seem. It is not entertaining at all and I would not blame schools for only reading his intro. From reading his book is to study the time period that Hegal lived then and to study his type of language he used, which was clearly different from today.
Is what you think the actual truth?
“It is easier to discover a deficiency in individuals, in states, and in Providence, than to see their real important and value. For in this merely negative fault finding a position is taken – one which overlooks the object, without having entered into it- without having comprehended its positive aspect (36).”
Martin Luther King Jr. is a great example of this quote. Because of his ethnicity he was discriminated against and was automatically stereotyped as someone of lesser value. During this time period people of color were never given the opportunity to define themselves as meaningful individuals, instead they were automatically assumed to not posses the great qualities of whites. We all know what an incredible leader Martin Luther King Jr. was and how big of an impact he made, but none of his accomplishments were never really positively acknowledged by the majority until later after his death. Today he has established his reputation as one of the greatest and heroic of all time.
A personal example of when I quickly jumped to conclusions about someone, instead of giving them the chance to truthfully define themselves was when I was on the airplane going on a vacation. I fully accept and welcome diversity, but like most other people, I have stereotyped someone before. When I was on the plane a man of a minority race walked past me and without thinking I automatically thought that I wasn’t safe and that he was going to crash the plane. Just because of his physical appearance I quickly criticized him failed to see who he was as an individual.
Reading Hegel helped remind me the nature of people and how society was historically formed. Yes, the things he says are mostly common sense, but he described these main points with deeper insight. As a result, this made me associate history with life experiences and develop different feelings towards them. He forced me to take a step back and have a different perspective as to the way and why people and things are.
Paige Bauernfeind
Ad Nauseam
Ad Nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing "to the point of nausea. I very much enjoy the fact that I am able to use a latin term for my blog's title again. I enjoyed this find even more when I looked up the definition of the term and realized how this word basically sums up how I felt during this painful task of reading philosophy. Not only was it hard to read, I am quite certain that while writing this book he put a bunch of words up on a wall and blindfolded himself and threw darts at the wall, and whatever words were hit by the darts, he would use in a sentence. Throwing in articles such as, is and the, of course. But in this haystack of confusion, I did end up finding a few needles...
"It is easier to discover a deficiency in individuals, in states and in Providence, than to see their real import and value." (Page 36) I read this and it really stuck with me. It's very true. We do this so much we most likely don't even realize it. I caught myself a few days ago doing this.
I have a best friend, Hannah that goes to Madison. She is my outlet. I can rant to her about things that make me frustrated (like this reading) or bitch to her about the wrongdoings that occur in my life. She always listens then makes me feel better. ::::Side Note:::: I am usually quite upbeat as most of you will discover so this isn't an everyday occurrence, which is probably why she puts up with it, along with the fact that I listen to her rants as well. ::::: Anyways, one of my most recent rants was about one of my roommates. Easy to get on each others nerves when you live together. By the end of my rant I felt much better about the situation but I had painted quite a picture for Hannah. A couple days later, I did it again. Another picture painted. At one point, as I was discussing things with her, she made a comment that allowed me to realize my error. All I had ever done was complain about my roommate and never said anything about the good times we have. Which is bad, because I would say there is a lot more good than bad. So the only pictures Hannah had, were bad. And made her assume that is what its always like. When I'm talking to her, I never think to complain about the good times. Or even say them because I don't think about it. The things I remember, and the things I point out, are the bad things. TERRIBLE.
We did this to Laughner. We looked to find the reasons of WHY he shot up the parking lot at safeway. In doing so, we looked at every little thing he ever did to see if we could paint ourselves a picture of his life. But now I realize, not one article or discussion I read emphasized anything nice about him. But I suppose that makes sense, since WHY would we want to know?
I can think of multiple other examples of this in history, in my life, in society. But I think you guys get the point and a don't want to bore you.
There's a certain slant of light
I'm afraid I've been through one too many feminist, post-colonialist, deconstructionist classes for Hegel to really resonate with me, or with any "common sense" of history I may still be clinging to. Every time I read his deified "Reason" I choke on the swelling screams of "LOGOS! PHALLOGOCENTRISM!" stuck in my dutiful feminist throat. However -- changed as I may be by my prior nihilist, postmodern professors (seriously, one of them liked to quote Johnny Rotten), I accept the challenge that I have not yet rid myself of all Hegelian tendencies. I did, after all, recognize many of Hegel's ideas as ideas promoted by my high school history textbooks (-- for example, the Eurocentrism: we didn't learn about Africa (with the exception of Egypt) until the point at which it was colonized by Europe, and therefore made relevant to 'world history').
Perhaps the passage which most struck me was that at the beginning of "Classification of Historical Data", in which Hegel describes man's reaction to his first dawn:
The boundless forgetfulness of his individuality in this pure splendor, is his first feeling -- utter astonishment. But when the Sun is risen, this astonishment is diminished; objects around are perceived, and from them the individual proceeds to the contemplation of his own inner being.... [B]y close of day man has erected a building constructed from his own inner Sun; and... he esteems it more highly than the original external Sun. For now he stands in a conscious relation to his Spirit, and therefore a free relation.
I have not served myself well by selecting this passage, because I'm not sure I understand it. I chose it because I love light metaphors; Hegel managed to seduce me. I have this horrible feeling that the brute intended it as some crude metaphor: the 'forgetfulness of his individuality' meaning to signify the less-developed Asiatic cultures, and the man with the 'inner Sun' signifying his beloved German -- or some such nonsense. But I am drawn in by the confusion of self and other, and subsequent resolution, as Reason (the Sun) rises above, tempering light with shadow. (This also alludes to Hegel's 'antithesis' idea.) And then -- then man constructs a building from his inner sun, houses himself in his Reason, uses Reason to separate himself from all the others.
Within this image (and within Hegel's logic), rational thought is inherent in the passage of time; in fact, it is made manifest over the course of the day. History is progress -- because rational thought is, of course, the thought which saves us and empowers us, which illumines the dark earth. This absolutely makes sense -- doesn't it? Haven't we progressed since, say, the Middle Ages? Hasn't science, the institution of Reason, saved us from disease, hunger, pain, and the elements? I, for one, am glad to be living in 2011, rather than 1311.
Also natural is this idea that our inner 'reasons' are derivative of some larger Reason, that our personal ideas of justice and freedom are internalizations of Justice and Freedom. After all, people have varying opinions on what Justice looks like -- but all those people can agree they believe in Justice, that Justice exists as a truth, "infinite and eternal" in "essence".
Before I was a student at the University of Minnesota I was a student at a small liberal arts college in Maine, where almost everyone was dissatisfied with the state of the world. One of the most common themes of discussion was, How do we, individually and collectively, change the world for the better? How can we take our values (equity, civility, etc), and live with them, through them, in a way that breaks us free from the status quo? We were, essentially, attempting to see the Sun anew, re-examine the light, incorporate the shadows, and start construction again. Is it enough to replace Reason with Love? Is the replacement a product of Reason, itself? I am not sure it is possible to escape Hegel, entirely. What does it mean, that we try?
Perhaps the passage which most struck me was that at the beginning of "Classification of Historical Data", in which Hegel describes man's reaction to his first dawn:
The boundless forgetfulness of his individuality in this pure splendor, is his first feeling -- utter astonishment. But when the Sun is risen, this astonishment is diminished; objects around are perceived, and from them the individual proceeds to the contemplation of his own inner being.... [B]y close of day man has erected a building constructed from his own inner Sun; and... he esteems it more highly than the original external Sun. For now he stands in a conscious relation to his Spirit, and therefore a free relation.
I have not served myself well by selecting this passage, because I'm not sure I understand it. I chose it because I love light metaphors; Hegel managed to seduce me. I have this horrible feeling that the brute intended it as some crude metaphor: the 'forgetfulness of his individuality' meaning to signify the less-developed Asiatic cultures, and the man with the 'inner Sun' signifying his beloved German -- or some such nonsense. But I am drawn in by the confusion of self and other, and subsequent resolution, as Reason (the Sun) rises above, tempering light with shadow. (This also alludes to Hegel's 'antithesis' idea.) And then -- then man constructs a building from his inner sun, houses himself in his Reason, uses Reason to separate himself from all the others.
Within this image (and within Hegel's logic), rational thought is inherent in the passage of time; in fact, it is made manifest over the course of the day. History is progress -- because rational thought is, of course, the thought which saves us and empowers us, which illumines the dark earth. This absolutely makes sense -- doesn't it? Haven't we progressed since, say, the Middle Ages? Hasn't science, the institution of Reason, saved us from disease, hunger, pain, and the elements? I, for one, am glad to be living in 2011, rather than 1311.
Also natural is this idea that our inner 'reasons' are derivative of some larger Reason, that our personal ideas of justice and freedom are internalizations of Justice and Freedom. After all, people have varying opinions on what Justice looks like -- but all those people can agree they believe in Justice, that Justice exists as a truth, "infinite and eternal" in "essence".
Before I was a student at the University of Minnesota I was a student at a small liberal arts college in Maine, where almost everyone was dissatisfied with the state of the world. One of the most common themes of discussion was, How do we, individually and collectively, change the world for the better? How can we take our values (equity, civility, etc), and live with them, through them, in a way that breaks us free from the status quo? We were, essentially, attempting to see the Sun anew, re-examine the light, incorporate the shadows, and start construction again. Is it enough to replace Reason with Love? Is the replacement a product of Reason, itself? I am not sure it is possible to escape Hegel, entirely. What does it mean, that we try?
Creating Idea
.." These contingencies relize themselves in History: they involve a general principle of a different order that on which depends the permanence of a people or a state. This principle is an essential phase in the development of the creating Idea, of Truth striving and urging towards [ consciousness of] itelf. (p. 29 second paragraph)
--it took me a while to understand what Hegel was saying here. I believe he is saying that we as humans take this idea and turn it into a "fairy tale." We see an idea and percieve it in a construed way. We draw an image of what the world should be like and we act on it quickly, that we think what were doing is correct. So we try to create this idea of truth that is not there, but we think its there.
"..that in history an additional result is commonly produced by human actions beyond that which they aim at an obtain-that which they immediately recognize and desire. they gratify their own interest; but something further is thereby acomplisehd, latent in the actions in questions, though not present to their consciouness, and not include in their design." (27)
-i feel like this phrase kind of goes along with why Loughner did what he did. Maybe he thought it all out and didn't think about the results of it, or how people would react to the crime he committed. We don't necessarily know what the outcome is going to be. We set these types of mindset and we don't take time to fully brainstorm it.
" If men are to act, they must not only intend the good, but must have decided for themselves whether this or that particular thing is a Good." (28, last paragraph.)
-This is a prime example of how humans think. Loughner had this mindset that he thought by shooting innocent people something would happen. He thought ( maybe) what he did was ok, at least thats how the picture taken of him seems like because he was smiling. In Loughner's mind, this was ok. He decided for himself and followed through with it. But who knows what Hegel was trying to say i could be understanding this all wrong and Hegel could be looking at this in a whole different way, just like anyone else would.
--it took me a while to understand what Hegel was saying here. I believe he is saying that we as humans take this idea and turn it into a "fairy tale." We see an idea and percieve it in a construed way. We draw an image of what the world should be like and we act on it quickly, that we think what were doing is correct. So we try to create this idea of truth that is not there, but we think its there.
"..that in history an additional result is commonly produced by human actions beyond that which they aim at an obtain-that which they immediately recognize and desire. they gratify their own interest; but something further is thereby acomplisehd, latent in the actions in questions, though not present to their consciouness, and not include in their design." (27)
-i feel like this phrase kind of goes along with why Loughner did what he did. Maybe he thought it all out and didn't think about the results of it, or how people would react to the crime he committed. We don't necessarily know what the outcome is going to be. We set these types of mindset and we don't take time to fully brainstorm it.
" If men are to act, they must not only intend the good, but must have decided for themselves whether this or that particular thing is a Good." (28, last paragraph.)
-This is a prime example of how humans think. Loughner had this mindset that he thought by shooting innocent people something would happen. He thought ( maybe) what he did was ok, at least thats how the picture taken of him seems like because he was smiling. In Loughner's mind, this was ok. He decided for himself and followed through with it. But who knows what Hegel was trying to say i could be understanding this all wrong and Hegel could be looking at this in a whole different way, just like anyone else would.
Hegel, Beck, and the Rally to Restore Honor
“…An unconscious impulse that occasioned the accomplishment of that for which the time was ripe. Such are all great historical men – whose own particular aims involve those large issues which are the will of the World-Spirit.” p. 30
While reading Hegel, I was keeping our discussion of Glenn Beck on my mind. The more I read, the more I came to the conclusion that Beck believes that he is a “great historical man” in the Hegelian sense. He feels as though he has the answers that will guide the country in a way so that we will be on the “right side of history”. He believes that the country is at a pivotal point politically and socially (“the time [is] ripe”), and that his personal beliefs and aims are those of the “World-Spirit”. There is no better example of this than his “Rally to Restore Honor” that occurred this summer on the steps of the Lincoln memorial in Washington. He decided to hold it on the same day as the anniversary of the Civil Rights March on Washington, the event where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “I Have a Dream” speech. While MLK could definitely be thought of as a World-Historical person in the Hegelian sense, by holding his rally on the anniversary of such an important event for the civil rights movement, Beck is trying to equate himself with MLK in terms of importance. While he has said that he does not believe that he is MLK, he also said “…whites “do not own” the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and, by this logic, “blacks don’t own Martin Luther King,” Aside from the controversy surrounding the date, just the fact that Glenn Beck claims he can “restore honor” to America shows that he believes he is an extremely important person in history. His claims of being on God’s side, so to speak, as well as an emphasis on religion also echo Hegel. At the rally, Beck said, “Something that is beyond man is happening. America today begins to turn back to God." On page 34, Hegel said, “The consciousness of independent validity is aroused through the restoration of Christian freedom.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/28/AR2010082801106.html
Is the Purpose of Freedom, Freedom?
“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 which has its own absolute form itself as its purport(Hegel, p. 341).” This is a quote I took from Hegel’s book. Though I don’t agree with him considering the Germans to be superior, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having pride in your people. He believed that Germans possessed something that others didn’t have, or in other words, they were the absolute truth, and had self determination. Which is somewhat similar to saying “black pride”, “brown pride”, or “native pride”, which I’ve heard so many times.
When I hear the word freedom I don’t know what to think. Being an African American is challenging when it comes to defining your identity. We have no country, or language. So many things (positive and negative) are associated with being “black.” I personally believe in something called a “slave mentality.” Hegel was saying that his people had unlimited self determination. The ultimate purpose in being free, according to the history of slavery, is to have free will, which means making your own choices. I was talking with my sister earlier about the history of black people. We were talking about how ill determined a lot of people in our race are. Not because they’re lazy, or ignorant by choice, but because of factors in their life that have made them that way. When you oppress a group of people for hundreds of years and don’t allow them to learn or have free will, I believe that plays a part in the correlation of African Americans and academic achievement gaps even after they’re considered to be “free.” So if the purpose of making your own choices is to make your own choices, how can we as people advance without a goal?
When I hear the word freedom I don’t know what to think. Being an African American is challenging when it comes to defining your identity. We have no country, or language. So many things (positive and negative) are associated with being “black.” I personally believe in something called a “slave mentality.” Hegel was saying that his people had unlimited self determination. The ultimate purpose in being free, according to the history of slavery, is to have free will, which means making your own choices. I was talking with my sister earlier about the history of black people. We were talking about how ill determined a lot of people in our race are. Not because they’re lazy, or ignorant by choice, but because of factors in their life that have made them that way. When you oppress a group of people for hundreds of years and don’t allow them to learn or have free will, I believe that plays a part in the correlation of African Americans and academic achievement gaps even after they’re considered to be “free.” So if the purpose of making your own choices is to make your own choices, how can we as people advance without a goal?
Good Vs. Evil
I have to admit, at first, I had no idea what Hegel was talking about
and felt like all he was doing was rambling on for no obvious purpose.
However, after a full read through, and a couple aspirin, I began to
see what he was going on and on about. Looking back through my notes
on the text I found there were a few key parts that stuck out to me
and one in particular I felt I could relate to. On page 34, Hegel
wrote that, "This is the seal of the absolute and sublime destiny of
man- that he knows what is good and what is evil; that his Destiny is
his very ability to will either good or evil…" This seemed like the
most common of common senses' that I can recall. I mean you commit a
crime, morally you know its wrong and so you are guilty. Simple
enough right? Yes, it may seem that way at first, but when are things
really as simple as they seem. This made me think back to our
discussions of Jared Lee Loughner and Glen Beck, and which of the two,
essentially was to blame. Loughner did the deed, there were witnesses
that saw him do it, and since we are all aware that killing is wrong,
he is guilty right? By his own volition, he knows that killing
another person is ill willed, so by him ignoring this fact, he is
guilty. Well what about variables like, his mental state, Glen Beck's
influence, and his actual reasoning behind it? Well that's when I
noticed that there is one more piece of Hegel I can incorporate in.
On page 28, Hegel states, "…so that a wide conflagration ensues, which
destroys the goods and chattels of many other persons besides his
against whom the act of revenge was first directed." Reading this
shows a whole new aspect of the crime. Loughner could have intended
ill will strictly towards Gabrielle Gifford's and the others he
injured and killed could have strictly been the unforeseen
consequences of his actions. Whether this is true or not, we can look
back to my first Hegel quote, and understand this, that whether all of
Loughner's actions were intentional or not, he was aware that his
actions were "evil" therefore he committed the crime so, according to
Hegel, he needs to do the time.
and felt like all he was doing was rambling on for no obvious purpose.
However, after a full read through, and a couple aspirin, I began to
see what he was going on and on about. Looking back through my notes
on the text I found there were a few key parts that stuck out to me
and one in particular I felt I could relate to. On page 34, Hegel
wrote that, "This is the seal of the absolute and sublime destiny of
man- that he knows what is good and what is evil; that his Destiny is
his very ability to will either good or evil…" This seemed like the
most common of common senses' that I can recall. I mean you commit a
crime, morally you know its wrong and so you are guilty. Simple
enough right? Yes, it may seem that way at first, but when are things
really as simple as they seem. This made me think back to our
discussions of Jared Lee Loughner and Glen Beck, and which of the two,
essentially was to blame. Loughner did the deed, there were witnesses
that saw him do it, and since we are all aware that killing is wrong,
he is guilty right? By his own volition, he knows that killing
another person is ill willed, so by him ignoring this fact, he is
guilty. Well what about variables like, his mental state, Glen Beck's
influence, and his actual reasoning behind it? Well that's when I
noticed that there is one more piece of Hegel I can incorporate in.
On page 28, Hegel states, "…so that a wide conflagration ensues, which
destroys the goods and chattels of many other persons besides his
against whom the act of revenge was first directed." Reading this
shows a whole new aspect of the crime. Loughner could have intended
ill will strictly towards Gabrielle Gifford's and the others he
injured and killed could have strictly been the unforeseen
consequences of his actions. Whether this is true or not, we can look
back to my first Hegel quote, and understand this, that whether all of
Loughner's actions were intentional or not, he was aware that his
actions were "evil" therefore he committed the crime so, according to
Hegel, he needs to do the time.
Hegel and Haggis
Reading Hegel was… quite an experience. The Herr Professor Doktor certainly has a way with words, a way that at times made me feel utterly incompetent and a bit frustrated. And at other times, he seemed to be stating the obvious. One part of Hegel stood out to me, perhaps because of how ridiculous it seemed when I first read it. When talking about “historical men,” Hegel says, “They are great men, because they willed and accomplished something great; not a mere fancy, a mere intention, but that which met the case and fell in with the needs of the age” (page 31). They’re great men because they did something great? I thought. That’s like saying like saying chocolate is delicious because it’s chocolate. What exactly is considered doing “something great” anyway? A few moments later I felt dumb for asking myself that question. I already knew the answer; I’ve known it for years. In fact, the whole idea of “great men” was a huge motivation for a history project I did my freshman year of high school.
Ah, freshman year. One of the most awkward years of my life. It was also the year I developed an uncanny appreciation for Scottish culture, sadly because of Mel Gibson. I first saw the movie Braveheart then and decided that William Wallace was one of the coolest people ever. If you’re not familiar with the movie Braveheart, here’s the gist of it: Mel Gibson is Scottish, his wife gets killed by the English, he’s super pissed and starts a revolution, he ends up sleeping with an English princess and finally gets tortured and killed by the English. It’s a lot more poignant that that, but for the sake of brevity (not my strongest suit) those are pretty much the main events. I was utterly fascinated by William Wallace/ Braveheart’s deeds, moved by the scene where Gibson memorably cries for freedom. (link) Even after choosing to do research on Wallace for a National History Day project and discovering that large part of the movie was inaccurate (though some Wallace history is hard to distinguish from myth), I still was caught up in the epic exploits of the Scot. The movie just made him look so cool, with the blue face paint and kilts (though now I realize I never want to see Mel Gibson in a kilt ever again). And – surprise, surprise – being great in this case involves killing people.
The Cinematic Braveheart is certainly one of Hegel’s “great men” (sorry, great women of the world). He doesn’t just sit around and wait for things to change, by God, he gets pissed and gets things done. Even if it means getting drawn and quartered in the end – but he dies for his country, and he dies fairly young, two things Hegel would really appreciate. Especially because his revolting made way for Robert the Bruce to become King of Scotland. He didn’t have a “mere fancy, a mere intention,” no, he acts and his actions “fell in with the needs of the age.” The portrayal of the historic Braveheart falls along the same lines too, as he’s considered a nation hero (and for a place that’s had more than its fair share of conflicts with England, it’s easy to see why). Like Nathaniel Hale in American history (and Mel Gibson’s character in The Patriot, incidentally) Braveheart is a historical figure where Hegel’s philosophy is most definitely in play.
Universal Law?
A lot of what Hegel said made a lot of sense to me, although I found some statements to be overly exaggerated and to certain extent, unreasonable. For example, “What we properly understand by Africa, is the Unhistorical, Undeveloped Spirit…” (Hegel 99). But the one thing that really clicked for me was when Hegel discussed the fine line between personal and universal morals/ideals, particularly the line “For the fancies which the individual in his isolation indulges, cannot be the model for universal reality, just as universal law is not designed for the units of the mass” (Hegel 35). If i understand this line correctly, it makes a lot of sense to me. Being raised in an extremely religious household, the question of “imposing ‘our’ ideals on ‘them’” has always been a personally troubling one for me. I know I must not be the only one because these questions (abortion, death penalty, gay marriage, and others) and their supposed answers seem to be all over politics and the news today. In what I could understand from reading this passage from Hegel, how does one keep “the fancies of the individual” out of ‘universal reality’? These topics are extremely personal ones, and ones that seem to upset and divide people. Whatever side of the fence you may be on, people get extremely defensive of their positions. What Hegel exemplifies that I see in today’s society is the struggle of “things as they are, with (their) idea of things as they ought to be” (Hegel 35). That seems to be everyone’s struggle: wanting what they personally believe to be true, to be made or not made into a law. But as Hegel also says throughout the piece is the idea of history being a struggle. Perhaps laws will or won’t be passed regarding these issues, but there will never be an easy or all encompassing happy medium.
Periods of History
On page 343, while Hegel is discussing the history of the German World, he says, “The three periods of this world will have to be treated accordingly.” I am not completely sure what he means by “will have to be treaded accordingly;” it is the first part of the sentence, “the three periods of this world,” that stuck out to me. I am in a class on Indian art history, and we were recently read an article regarding the writing of India’s history (which, incidentally, also reminded me of Ranke at the time). The article deals with the idea that India’s history was primarily written down by the British, and discusses how that affected the portrayal of India’s history. In the west, history is generally categorized into three periods: ancient, medieval, and modern. By the British, Indian history was also divided into three periods: Hindu, Muslim, and British. But the thing is, these periods don’t really work. (Hindus, for example, didn’t stop existing in India when the Mughals (an Islamic empire) took power.) But yet, there is this desire to fit everything into three neat periods. Back to Hegel: maybe now you can understand why this qupte jumped out at me. He also goes through and separates the history of the German World into three periods. (The first beginning with the appearance of the German Nations in the Roman Empire, the second with Charlemagne, and the third with Charles V.) Why three periods? What is so special about that number, and why does the world need to be fit into that specific periodization?
When reading the article about India, I had a hard time figuring out why people weren’t accepting other – uniquely Indian – proposed periodizations, but reading Hegel has helped me understand that a little better. This may seem obvious, but I think that it must stem from the fact that Western civilization is traditionally separated into three periods. It makes more sense for Hegel to follow that model (since Germany is in the West) than it did for the British when writing about India, but I think that essentially, it comes down to the fact that it is much easier follow an existing framework than it is to invent your own. Western readers understand the world in three periods, so it makes sense to frame all other knowledge around that. But while it may be easier for Western readers to understand, easier doesn’t necessarily mean better, especially if it warps the truth about a region’s history (such as what happened with India).
When reading the article about India, I had a hard time figuring out why people weren’t accepting other – uniquely Indian – proposed periodizations, but reading Hegel has helped me understand that a little better. This may seem obvious, but I think that it must stem from the fact that Western civilization is traditionally separated into three periods. It makes more sense for Hegel to follow that model (since Germany is in the West) than it did for the British when writing about India, but I think that essentially, it comes down to the fact that it is much easier follow an existing framework than it is to invent your own. Western readers understand the world in three periods, so it makes sense to frame all other knowledge around that. But while it may be easier for Western readers to understand, easier doesn’t necessarily mean better, especially if it warps the truth about a region’s history (such as what happened with India).
Ohhh Hegel
I feel as if it would be very possible to spend several classroom sessions discussing various parts and passages of Hegel’s book The Philosophy of History and I still would not understand everything. However, I feel like I have found a passage that reminded me of our last blog post talking about why Jared Lee Loughner did what he did. The passage is located on page 37. “But the subject becomes more complicated and difficult when we regard individuals not merely in their aspect of activity, but more concretely, in conjunction with a particular manifestation of that activity in their religion and morality” (37). After dissecting this quote I concluded that Hegel is trying to say that one is able to record history with dates and facts easily such as remembering “individuals… in their aspect of activity.” However, it becomes more complicated recording history when one starts questioning “a particular manifestation of that activity” similar to asking the ‘why’ question. In my opinion I do not think there will ever be concrete descriptions and reasoning behind certain actions or events that are recorded in history unless there are primary sources from that person at that time. I want to link this passage from Hegel to our last blog post talking about why Jared Loughner did what he did. This quote illustrates the fact that sometimes it is impossible to figure out exactly what made or provoked Loughner to open fire. Primary sources are the only way we can understand how such manifestation occurred in the individual. The personal recording that Sam Byck used to prove his thoughts surrounding his reasoning behind his actions would be a perfect example of a primary source that Clarke used in his article. However, without a concrete primary source Hegel verifies that it becomes more complicated when historians attempt to pinpoint the motivation behind the acts recorded and remembered.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Africa Is Not A Historical Part Of The World
I thought it was fascinating how Hegel used logic to naturalize systems of oppression such as slavery and hierarchically places cultures and geographic areas as more or less important historically as another way of institutionalizing oppression through the production of history. Hegel writes that, “slavery is itself a phase of advance from the merely isolated sensual existence- a phase of education- a mode of becoming participant in a higher morality and the culture connected with it.....(Africa) is not historical part of the world; it has no movement or development to exhibit.” (99). I was able to connect this quote to my own experiences in classes that have aimed to explore larger colonialist and imperialist narratives through which systems of oppression are instituted, maintained and reproduced. Last semester I read a portion of Anne McClintock’s Imperial Leather in my American Studies class about colonialism and imperialism. She discussed the concept of the porno-tropics, wherein indigenous “othered” bodies are often overtly sexualized for white male fantasy. This is grounded in the fact that indigenous peoples were seen as bound to the land, corporeal, savage, uncontrolled, dangerous and threatening. Hegel suggests through the above quote that it is justified to use the bodies non-dominant groups as slaves in order to better “introduce” them into civilization so that they can become docile bodies through acculturation by European standards. Africa is seen as a place unable to produce any history because its inhabitants were not thought by Hegel to be capable of anything more than throwing spears out of caves. Reading Hegel and looking at it critically as a colonialist and imperialist text that works to promote and perpetuate certain power structures is fascinating because I believe that Hegel’s idea of history has helped to perpetuate the idea that indigenous and non-European peoples have no history and furthermore that their histories and cultures are insignificant at best. This Euro-centric mode of thinking places specific cultures and histories as being more important than others and is not only biased but provides the basis for continued oppression.
What started as nothing, has now made HISTORY!
I have got to admit, when I began reading Hegel, I thought the man was either, mentally ill or just trying to make everyone’s lives miserable. As I read on in Hegel’s assigned readings, I came across a very interesting point. In his reading, Hegel states “in history, an additional result is commonly produced by human actions beyond that which they aim at and obtain that which they immediately recognize and desire; they gratify their own interest.” At first this didn’t make sense, but as I read on, Hegel gave an example of a man who felt revenge against someone perhaps not an unjust one, but produced by injury on the other’s part—burns the other man’s house. Ok, at first, I thought to myself “what does all this mean.” My understanding of the statement above is (even though I have a feeling I am wrong) that sometimes history is built by mere individuals seeking justice. A long time ago, Plato wrote a book solely based on how justice is achieved. Plato asked many what their definition of justice is and Plato then proved them wrong. When Hegel gave the example, it gave me a clearer picture of what he is trying to convey. The following paragraphs in Hegel’s book on page 28 go on long detailed explanation of his purpose. From what I understood from those paragraphs is that history can be written by a simple act. This takes us to the moment in life that this reminds me of. It is actually happening as I write this blog and it has been going on for the past five days; the crisis/revolution in Egypt. Since Mubarak claimed presidency 30 years ago, he has been wrecking the country and driving it into turmoil. Those long thirty years have not been talked about or discussed in the news at all. Nothing about Egypt was written in the history books following Sadat’s death. Now after a long autocracy has taken place, Egypt is all over the news; the Egyptians are seeking revenge (as stated from Hegel’s example). The Egyptians revolted from what started as a mere taking power as a vice president from the assassinated president. Also, as Hegel states that Egyptians didn’t do this as a personal interest, but something further was indeed accomplished by the protests. The whole world today knows what has been going on in Egypt over the past thirty years; what started as nothing, will now be going into the history books.
Primary Source: "The Philosophy of History" by G.W.F Hegel
Secondary Source: www.cnn.com and CNN Channel
By: Ahmed Elhadidi
Filling In the Gaps
The part of Hegel’s writing that stood out most to me was on page 103; the entire first paragraph made the most sense out all the readings we were assingned. I was reeled in after the first line when Hegel says “ …the course of the worlds history has been marked out in its general features”. As I read on that first line began to make more and more sense. My “ah-ha” moment came when Hegel told the story of the blind man using his imagination for his entire life to make up the world, then on the day he regained sight he was disappointed to see that the world didn’t turn out how his imagination made it out to be. The reason this made so much sense is because we don’t know all the details of history. We know the facts, or in other worlds we know “general features”, the stuff that happens between those facts are left to our imagination. Ranke told us that we must only use primary sources, and that history may not be colorful and exciting but it must be told how it actually happened. To make history more exciting we tend to use our imagination to fill in the gaps. But what if we filled in the gaps, creating this history that was exciting and thrilling, just to gain our sight the next day and realize the truth about the gaps. Would we be disappointed like the blind man finding out his world was much better than the actual one? Or would we accept it and move on as if nothing changed? This passage really reminded me of the skit that was performed the first day of class from Assassins. This skit got the entire class thinking. What was really going through Oswald’s mind and why did he really become an assassin? When the gaps are filled the perspective changes, instead of looking at the “general features” look between them and you may be surprised or disappointed, like the blind man, in what you find out. Reading Hegel really made me realize that sometimes the things you make up using your imagination are much better than the truth. In a way I never really thought about the fact that I use my imagination to fill in the gaps between the general features, to me what I have made up makes sense to me and that’s the way I see it. But what I see (or make up to fill the gaps) is most likely different than what other people see since no ones imagination is the same. This is another reason why Ranke is right, if we use primary sources we will have a better chance of avoiding the imaginative things people have made up to fill in the gaps. The primary sources will gives us the general features that we need in order to tell the Worlds History “from East to West.”
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Posting assignment #2 (due Sunday 1/30, 11:59 P.M.): Hegel -- not just for stuffy old Germans anymore?
Why read a 200 year-old book written by a racist privileged dead white straight European Christian academic male?
Because he's isn't so dead.
Even if you've never read Hegel, you know Hegel. You know Hegel because the ideas Hegel promoted -- to his legions of adoring students (and their students, and their students, and their students), over many, many years -- have become "common sense." A whole lot of how we think about, talk about, and make history (or try to), a lot of what feels "obvious" to us about what history is and how it works, did not exist before Hegel.
(Just one example, out of a zillion I could have chosen: during the recent Senate fight over gays in the military, both the Franken and the Obama people sent out emails (yes, I'm on their lists...) suggesting that Republicans trying to block the bill needed to get "on the right side of history". What does it mean to be on the "right side of history"? Or the "wrong side"? Does history really have "sides"? Now that I've made you stop and think about it, it may sound a little silly -- but on some level, if you're like me, it still kind of feels right. And if so, even a little bit, regardless of where you stand on Don't Ask Don't Tell, then you too see History as "the progress of the consciousness of Freedom" (Hegel 19). You are, in short, a Hegelian.)
Your assignment, basically, is to do what I just did in the above paragraph, except in more words (umm...I mean...more *detail*):
1) READ the 20-or-so assigned pages from Hegel's The Philosophy of History. (See my email for details about what to read, and how.)
2) CHOOSE one moment from the text -- longer than a word, shorter than a paragraph -- that resonates with your "common sense" understanding of history, what it is, and how it works. Common sense is less about "knowing" than about "feeling." What "feels" right? What makes you go, "ah, yes, of course"!
(***NOTE: when you quote, make sure to be aware of your quote's context! If Hegel writes the sentence (which he doesn't, but he could have), "Some people say the movement of history is random, but they are wrong," don't quote Hegel as saying, "the movement of history is random." Even though the words are there, you're totally distorting what he's saying! This may sound obvious, but I see this kind of thing all the time. Including by people who should know better.)
3) CHOOSE one moment from your life, which operates on the historical logic expressed in the moment from Hegel that you chose. It can be anything. It can be something from our class, or another class, or another school. It can be something you saw on TV, in a movie, or (as in my example above) on the Internet. It can be from a social interaction (or an anti-social interaction). It can pick up lingering thoughts on Beck & Co. from today, if you've got any. Anything. I'd just ask, in the interest of all of our reading pleasures: don't repeat something someone else already talked about. Or if you do, at least say something new and different about it.
4) WRITE a blog post, at least 300 words long, in which you (a) show us the moment from Hegel you chose, and why/how it resonates with you, (b) show us (link if you can, describe if you can't) the moment from your life, and -- this is really the point -- (c) explain how reading Hegel (a) helps you understand this thing in your life (b). (Or, in other words, give one possible answer to the question, "Why read a 200 year-old book written by racist privileged dead white straight European Christian academic male?")
Because he's isn't so dead.
Even if you've never read Hegel, you know Hegel. You know Hegel because the ideas Hegel promoted -- to his legions of adoring students (and their students, and their students, and their students), over many, many years -- have become "common sense." A whole lot of how we think about, talk about, and make history (or try to), a lot of what feels "obvious" to us about what history is and how it works, did not exist before Hegel.
(Just one example, out of a zillion I could have chosen: during the recent Senate fight over gays in the military, both the Franken and the Obama people sent out emails (yes, I'm on their lists...) suggesting that Republicans trying to block the bill needed to get "on the right side of history". What does it mean to be on the "right side of history"? Or the "wrong side"? Does history really have "sides"? Now that I've made you stop and think about it, it may sound a little silly -- but on some level, if you're like me, it still kind of feels right. And if so, even a little bit, regardless of where you stand on Don't Ask Don't Tell, then you too see History as "the progress of the consciousness of Freedom" (Hegel 19). You are, in short, a Hegelian.)
Your assignment, basically, is to do what I just did in the above paragraph, except in more words (umm...I mean...more *detail*):
1) READ the 20-or-so assigned pages from Hegel's The Philosophy of History. (See my email for details about what to read, and how.)
2) CHOOSE one moment from the text -- longer than a word, shorter than a paragraph -- that resonates with your "common sense" understanding of history, what it is, and how it works. Common sense is less about "knowing" than about "feeling." What "feels" right? What makes you go, "ah, yes, of course"!
(***NOTE: when you quote, make sure to be aware of your quote's context! If Hegel writes the sentence (which he doesn't, but he could have), "Some people say the movement of history is random, but they are wrong," don't quote Hegel as saying, "the movement of history is random." Even though the words are there, you're totally distorting what he's saying! This may sound obvious, but I see this kind of thing all the time. Including by people who should know better.)
3) CHOOSE one moment from your life, which operates on the historical logic expressed in the moment from Hegel that you chose. It can be anything. It can be something from our class, or another class, or another school. It can be something you saw on TV, in a movie, or (as in my example above) on the Internet. It can be from a social interaction (or an anti-social interaction). It can pick up lingering thoughts on Beck & Co. from today, if you've got any. Anything. I'd just ask, in the interest of all of our reading pleasures: don't repeat something someone else already talked about. Or if you do, at least say something new and different about it.
4) WRITE a blog post, at least 300 words long, in which you (a) show us the moment from Hegel you chose, and why/how it resonates with you, (b) show us (link if you can, describe if you can't) the moment from your life, and -- this is really the point -- (c) explain how reading Hegel (a) helps you understand this thing in your life (b). (Or, in other words, give one possible answer to the question, "Why read a 200 year-old book written by racist privileged dead white straight European Christian academic male?")
Paige's Blog - January 27th
We began class making sure everyone understood upcoming assignments and what needs to be done. For the week that you are difficultating there is no need to blog that weekend, but you are welcome to for extra credit. Also, it is a requirement to meet with Ben outside of class the week before it is your assigned date to difficultate. Things may seem really hectic right now, but it is just the beginning of the semester so now things will start to cool off from now.
- The reading for Tuesday is Hegel, which is about 20 pages. It is a book that can be bought at the bookstore along with all the other books on the syllabus. This is a requirement.
- Elissa asked if the version of the book is important….
- No, there is only 1 different version of the book, which was done 100 years ago, but isn’t good
- The introduction has been revised a billion times
- The stuff outside of the introduction is not generally taught so it is important to get the gist of the entire book
- Do NOT attempt to read the entire book. Ben is going to e-mail us with a more detailed reading guide as o what pages and certain paragraphs that he wants us to read.
- The reading is not easy, but do not get discouraged. It is Hegel’s purpose to confuse us as a way for him to have a sense of power
- What you don’t get, underline and then ask questions. You are not expected to understand all of it.
- Find some information on the context about Hegel so it will be easier to understand where he is coming from.
- Think about the reading in terms of experience with history we have had in life and what we have learned in this class thus far
- We are going to push watching High Hitler until next Thursday
- Key word review – are terms that structure the work that we do. We will learn all these but won’t be tested on them. We will only be asked to take the ways we are looking at stuff and do more what that. This class is a skill-based class learning how to do stuff. These are then tools that function at once to remind you of stuff you have been talking about (jog memory) and relate to other things you know.
o Historiography – the study of the writing of history
o Metahistory – the history of history
o Intersexuality – looking at one text to look at another text to analyze it. It isn’t quite conscious
§ Way that certain texts get in our head and structure other texts
§ Hegel is an example of this as an inner text. No one has read it before but we know it
o Primary sources – sources that come from the person or the time that you are studying. Stuff that is of this moment. It exists in the present
§ True or false – primary sources are from the past?
· False – it is in the present because we are looking at it. You can infer things that happened in the past. It is the here and now
o Secondary sources – draws on a primary source as it draws and interprets the information
§ Dana Millbank – written about Glenn Beck, not by him
§ Mostly what you have read – they are accounts by historians
o Tertiary sources – once more removed from the primary source. It is further removed information
§ A textbook is an example, as authors will pull from secondary sources, if that.
o “Scientific” History – wie es eigentlich gewesen
§ Ranke
§ How it actually was
§ History as a claim to truth
§ The writing is less important what is more important is getting the facts right which have consequences
o Rhetoric – the way you phrase an argument. The way you communicate in order to persuade people to a given point
§ All cultural production is rhetoric
§ It is the way you make a convincing argument
§ Problem with Ranke is that he doesn’t take this or the appeal to emotion into account
o Confirmation Bias – people prefer information that confirms their preconceptions
- We then all stood up and closed our eyes. Ben then asked for take a deep breath and relax. He then asked us to make a gesture that explained how we felt when we were watching the YouTube videos from Glenn Beck. We then opened our eyes and went around the circle where each person would say their name and do their gesture and then the next person had to repeat the previous persons and their own. Then, depending on the gesture you gave we put ourselves into groups with people of similar reactions.
- How did my group react?
o Elissa asked what did you guys think
o Sophie wondered what the heck is wrong with him. She almost felt like laughing
o Rachel wondered what he was trying to say and if he was actually serious
o Emily can’t believe he had so many followers, which makes you wonder
o Elissa didn’t really get what was going on. There was so much terminology that he could of said anything and she couldn’t even make an opinion
o Jordan that it was hard to keep up with
o Emily made a point that we already come in with thoughts of uncertainty so we already have a preconceived notion about him going into the video
o Emily thought it was interesting how he would pause every time. It was really off and contradicted it. Viewers have an open mind to whatever he says
o Elissa, on the other hand, thinks hat it is so ridiculous that it makes you wonder if his points ever get lost
- If anyone wants to watch a YouTube video about Glenn Beck come in to class 5 minutes early next Tuesday. (11:10)
- Lets talk….
o The head pulling group
§ Reacted to the ridiculousness of beck
§ Instead of being angry we shouldn’t make such a big deal because it would glorify him
§ We shouldn’t give him credit – he is unprofessional, he sounds ridiculous
§ He doesn’t cite his sources, he just takes bits and pieces out to make a collage of what he thinks
§ Ridiculous because the poster like argument he made that says that politics are alike is somewhat over done
o My group
§ What in the world is wrong with him? He drives us nuts and he doesn’t take things as facts
§ Confused because we didn’t know a lot of what was being said because we didn’t understand the meaning of some of the words of what he was trying to prove. None of it really made sense
§ There are just a bunch of conspiracy theories
o Ahaha group
§ He is comparing Nazi Germany to the present and it isn’t necessary
· Everyone knows and has emotions tied to it and comparing it stirs up more emotions
o Confusion/ Shock Group
§ Technically not doing anything wrong – constitution gives you the right to speech
· He has the right to have the freedom to say what he wants, but there is responsibility that he has with the viewers because they take his word and take it how they will
o Also is responsible for the network
· His videos are very radical people get sucked in from confirmation bias (KEYWORD) – the correction video is trying to take this out of it and swing it the other way so it isn’t specially conservative or radical viewpoint
· Ironic how he says that Hitler is from Germany – but really from Austria.
o Is on a news show and this isn’t even true
· Take little parts and make them bigger. Take quotes from when he was a teenager and puts them together to make a story seem larger than It really is
- Hipsterhitler.com
o Godwins law
- Milbank – pg. 118
o “Try to avoid the Hitler accusations. Once you compare your opponent to the Nazis, any form of rational discussion becomes impossible, opponents take offense, and an apology follows.” (118-119)
o Have problems with these ideas to say that there is only one historical event that is outside the realm of discussion is weird
o Can you exempt the Nazis from history?
§ Has an immense amount to explain what we think about history
§ When people produce works where do you draw the lines to distinguish it from not being yours anymore
- Was anybody really convinced?
o His rhetoric was effective and made you feel like it was terrible
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)