• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Hegel, Morality, and G.W.

protovack

protovack

Bluelighter
Joined
Apr 27, 2004
Messages
2,681
Location
Elma, WA
I ran across this quote in Hegel's Philosophy of Right, and immediately thought of George Bush and how people view him.

"It is one of the most prominent maxims of our time to enter a plea for the so-called 'moral' intention behind wrong actions and to imagine bad men with well-meaning hearts, i.e. hearts willing their own welfare and perhaps that of others also. This doctrine is rooted in the 'benevolence' (guten Herzens) of the pre-Kantian philosophers; but to-day it has ben rususcitated in a more extravagant form, and inner enthusuasm and the heart, i.e. the form of particularity as such, have been made the criterion of right, rationality, and excellence. The result is that crime and the thoughts that lead to it, be they fancies however trite and empty, or opinions however wild, are to be regarded as right, rational, and excellent, simply because they issue from men's hearts and enthusiasms."
Click to expand...

It seems like people naturally tend to lean in either of two directions: Either that means justify ends if the ends are "justified," or that the supposed ends are just rationalizations for means directed towards a different, more harmful end. Basically, either people are honest or dis-honest in their public dealings.

It seems like people get away with doing a lot of harm to people, while many onlookers simply say, "He has a good heart," or "He is a godly man."

How can people think like this? Is it because we all realize, that as humans, we are prone to errors in judgement and thus shouldn't be responsible for the outcomes of our decisions? That when we are judged, we would want to be judged by the content of our character, whether or not that is reflected in the consequences of our actions?
 
Well, americans voted for him so there's bound to be some quality in the man that americans respect or find necessary in a leader. Though I am not too sure he is all that different to other presidents, the plan for this war has been developing for 30 odd years. Maybe people just see through him easier then those who come before him. Voting someone else in may not necessarily have made a lot of difference, other then the fact that his family is knee deep in the oil business and making huge amounts of money off the war.
 
I think the ego overcomes people. They need to vote for who they "should" instead of thinking about the actual facts. They think the acts are godly because he says they are. Perhas they are "dumb enough" to fall for the PR that Rove threw at them. Or perhaps they knew the facts and still chose him. Either way, their choices won't be acceptable to some of us. I have seen numerous articles and spoken to numerous people who claim Bush's "morality" is what made them choose. It really is dumbfounding and there isn't much to argue with them.
 
Well, americans voted for him
Click to expand...
half the americans
so there's bound to be some quality in the man that americans respect or find necessary in a leader
Click to expand...
or half the americans could just
- have had their heads too high up their asses to realize whatever was happening outside of their tv room during the last 4 years
- be brainwashed enough to believe bush's lies because if it's on tv with a big flag behind, it has to be true
- not have enough initiative to consider change
 
people seem to like the fact that he is in the dark and is a puppet, maybe it's all about image and we know bad shit is going to happen, but we want a president who can look suprised, when it does. - " need in any wood"
 
Well, yeah. People voted based on a lack of information due to the fact that there is no democracy in america, ive already pointed out my views of democracy previously. But I dont think you can really blame anyone for that other then americans who make do with such a process, not that any country is much better. But at least there are some countries that arent so much of a police state. There was a TV program here, about a guy who went and looked at america and life there. He didnt paint a very bright picture. It was kinda funny though, you know how you get stuckup reporters going to foreign countries and turn their nose up at everything. In that spirit, only was based on a so called 'world leader'. What was pointed out was high crime, high national debt, military culture, and a quote that america's freedoms began and end in the supermarket where anyone can buy anything.
 
He won b/c he has an image.... he's a cowboy. If Kerry would have worn a tie dye shit and peace sign i think he would have had a better shot.

I always see bush as Emmerson's hero
 
one could argue, that if the tie-die was aplicable then dean would have won, however, one could also argue that dean lost because the right wing underminded his campaign internally to invalidate the democratic cause, something I know they did to kerry in ohio.
 
Hegel talked about a system of control. Problem, solution, synthesis.

Create a problem by funding terrorist organizations, and have them destroy a landmark like pearl harbor, or the twin towers. Create a solution that promotes your agenda. Synthesis is the completion of the cycle, where your crafted problem and seemingly reactive solution produce massive profit for you or your group.

The end never justifies the means because the means also determines the end. The use of violence in the name of peace only produces more violence.

As MLK said, "the only way to have peace is through the practice of peace."

The means is the end.
 
>>Hegel talked about a system of control. Problem, solution, synthesis.

Create a problem by funding terrorist organizations, and have them destroy a landmark like pearl harbor, or the twin towers. Create a solution that promotes your agenda. Synthesis is the completion of the cycle, where your crafted problem and seemingly reactive solution produce massive profit for you or your group. >>

Wow...this is a very insightful use of the dialectic.
1. thesis: funding terrorism.
2. antithesis: terrorists attack those who fund them.
3. synthesis: use attacks to justify a profitable war.

We can see, then, that within the form and content of the first action, the thesis, lies the reaction, the antithesis, and the sublation of the two whereby both actions are transcended, the synthesis.

I'm largely just paraphrasing here, but, whatever...

The difference between this and the dialectic hegel speaks of is that Hegel's dialectic is God manifesting itself in the concrete world (according to Hegel), which is obviously a good thing, whereas your dialectic is not propelling itself towards any good. That, and you write far more clearly than Hegel.
...

ebola
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top