Plato’s ideal of monarchy and democracy

Introduction

Plato was an aristocrat who was the student of Socrates and is possibly best known for his epic dialogue entitled the Republic, considered a world literary masterpiece. The characters are Socrates and his brother in real life. 

Plato and his utopia

The first point to make is Plato never used the term utopia but rather he has been associated with the concept of presenting an ideal city that might be likened to a political utopia. Hence, many interpretations of his Republic assign his work to one presenting the idea of a political utopia- a polis (city state), claiming it must inevitably lead to totalitarianism and communism.

But Alfred Geir points out in an article published in ‘Philosophy Now’ it is not about the state of the state, as he sheds light on Plato’ s true quest. Rather he points out amongst other things, Plato wants to present a political justice system analogous to the concept of individual justice.  Grier notes in the ensuing dialogue Socrates says that the ideal polis would be possible only if philosophers become the rulers.

But rather than to continue to talk about the Republic my notes will cover his much later dialogues in ‘The Laws’.

The Laws was his last dialogue and outlines the political structure of an ideal city named Magnesia.

The concept here involves a legislative framework based on ensuring a city is one that can be enjoyed by its citizens, supported by education and governance by wise leaders based on virtuous principles. He references lessons learnt from the histories of Persia, Sparta, Crete, and Athens, to incorporate just laws and a moderate constitution. His idea involves principles taken from both a moderate democracy and monarchy.

What are these virtues and how do they work

The virtues outlined are courage, justice and moderation as a goal for the lawgivers to thereby achieve the citizens’ happiness. Plato assumes virtue is a prerequisite for happiness.  

This aim is to be accomplished from an ethical education, underpinned by rules predicated on just principles.  Plato believed education was the key prerequisite for the Athenian youth, who are to be trained in being able to feel pleasure, pain, and love and to even hate correctly, before they understand the reasons for such things. Education in the arts was also considered crucial and poets were to be compelled to teach only the good man can attain happiness.   

In this respect the Spartans and Cretans are considered praiseworthy for compelling poets to teach only the good man can be happy and for giving no attention to those that are bad. Hence, Plato asserts that the poet is to teach that living the good life is dependent upon virtue which results in the most pleasant, just and happiest existence possible. He doesn’t go on to express the need for punishment for those who would disregard this directive except for those who contravene impiety laws.

He calls for a state of orderly government, and likens corruption to the destructive power of ignorance. The lawgiver is therefore charged with the responsibility of ensuring justice is maintained and the city remains free and is governed under wise principles.  Plato realizes for such laws to be accepted they must be explained in terms of the benefits and reasons for their enactment which is talked about under the heading of preludes to the law.   

Constitution. 

The ideal is to combine the 2 forms of monarchy and democracy. By way of example he talks about the extreme monarchy in Persia contrasting to Athens’s advancement towards a moderate democracy. Hence the ideal is a moderation of both monarchy and democracy to ensure the state can prosper through wisdom but remain free.  

Formation

Plato draws the analogy of a good tyrant as far as it is necessary to create virtuous institutions. One who can imitate the rule of GOD by ordering a city to obedience and rationality, to call upon the immortal element of the soul, to appreciate the virtues resplendent in the regulations he called the law.

At that time the soul was considered a substance and Plato informs the citizens they are to honour their souls above all their other possessions, as their souls are their own most divine of all their possessions. To honour one’s soul then becomes the essence to follow a virtuous life to ensure one can enjoy good things.  

Likewise the body is also to be honoured by being engaged in a moderate state, as supportive of the good state of the soul; lastly we have money and property to also be held in moderation.

But there is some debate amongst scholars as to whether or not Plato believes human nature can support his noble quest embodied in his idea of the ideal city (Republic) so that some construed inconsistencies in the laws are thought to accept this limitation.

Institutions

Plato’s ideas on private and political institutions are demonstrated in relation to the city of Magnesia. Households have two plots of land: one close to the city and another near the border. The aim is to be equally productive and sufficient for a comfortable existence. The laws provide some flexibility in classes of assets for the top or first class can be worth up to three and four times the value of second and so on. But above these limits the assets will be confiscated by the city. Many were not citizens and there was also a sizable slave population and transient foreigners known as metics who may stay for twenty years and have limited rights. 

Political system

There is an Assembly, Council, magistrates who are guardians of the laws and the courts and the Nocturnal Council, elected by the lot owners.  

The Assembly is the principal electoral authority for the city; comprising a representation of all of its citizens via those who have served or are serving in the military.

The Assembly is responsible for the election of most of the city’s officers and magistrates and in judging offences against the public of awards of merit plus changing laws. There is provision for appeals in judiciary cases.

Preludes in the Laws

A significant part of the impetus for interpretations that see considerable differences between the Republic and the Laws comes from the presence in the latter of “preludes” to individual laws and to the lawcode as a whole that are available to all the citizens. In Plato’s own view, one of the most important innovations in the political theory of the Laws is the requirement that good lawgivers try to persuade the citizens and not simply issue commands to them by means of laws (Laws 722B5–C2). Plato compares the lawgiver in Magnesia to a free doctor treating free people. Slave doctors who treat other slaves merely give them orders and then rush off to other patients. Free doctors treating free people must explain to their patients the condition they have and the rationale for treatment before prescribing (Laws 722B–723B). In doing so, they will “educate” the patients and use “arguments that come close to philosophizing” (Laws 857C2–E5). Similarly, Plato thinks that the lawgiver in Magnesia should not merely issue legal commands: law without persuasion is condemned as mere force (722B).

Reference: Bobonich, Chris and Katherine Meadows, "Plato on utopia", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =< https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/plato-utopia/>.

“Nocturnal Council”

The “Nocturnal Council” meets from dawn until sunrise and was assigned an educational function with an authority to impose sentences against those who contravened impiety laws due to ignorance. They were imprisoned for five years, during which time members meet to reform their beliefs by teaching.

Some philosophers think Plato intended the Nocturnal Council to be the principal political authority in line with the powers of the philosopher kings in the Republic.

Summing up    

Plato was the first philosopher to introduce the idea of an ideal city characterised as utopia and there have been many since to put forward alternatives. He certainly gives us plenty to think about especially in relation to living the good life and how that may lead to a more meaningful existence.   

We can ask the question what is justice and rather obviously conclude is it good for a person to be just? Plato asserts once one is able to understand it on a larger scale (from a political perspective) citizens will appreciate it on a personal basis. But is this true?  

The risk is his system; will it result in a totalitarian regime?  One might argue his analogous idea of a good tyrant ensuring virtuous principles are upheld is against democratic principles?  But is this just taking what he said out of context?  

Similarly the mere knowledge of virtue does not necessarily result in a person acting in a virtuous manner.

Ensuring poets and all works of culture, from plays to bedtime stories, are r to be approved dependent on them validating the good many would likewise argue is against basic democracy.  

Conclusion

His philosophy is enduring even after over two thousand years as it continues to impinge on our ideas today. Living the good life remains an appealing aspect.   

Is there a viable future for Democracy?

Introduction

By democracy we mean a system of governance where power is vested in the common people directly or through representation in elections. There are various forms arising from past associations such as a constitutional monarchy or a republic or other types or combinations but the overarching thematic is one where privileges or hereditary benefits don't generally apply.  Some systems of elections involve a first past the post methodology in voting whilst others such as Australia are representative so that preferences determine outcomes where there is no clear majority. In the US for instance there is a mixture of both.

There is also an assumed freedom that arises from the laws of a nation predicated on democratic principles or can be defined by a Bill of Rights. Conservative forces will easily recall times we can relish, when life was simpler and people looked out for one another, but outside of this veneer there also existed a subculture obscured from public view. For instance First Nations peoples and others were subject to institutional abuse which is now more widely acknowledged. Whilst some tentative steps have been taken to move forward in the healing process there emerges other pressing challenges in the current age that pose a threat to democracy.

Mass media and the rise in misinformation and conspiracies. 

What is evident is the mass misinformation from social media and the growth in popularised movements. One could equally point to past domination in the news such as the right wing Murdock Press. But the difference now is there is no longer any clear identity related to opinionated columns by an editor and staff beholden to a particular ideology.  

Rather, a social media bias can be the product of contrived popularity with Bots and the like that involve fictitious people to give credence to what otherwise would be rejected as erroneous minority views.         

For instance it is estimated that between 40- 50% of the population in the western world principally rely for their news and information based purely on social media platforms such as Facebook.  

The latter has demonstrated no desire to police their content or warn about rather obvious false information or to take any responsibility for conspiratorial and harmful posts that influence their followers. Only recently did they finally ban false claims by Trump. Trump himself had 40 million followers on Twitter and he was prone to issue up to 20 tweets on any given day. Even Right wing outlets such as Fox News towards the end of his presidency were at pains to disassociate themselves from his outlandish claims on Twitter.

The original ideals of such a platform to provide a social interaction has been superseded by such exponential growth that it has overshadowed a nation’s ability to ensure it operated in a democratic and fair minded manner.

A Facebook has allowed multi postings of conspiracy theories such as campaigns hell bent on attacking any institutions committed to reducing the tragedy of preventable infectious diseases.

Many readers don’t realize or are uninterested in the rather obvious example of rigid stands that go against just about every scientist in the world and lack a healthy degree of scepticism that ensures critical thinking.

Many young people have in excess of 1000 friends and of course the anti-vaccine readers are only too keen to recirculate such postings on Facebook.   

Freedom

A democracy assumes a citizen’s freedom of expression within certain rules and their voice can be represented in a collective manner to raise issues in relation to private and public institutions. To reiterate this involves the extent to which citizens have or feel they have a say in the decision making process through their elected representatives.   

There also exists confusion between liberty and the extent to which the so-called common good takes precedence. Democracies by their nature assume they represent the aspirations, rights and majority rule of its citizens, but this inevitably boils down to a subjective moral question of what is fair and reasonable.

Recent concerns.

Daniel Blatt who is Eaton Professor of the Science of Government at Harvard University writing in Democracy Now explains the threats to democracy in the world today. He cites growing authoritarianism in China, Russia, central Asia, and much of the Middle East. He also talks about democratic breakdown in Thailand, Venezuela plus backsliding in countries such as Ecuador, Hungary, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, and Turkey which has triggered debates over whether we have entered a period of global democratic recession.

But even previous stalwarts such as the US have fallen prey to the likes of Donald Trump, just as growing anti -immigrant forces have swelled in Europe.

This raises the question as to whether or not liberal democracy around the world can survive.

It is hard to pinpoint the reasons but I believe fractured communication and lack of debate have become a product of the digital age. To reiterate, given the rise in social media platforms we have seen massive increases in conspiracy theories emerging from the period post the Coved pandemic. To further exasperate inequality the pandemic has shielded the better off sections of the community able to function effectively at home and on line.  The front line workers have mostly borne the brunt of reduced income and employment reductions. This trend was already evident as technological developments increasingly call for a better qualified workforce when there will always be large sectors not quite up to the intellectual challenges such a continued course inevitably requires. Disadvantaged and estranged sections of a nation will gravitate to a so called strong leader offering simplistic flawed slogans via Twitter that inevitably plead for additional power that overrides democratic principles.  Unless governments recognise this problem in the technological world we inhabit the threat to democracy can only gather pace.

Globalisation 

A feature of globalisation is that some large multinationals are prone to make false claims in relation to their businesses and the public acquiesce based on flawed analysis. A good example was the threat and subsequent actions by Amazon to boycott the Australian market if the GST rules were revised to impose the tax on it’s on line purchases by consumers. Prior to the recent amendments to the law, purchases of online products were not subject to the tax which was unfair in relation to the Australian suppliers who were required to pass on the tax to customers.

Large sectors of the Australian public also opposed the moves and spread misinformation principally on Facebook, to shore up their obvious reluctance to pay the GST. Particular individuals were targeted unfairly and characterised as greedy Capitalists when all they were proposing was to point out unfairness in the law as it applied to local firms.  

Eventually as the dust settled Amazon quietly re-entered the market and today we have additional tax flowing into government revenues. Similarly any corporation in Australia has a social obligation to operate in accordance with the laws governing its operations, particularly in relation to the spirit of that law. It is only of more recent times the taxation department has been successful in recovering large amounts of tax from contrived artificial arrangements designed to divert income from Australia to tax havens or low taxing regimes that foolishly operated in countries such as Ireland. 

The antidote to combat such measures involves cooperative agreements between countries in measures to uphold fairness and transparency. The action by a select few multinationals engaged in such obvious manipulations in contrivance of accounting standards undermines a lack of trust by its citizens in democratic governance. 

Social media and the digital age   

To reiterate we have seen exponential growth in on-line platforms such as Google, Facebook and Twitter plus their derivatives where Governments have been slow to provide a regulatory response. I have talked about their influence and the risks inherent in the spread of false information. Such platforms are only just starting to recognise the need for formal governance provisions.  

The risk extends to knowledge itself where algorithms are designed to give the same consistent answers which further risks undermining comprehensive analysis. Furthermore the massive information load and the use of bait to attract attention are leading to limited attention spans by this generation brought up on a Digital diet on instant information, which can be dominated by conspiracy theories. The more recent spat between Facebook and the Australian government over payment by Facebook for news content may become a catalyst for a long overdue review of regulation as to reasonable responsibility under the laws of a country. These companies have operated with power tightly held by their founders in ways that undermine democratic principles. 

A key factor then for capital markets in any democracy is to ensure its citizens enjoy enhanced outcomes based on ethical principles that ensure adequate disclosure. The question arises as to whether capitalism itself can achieve this outcome and the extent or otherwise it is subject to government control. A more fundamental question is to ask about its future.

What then is the Future of Capitalism which is currently inextricably tied to democracy?   

I more or less agree with the views of eminent economist and author Paul Collier, who proposes an ethical capitalism supported by values defined by practical logical reasoning. The situational facts and meanings surrounding his ideas provide a good starting point.   

However, his conclusion is hardly a new idea, but follows on from the ancient Greek philosophers who proposed that by leading a virtuous life (the good life) that in turn, ensured one lived an ethical purposeful life. They saw no end in sight, just a continual improvement throughout one’s life, which gave meaning to their existence. You might recall I talked about the golden mean arising from different discourses to end as a resolution to embody in their laws and system of governance. Humanity was seen by them as a political animal, so that issues had to be debated then resolved.       

What Collier is suggesting, in a nutshell, is an ethnically based system flexible enough to embrace the ever changing nature of existence and one which will avoid ceding control to vested or corrupting interests.

One might argue, to some extent, the framework to support such a system already exists in the United Nations charter to facilitate measurable sustainable development goals. In practice, accepting there are notable exceptions, capitalism is largely represented by a piecemeal approach, made up of weak values constrained by vested interests. The prevalence of greed and corruption is always a factor, but equally there are those willing to rally around a more just outcome to weed out corruption or greed in excessive price gouging. I don't accept the premise corruption is endemic to certain cultures, but rather it can be linked to forms of exploitation than can be eliminated more effectively in the dealings between enterprises and governments sharing an ongoing dialogue on ethical standards. Poorer countries may be constrained by a shortage of human capital to be more vulnerable to exploitation than more affluent countries.    

Consequently, the lack of a clear cultural vision for capitalism, continues to underwrite its malaise, notwithstanding some notable exceptions. This state of affairs contributes to the current unrest and the accompanying surge in popularization of simplistic solutions attempting to fill in the void.

To facilitate a new ethical face to capitalism will require a concentrated effort to not only make a more convincing case, but to examine the big ideas of the past to see what aspects might assist us identify current inherent weaknesses. 

The goal might seem an impossible task, given significant cultural differences, but I would regard such an approach as a continual work in progress, to reflect an ever changing world. 

An important dynamic ingredient is the inclusion of cultural differences within the framework of agreed ethical standards. This has the capacity to create a more meaningful existence as we increasingly become part of a global village, necessitating cultural exchanges. This requires an empathetic and imaginative approach which will remain an ongoing work in progress.          

Of course human nature points to the fact that any system will carry with it the seeds of failure, but to the extent to which capitalism is clearly deficient, one can envisage clear cut moves to focus on maintaining an egalitarian society, without having to dismantle the whole system.  

Collier asserts the moral basis for a utilitarian focus to posit a fairer system of governance pertinent to Keynes and Adam Smith’s ideas (against mercantilism) have lost their way to breed disillusionment to those who feel overlooked in modernity.

Collier wants us to more frequently ask our institutions  what are your values i.e. ‘what are the ethical foundations to this so called ethical state’, ethical firm’, ethical family etc. to represent the functional aspects to ensure fairness and equity for all of the stakeholders. In essence it has a socialist ring to it without inviting a wholesale dismantling of the current system of capitalism.

Hence I don’t want to confine the discussion just to business and institutional representation but rather more broadly to drill down into such aspects as the family and local small community groups.

In order to do justice to the topic, I believe it important to get an understanding of the works of Karl Marx who successfully predicted the inequalities and concentration of wealth that we now see are evident in capitalism. The atrocities associated with socialism and more importantly to Marxism have virtually nothing to do with his philosophy as they involve the inherent vested interest he rallied against in his critique of capitalism plus hideous crimes against humanity.    

Marx was profoundly influenced by the philosophy of Hegel and concluded the opposing forces must eventually erupt if there is a prolonged imbalance, i.e., at a particular level of say a worker strike, this could lead to an untimely revolution once you build sufficient pressure within the capitalist system. The more desirable position then was embodied in his idea of socialism, which he saw as the naturally forming system that ceded authority to all those who worked under it.

In his social construct Marx thought that human liberation could only be achieved once the means of production were communally owned, and material equality for members of society were achieved. 

His ideas represented a fundamental shift in the prevailing worldview that supports our westernized system of capitalism. Personally, I don’t see any pressing need for any radical departure, but rather, to the extent progress can be made, we move towards a more ethnically based capitalist system. Certainly the ethically based funds management industry is taking steps to achieve this, as is a plethora of firms, in what remains a somewhat piecemeal approach. In any large organization today there is what is known as a governance executive, whose task is to ensure the organization conducts itself in a sustainable and ethical manner. The more recent failures in this regard have often exposed the fact that individuals' advice was ignored, in what was a cultural collapse in values. 

Returning to the Marxist philosophy, the idea of dialects also encourages one to recognize that everything is always in a state of flux so that the matter of ethics is dependent on an ongoing dynamic narrative that invites cultural exchanges and imagination.

Hence Marxism tends to invite two principal views; those who seek to demonstrate the triumph of global capitalism versus a growing number of people who are becoming increasingly concerned over inequality and lack of an environmental focus that such a system is prone to deliver. The former group will argue his ideas were false, whilst in the latter, there are those who are interested in his ideas. The reality is, of course, that the system of capitalism that existed in the extreme of Victorian capitalism was far different to that which has emerged in modernity, a construct of differing laws and practices within trading nations. But notwithstanding, his philosophy and economics provides a sharp focus on the alternatives to the present system and to the efficient operation of the invisible hand of the market proposed by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations.

The weakness in Marxism is that human nature is likely to react in the same way under either a system of capitalism or communism to ensure the accumulation of inequalities. 

However, historically Marx remains a significant philosopher whose ideas remain relevant as a talking point, to initiate philosophical enquiry into failures of the current capitalist system. That is to prompt enquiry on how it might be modified to ensure better outcomes. What we can say, at the outset, that some of his ideas have some rather obvious shortcomings.  However, it could be argued politically and in  economic terms they were never implemented in the manner envisaged by Marx, particularly in relation to Stalin’s purge, Mau and Pol Pot, who all laid claim to Marxism.

Furthermore many of his criticisms of Victorian capitalism have disappeared in a strict legal sense, whilst continuing to flourish outside of the law and in some countries.

In summary then we might ask the question: are we not seeing the end result today of what Marx prophesied?

Economics 

The problem with modern day economics is it has become beholden to more and more complicated elegant theories that in practice don’t allow for human nature that does not necessarily equate to rational outcomes, so that forecasts prove to be erroneous conclusions. There is also the abrogation of the responsibility to govern under the guise of libertarian ideals that attempt to assign responsibility to markets without safeguards to ensure regulations reflect community standards for fair and reasonable outcomes. In this respect economic policies to be effective need to be based upon objectives that entail measures aimed at maintaining full employment and ensuring a more egalitarian society in the most efficient allocation of resources. The world is increasingly becoming more and more of a global village and the extent to which ethical standards need to reflect a cooperative dialogue between nations has never been more important. In its most basic form economics aims at end the most efficient allocation of resources amongst competing wants determined on the basis of moral outcomes. This is how it originated and more than ever needs to maintain that human face so that its governance objectives are readily digestible to the broad population. The answer might be found in corporate social responsibility.

What is corporate social responsibility?

Corporate Social responsibility is an expectation that business is to be conducted in an ethical and sustainable manner on behalf of its stakeholders and the wider community. Ethics and sustainability are linked since sustainability in the environment and its preservation is a moral responsibility for this generation to pass on to future generations. It depends of course on a system of democratic governance that is included in legislative requirements.  

How could this be enacted in legislative provisions of the Companies Act and in regulatory regimes?

The most appropriate approach to responsible corporate behavior is to determine guiding descriptive principles, rather than to try and prescribe in detail a list of detailed obligations.

Prescriptive obligations create a compliance approach restricted to those obligations documented. Descriptive type principles on the other hand require imagination and are likely to lead to a more comprehensive review within the “Spirit of the Law”.

Corporate Social Responsibility – A suggested example of a guiding principle:

It is the responsibility of the Corporation, through its Directors and officers to ensure at all times it conducts its business in an ethical and sustainable manner. The Corporation shall include in its Corporate Governance provisions those core values considered necessary to uphold this principle in the conduct of its business. The Annual Report is to include a narrative with key indicators demonstrating its adherence to this principle.

What are the incentives or disincentives for a company to conduct its business in a socially responsible manner?

The incentives for a company to conduct its business in a socially responsible manner are evidenced in enhanced brand recognition and improved shareholder returns. This is achieved as the stakeholders and customers recognize a company’s values. Its reputation is thereby enhanced and ultimately the returns to shareholders. The disincentives arise from competitors who obtain short term advantage by unethical work practices. The latter type of activity is evidenced in secretive conduct where communication is restricted to its direct shareholders.

There is ample opportunity to improve communication with stakeholders by the Directors at Annual general Meetings where they report on the broader issues of their responsibilities under CSR.
At present reporting in Annual reports is characterized by a hap-hazard approach to Ethical business practice and sustainability. The two are seen as different. I would contend they are one in the same. The question of ethics is generally covered by comment on corporate governance which defines the rules for the Board, its composition and responsibilities.

Directors currently have sufficient power to make decisions in the best long term interests of the company, but it’s advisable that a general provision be included in the corporation law outlining their responsibility to maintain CSR aspects. Such a broad provision should be descriptive and not prescriptive to specify responses to different classes of stakeholders.

Conclusion

But as always, there are signs that nations manage to eventually heal themselves as the spirit of a particular age comes to grips with the threats to democracy. A rational way out is found by means of argument or by force, as tragic as that can be. There will be new initiatives and solutions. 

This is true in the fields of new communication channels, technology and artificial intelligence which can be a positive tool if adequate safeguards for human intervention and ethical outcomes are built into those systems. 

Currently I believe we are in a slave relationship in relation to technology but over time the human spirit I believe will gain ascendancy. 

This has always been true for civilisations with new discoveries and periods of confusion and strife intermingled with enlightenment.

As a half glass full optimist I remain convinced democracies will continue to evolve in a more positive manner in the future. But for the time being we are in the midst of a democratic recession.

An Introduction to the philosophy of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

These notes are intended as a brief outline of Hegel's philosophical works. My aim is to provide sufficient material to support fruitful discussions.

I found Spark Notes provided a helpful reference and I have in turn attached a more comprehensive analysis for those interested in further reading.

Both reference sources are provided after the conclusion.  

I have also provided extracts from the November 2020 published article in ‘Philosophy Now’ entitled ‘Hegel and History’ by Jack Fox – Williams.  

The approach taken, given the large volume of works, is to split this summary into an explanation of his major themes and then to talk briefly about his Phenomenology of Spirit.

I conclude with the article on history which I hope will provide further food for thought. This approach involves quite a bit of overlap and possibly some minor repetition but I feel it allows one to ease into the subject matter which Hegel often presented in an obscure manner, to more thoroughly support discussions.

The Form of my summary is as follows:     

Introduction 

A brief sketch of his life, the context at that time in history and a summary of major publications.

An introduction to his major themes –

His idea of the Dialectic and what it means.

His Philosophical idea of spirit and self-awareness in the community.  

Lordship.

Ethics as they relate to the expression of that Age and the philosophy of Right.   

From the Phenomenology of Spirit.

Human consciousness.  

Knowledge.  

Hegel and the Philosophy of History

Hegel and History’ by Jack Fox – Williams.  

Conclusion indicating possible discussion points.  

Introduction

Hegel was a very important philosopher of the18th century, whose influence covered not only philosophy, but the fields of theology, logic, history and politics. He belongs in the German idealist’s camp and much of his work continued in the manner of Immanuel Kant except for important distinctions that I will cover in more detail later.

Following on from this summary there will be ample opportunities to debate these issues and talk about how history evolves and influences our thinking in general. 

A brief sketch of his life and major works. 

At that time the aristocracy was clinging to their privileges and suppressed criticism, as concern heightened after the French Revolution began in 1789. That led of course to the end of aristocratic institutions and the execution of many aristocrats, including the French monarch which would have had a profound impact on the worldview of Hegel. That raised issues which would be debated by Hegel and his contemporaries at the time.

Hegel was born in 1770 in Stuttgart, Wurttemberg, which became a German state in 1871. He became a student of philosophy and theology with fellow student’s outstanding figures of that time such as the poet Friedrich Hölderlin (1770–1843) and Friedrich von Schelling (1775–1854).

Much of his earlier writing entailed him attempting to grasp the historical legacy of Christianity and its cultural and social implications, as an orthodox Lutheran. Hegel inherited a modest bequest from his Father after he died which allowed him to pursue his academic career.

In 1801 Hegel moved to Jena and joined Schelling, to publish ‘The Difference between Fichte’s and Schelling’s System of Philosophy’ to collaborate with Schelling to produce ‘The Critical Journal of Philosophy”  

In 1807 he published his first major work, the Phenomenology of Spirit.

Later, as Jena became occupied by Napoleon’s troops, Hegel’s activities were curtailed so he worked as a successful editor of a newspaper in Bamberg. From 1808–1815 he became the headmaster and philosophy teacher at a high school in Nuremberg. Subsequently he married and began a family, publishing in 1816 the ‘Science of Logic’.  

After several years he returned to university life and finally took up an appointment at the prestigious University of Berlin. There he published his political philosophy, Elements of the Philosophy of Right.

Following his death in 1831 Hegel’s lectures on philosophy, history, religion and aesthetics were published.

Theme – An Introduction to his idea of his Dialectic and what it means.

Hegel introduces the idea of the dialectic but in a different way to the philosophers that came before him.  

To more clearly understand what the dialectic means for Hegel, we have to first understand that Hegel was an idealist, in the tradition of his predecessor, Kant.

Like Kant, Hegel believed that we all perceive the world and anything in it in our minds eye so to speak – not directly. That is our minds gain access to the ideas of the world—made up of images, perceptions, concepts. Both for Kant and Hegel, the only reality we can know therefore is a virtual reality. But the difference for Hegel was important in two ways. Hegel maintained our world view was a consequence of social interaction. In other words all of our ideas are shaped by the ideas of others. Hence our minds become influenced by the thoughts of other people through language, traditions, societal and cultural influences. To Hagel that interaction was real which prompted earlier philosophers to think of him as a rationalist philosopher. Later scholars however would regard him as an absolute idealist.

Theme - His Philosophical idea of spirit and self-awareness in the community. 

This then is the collective consciousness to which Hegel referred to as the Spirit. In short Hegel’s idealism is realised through a dialectical process involving social interaction. 

Hence, the second difference to Kant is Hegel sees our collective ideas as evolving in a similar way as they do in an argument. First, we have the thesis, as an idea or proposition about the world and how we relate to it. Of course every thesis, or idea about the world contains an inherent contradiction or flaw, which then will give way to an antithesis, a proposition that contradicts the thesis. Finally, the thesis and antithesis are reconciled into a synthesis, which then becomes the new idea combining elements of both as or when the conflict is finally resolved. 

Hegel sees human societies evolving in the same manner as arguments might evolve. An entire society or culture begins with one idea about the world, which naturally evolves into a succession of different ideas through a dialectical pattern over time. Hegel uses the German word Geist in his work which is translated as “spirit” in English versions that can mean both “spirit” and “mind,” depending on the context. Hegel talks generally about the spirit of the age, which one would conclude uses the term in a religious sense, which however he never fully defines.

It must be noted at that time religion and philosophy were not separated as they are now and Hegel devoted a considerable narrative on the subject as distinct to his philosophy. For those interested the spark notes reference here expand on the topic. But from consensus views I think one can reliably conclude he was talking about a collective consciousness (that he refers to often and is explained in his dialectic) as a kind of divine spirit. That spirit eventually ensures a resultant logical synthesis ending after many inevitable conflicts.  It must be noted Hegel’s dialectic is talking about as an ongoing process. Although the ultimate Synthesis resolves the ‘pro’s and con’s’ the process continues throughout history to slowly become more refined according to his Logic.    

Theme - Ethical Life as the Expression of an Age

Hegel’s philosophy can be thus summed up as an expression of an Age, representing the given cultural expression of the Spirit of that age. Spirit is the collective communal entity that transcends individuals, but determines their beliefs and actions regardless of whether they are individually aware of it or not.

Philosophy of the Right 

But Hegel did recognise in the age of enlightenment that it gave rise to economic individualism who must have individual rights. Later on in his writings in the Philosophy of Right, he explains the state as a modern institution will self-correct as individualism increasingly plays a more positive evolved role. 

Hegel proposes such institutions must affirm the communal societal spiritual bond, but at the same time to also preserve individual freedom.

He went on to propose a regulatory regime for the state and institutional ties that might be regarded as similar in nature to unions for those private activities that lay outside their state. 

From the Phemenology of the Spirit- evolving human consciousness. 

Given the prior thematic notes on the Dialectic and what it means in the communal spirit of Age through social interaction we can now turn to Hegel’s explanation about how this sophistication arose.     

Hegel asserts human consciousness naturally evolved to become more sophisticated in the way it relates to the world, over and above sensory inputs of objects. Hence, an understanding is reached as to our relationship with other individuals, as part of the whole, to be bound in turn by a single communal consciousness. 

Spirit in this philosophical sense, then represents the community. In other words the amalgam of individuals who form part of the whole, but whose values and actions continue to evolve in line with the consciousness of the evolving spirit of that age. The apparent glue that holds this all together has previously been covered under the prior thematic where Hegel uses the German word ‘Geist’ in his work which is translated as “spirit” in English as in the spirit of the age.

From the Phenomenology of the Spirit- Knowledge   

Hegel is mostly in sync with Kant in that attributes knowledge is not knowledge of “things-in-themselves,” or of the inputs from the senses. He was in agreement with the rationalists such as Descartes who said we are only able to trust the truths of the mind's comprehension on its own. This differed to the Empiricists, who argued that all knowledge arises from perceptions of actual objects, through our senses.

Hegel talks about different modes of consciousness involving meaning, perception and understanding which supplies the evidence of the world in which we inhabit. 

Hegel believed all of the different categories were real as uncertainty gives rise to new perceptions that then become certainties.

To reiterate, individuals are immersed in the world and are constantly mediating between the subjective and the collective moments of understanding. .

Lordship and Bondage as the Basis of Social Relations

Hegel agreed with the idealism of Kant, but takes the matter a step forward to suggest self-consciousness is as a consequence of the interactions through the eyes of another in society. Hence, this self-consciousness involves a social interaction and identification with another’s consciousness. 

Where inequality exists in relation to a subordinate partner or in the case of a bondsman, the Lord is conscious of the others lesser position. The Lord enjoys his status as in his freedom over his subordinate other, who remains unessential to him. However, in doing so, the lord may become uneasy or feel guilty in negating a consciousness with which he has identified in order to assure himself of his independence and free status. Hegel contends all life is founded on this social interaction. In other words there are dynamic and competing moments of mutual identification where one identifies or distances oneself from the other.  It was within this master slave narrative that Carl Marx drew his inspiration to formulate his manifesto.

The question arises however that a collective consciousness at some point in time may relish in the idea of what later is regarded as evil- as in slavery. Hegel gave considerable attention to the idea of slavery which is outside the scope of this paper.

However, one might want to question his model of self-consciousness.

Hegel and the Philosophy of History

Hegel’s philosophy of history is perhaps the most fully developed philosophical theory of history that attempts to discover meaning or direction in history (1824a, 1824b, 1857). Hegel regards history as an intelligible process moving towards a specific condition—the realization of human freedom. “The question at issue is therefore the ultimate end of mankind, the end which the spirit sets itself in the world” (1857: 63). Hegel incorporates a deeper historicism into his philosophical theories than his predecessors or successors. He regards the relationship between “objective” history and the subjective development of the individual consciousness (“spirit”) as an intimate one; this is a central thesis in his Phenomenology of  Spirit -1807.    

Little, Daniel, "Philosophy of History", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/history/>.

 

In summary, Hegel, in line with modern philosophers, suggests one questions the meaning of history and talks about early primitive versions to become more reflective and untimely to ideally be governed by reason.

Hegel and History’ by Jack Fox – Williams.  

In this respect Jack fox Williams article ' Hegel's understanding of History' which appeared in the November 2020 edition of ‘Philosophy Now’ sheds some further light on the matter. 

Hegel’s third way of doing history, philosophical history, prioritises thought above event-commentary, synthesising philosophical concepts and ideas with historical information. Hegel himself is doing this kind of activity when he famously argues that the process of human history is a process of self-recognition guided by ‘the principle of reason’.

For Hegel, nature is the embodiment of reason. In the same way that nature strives towards increasing complexity and harmony, so does the world spirit through the historical process. The Pre-Socratic philosopher Anaxagoras (c.500-428 BC) was the first person to argue that nous (meaning reason, or maybe understanding in general) ultimately governs the world – not as an intelligence, but like a fundamental essence of being. Hegel stresses the importance of this distinction, using the solar system as an example. He writes:

“The motion of the solar system proceeds according to immutable laws; these laws are its reason. But neither the sun nor the planets which according to these laws rotate around it, have any consciousness of it. Thus, the thought that there is reason in nature, that nature is ruled by universal, unchangeable laws, does not surprise us; we are used to it and make very little of it…” (Reason in History).

Moreover, Hegel argues that evidence of reason is revealed through religious truth, which demonstrates that the world is governed not by chance but by Providence. During profound moments of spiritual epiphany, we come to the realisation that a divine order presides over the world. Providence is wisdom endowed with an infinite power, which realises its own purpose, that is, the absolute, rational, final purpose of the world; reason is “thought determining itself in absolute freedom.” Hegel suggests that many stages of human history appear irrational and regressive because society is made up of individuals guided by passions, impulses and external forces. However, behind the seeming irregularity of human history lies a divine plan that is hidden from view and yet actualises itself through the historical process. As a result of the many conflicts, revolutions and revolts that society endures, humanity attains a greater glimpse of reason.

Hegel goes even further in the development of his argument and suggests that the realisation of reason in history also serves as a justification for belief in God. He acknowledges that history reveals the cruelty and sadism of human nature, but urges “recognition of the positive elements in which the negative element disappears as something subordinate and vanquished.” Through the consciousness of reason, we recognise that the ultimate purpose of the world is incrementally actualised through those occasional historical events which bring about positive transformation and change. In this sense, Hegel presents a highly progressive view of history, perceiving the development of human society as a dynamic process by which our rational faculties become ever more refined and cultivated. Although, there is evil in the world, reason ultimately triumphs.

Finally he sums up Hegel’s rather optimistic conclusion. 

The Greeks were aware of freedom, and rejected tyranny for democracy, which is political freedom for the voting set. Their freedom was maintained under conditions of slavery – a fact that made “liberty on the one hand only an accidental, transient and limited growth; on the other hand, it constituted a rigorous thraldom of our common nature of the Human.” So according to Hegel, the German nations, under the influence of Christianity, were the first to come to the realisation that man possesses free will. And even while slavery still occurred under Christianity and subsequent political systems, the notion of individual freedom has become central to states, governments, and constitutions, first in the West, then elsewhere.

Conclusion

What can we say about Hegel’s dialectic as it applies to modernity? Did it help in providing the synthesis for European nations to adopt a liberal democratic system in the European style, which has avoided war, after the atrocities of successive world wars?

What do we think about Hegel’s idea of world spirit?  What do we think of the idea that reason always ultimately triumphs? What do we think of his model and so on?    

Has Hegel contributed to a more rational view to peaceful governance?  

References

https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hegel/

https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft7d5nb4r8&chunk.id=d0e27&toc.depth=1&toc.id=&brand=ucpress

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hegel/

Hegel’s Dialectics