 |
|
|
 |
|
The philosopher Friedrich Hegel, in his theory of dialectical thinking, posited the concept of thesis-anthithesis-synthesis. Individual thinkers or "schools" of thought or political movements formulate an idea or position (thesis) which, because there are weaknesses or flaws in any idea, then gives rise to a reaction (antithesis) that contradicts the thesis. As thought or discussion continues, the tension between thesis and antithesis gets resolved in some sort of synthesis that preserves the useful portion of the idea while moving beyond its limitations. The process is ongoing. A synthesis having been achieved, a new thesis is put forward, followed by its antithesis and, eventually, a new synthesis. In America we can certainly see the dialectic at work on the political scene. Bill Clinton and all that he represents is followed by George Bush who is followed by Barack Obama who is followed by the Tea Party which will be followed by....In my opinion, this kind of dialectical movement is healthy. In fact, in the last four presidential elections, I voted for Bill Clinton, George Bush, John Kerry, and Barack Obama, respectively. I don't like to see one political philosophy become entrenched for more than a couple of presidential terms. I believe that it's best for all if we seesaw back and forth. I believe that both as individuals and as a society we need to be continually questioning, thinking, and adjusting.
The political columnist David Brooks, in a recent article in the New York Times, points out three weaknesses in thinking that are characteristic of Americans today:
1) Confirmation bias--in looking at reports and studies we tend to cherry-pick evidence that supports our own already existing views
2) Cognitive miserliness--we tend to reach conclusions quickly, trying to spend as little time in thinking as possible
3) Herd thinking--we tend to conform our conclusions to fit in with a group.
Brooks contends that we need to examine more evidence more thoroughly and to actively seek information that contradicts our own perceptions and prejudices. We need to step away from our group and think independently. We need to question ourselves. We need to think like good scientists and rigorously test our hypotheses.
Certainly we see the problem Brooks is getting at when we read or listen to the pundits of the day. Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krauthammer on the right; Paul Krugman and Bill Moyers on the left--whatever new subject or issue arises, we know what their point of view will be. There are no surprises, no developments in their thinking. On the other hand, someone like Camille Paglia, author of Art and Decadence: From Nefertiti to EmilyDickinson and contributor to Salon.com, truly displays independent thinking and is much more interesting to read. Here are a few excerpts from what Wickepedia has to say about her: "Camille Paglia is an intellectual of many seeming contradictions: an atheist who respects religion and a classicist who champions art both high and low....She favors a curriculum grounded in comparative religion, art history, and the literary canon, with a greater emphasis on the facts in the teaching of history....Paglia has challenged what she calls the 'liberal establishment,' including academia, and feminist advocacy groups....Although an open lesbian, Paglia has taken controversial stances such as rejecting the idea that homosexuality is an inborn trait and being skeptical about global warming....Paglia decribes herself as a feminist and is a registered Democrat whose 2000 presidential vote was for the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader."
When I lend ear or eye to the pundits and the columnists, I am always hoping to find someone like Camille Paglia who will present a point of view different from the standard left-right bifurcative approach. I am looking for a mind that is honestly testing its own assumptions in dialectical fashion. I am hoping to encounter, for example:
The evangelical who accepts the theory of evolution
The atheist who admits the possibility of spiritual experiences and acknowledges the good that religions do for individuals and societies
The believer in anthropic global warming who grants that a frontal assault on the problem could require an economic cost too dear, particularly for developing countries and for the lower classes in any country
The anthropic global warming skeptic who thinks we should nevertheless serioulsy cut our consumption of the world's resources and do less polluting of the atmosphere
The capitalist who advocates a strong social safety net
The socialist who lauds the new goods and services generated by the energy of a capitalist system
The antiglobalist who concedes that outsourcing is good for the consumer
The free-marketer who laments the job loss and sweat-shop working conditions caused by outsourcing
The Zionist who wants a two-state solution, with Jerusalem serving as the capital of both states
The pan-Arabist who acknowledges the right of Israel to exist as a separate state
The animal rights activist who sees the need to have an abundant supply of animal protein available for human consumption
The meat-producer who acknowledges that animals need to be raised in a clean environment with enough space to move around in and to be slaughtered humanely
The believer in affirmative action who grants that any decision based on race is unfair to the one who was denied place or position
The anti-affirmative action activist who admits that minority races have often been treated badly in the U.S. and deserve a compensatory hand up
The anti-illegal immigrationist who recognizes that illegal workers are a boon to the economy
The supporter of illegal workers who admits that granting amnesty would be unfair to legal immigrants
The supporter of bailouts who can see that bank or corporate failure is a necessary part of the capitalist system
The protestor of bailouts who acknowledges that allowing certain banks and corporations to fail would be more catastrophic to society than propping them up.
Sorry to say, I don't encounter, among writers and speakers today, nearly as many examples of independent or dialectical thinking as I'd like to.
|
|
|