The Big One, or, A Mishmashed Treatise and Updates to my Idleness

Woah! Is that Ruby with a blog? It's been like forever since she's done anything on the site, I thought she forgot about it and stopped reading. That was my impression of you, how'd I do? Anyway, bad jokes aside, to answer the burning question likely none of you had, yes I still remain, and indeed I do still read. In fact, since my last blog, I've read 4 books, and I'm halfway through number 5. So, let's get into it then, I've got no time to waste and there's a lot to cover!

In all honesty, I started writing the section for The Wealth of Nations with hopes that I could keep it brief, but that's impossible. My notes section for it encompasses just under 8000 words, so compressing that further would be next to impossible for the purpose of brevity. So instead we move to our next two books, which are in slight contrast to each other, with a promise that I will write the blog for that incredibly influential and important text in time.

So, second: Hegel's The Philosophy of History. Hmm, where to begin with this book? I guess it would be to first put out the stinking fire contained in the dumpster that is either cover of this text, and then examine the charred remnants. This is to say, Hegel is next to universally hated because of his conclusion of this book, but not his reasoning to get there. Rather, his principle is correct, but the substance he uses to prove this point is both unfounded and ignorant, but then continues itself to be misdirected.

Before we can examine the principle, we must first explain Hegelian Dialects, or, the process by which Thesis (your point, stinky dumb stupid, doodoo) collides with my point, Antithesis (objectively correct, based, well-informed, yes), and through this collision, absent fallacies and present good faith, Synthesis can be reached, or the logical conclusion of the argument. For instance, if one were to weigh the benefits of despotism against democracy as systems of government, one would naturally conclude that democracy is superior. This leads us into our principle, and I kinda snuck it in there: Governments and society at large, as it stands now, is the result of dialects of ruling systems since the concept of society came about. Or more simply put, where we stand now is the result of defeating and changing our systems to the better ones, and, from this, can deduce that because there will always be issues with any system, that there will always be a next step for humanity. However, where that step might be is in great contention, naturally. But we'll look at it through Hegel's day, and here is where it gets infuriating.

He says that history begins in the east and ends in the west, much like the sun does rise and set. From this, he posits that Europe is the end of history, that it's the peak, specifically, Germany which is a Christian Monarchy. He then suggests that because Germany is the final perfection of humanity, every society will naturally gravitate and evolve into the system it has. This carries the implication that the belief in God is a natural and logical conclusion, as well as being ruled by a monarch.

What's insulting is the utter ignorance that he spews out to make this point; calling China an infant in terms of spirituality and freedom, that any notion of freedom or personal satisfaction comes from the emperor, and not from the individual. That the people in China, specifically, don't do anything beyond base instinct, and if they somehow do, then it's because they're mirroring their sovereign. Saying moreover, that they are only one step removed from being tribals that clash against each other meaninglessly. I'll include my aside in my notes, which usually I will only do to further develop a point the author had, or to lambast them.

"This is blatantly backward and beyond hubris. Without naming any particular country in ‘the East’, Hegel claims at the same time that it hasn’t overcome its antithesis, but is constantly in seemingly meaningless and ceaseless conflict. Conflict is never meaningless, and neither is a change of opinion. Therefore, this conclusion can only be reached through supreme ignorance of eastern politics. But beyond this, China has existed for far longer than, and as of writing this, has outlived, the German monarchy. The claim that it hasn’t overcome its own antithesis is also disproven by the fact that it still exists and comes out on top of conflicts, meaning it won. Hegel is either being willfully ignorant to make an obvious point Rosseau did nearly a century before he did, or he’s getting lost in his own maze of intellectual dribble."

Remember when I said that believing in God was a logical conclusion according to Hegel? He goes further than that: Developments in society will hit a point that cannot be crossed unless they are a Christian nation. I sincerely hope Hegel doesn't know about the Islamic Golden Age, because that would forgive this sort of backward thinking. If he does know and is willfully omitting it, then he's being outright dishonest, and it only further hurts his point that one can refute without knowing this period of time.

He seems to pick a point, his, and work backward from the conclusion that the Christian Monarchy is the best, and then describe societies as approaching adulthood according to their proximity to it. Ie, China is a child, but Greece is an adolescent. It's similar to the argument that defines what 'human nature' is and then calling everything outside of it unnatural. It's an ignorant and self-serving line of argument that only serves to regress society, not progress it.

So in conclusion, societies undergo conflict and from its resolution improve, and there is always a next logical step for it to go. That is, if one resolves all conflicts in the present, new conflicts will arise and need to be solved.

So, having typed that all out, what if I told you that there is a counter to Hegel's point on God, one that I happen to greatly agree with? Enter Soren Kierkegaard's Either Or. This book can quite simply be summed up by saying some of the notes I took at the end, as most of the book I didn't take any notes. Simply, there weren't many to take, but there was an abundance of information to absorb. It is a book that I encourage everyone to read!

So, onto the counter: One will always be in the wrong against God in the way that one can never know better than God. We can never be better or know more than him, but by the same token, he loves us despite this. His love goes beyond us always being right or wrong by him, some right or some wrong by him. That is, one can live freely beneath the lord without fear of angering him, so long as one does not directly blaspheme or go against him. 

In this way, who I am to God is loved, and who God is to me is always my superior. He is above me, but loving. Knows more than me on an infinite scale, but does not patronize me. I may curse my luck or blame him for my misfortunes, but his love will always be there. Who I am to God, and who God is to me, this relationship will always be in balance. But both of these are decided by me, within these bounds. 

That is, my faith is defined and decided by me. One needs to divide themselves from logic to be faithful, as God is beyond human comprehension, so one needs to find their own personal relationship with them, in whatever degree of logic to faith they find fit.

The final and fourth book that I've read was a Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius. Frankly, I did not take a single note from this rather short text. There wasn't much to note down that isn't a common understanding now. That one's material possessions are simply that, and serve no purpose beyond it. That one shouldn't curse their misfortunes or things that went wrong in their life, but see them as opportunities to grow, etc. etc. The reason for its common understanding would probably be because it was written in 524, so its message and teachings would probably have reached every corner of the disc.

Now as one final point, I want to say that as far as my readings are concerned, I've been able to read tremendous amounts every day and contribute nearly a thousand words a day to my notes, which now as of last night, stand at 66,000 words. And as far as my writings are concerned, I have plans and ideas for 9 entire stories! I hope to pick at them and write them as inspiration strikes me, which lately, it hasn't. I hope that my blog was helpful and not incoherent, but if one needs clarification I'd be happy to provide it! This isn't an insult to any reader's intelligence, more an insult to my ability to convey my thoughts.

I hope in the near-future that I can get inspired to do more than read, and actually write any or all of the ideas I have, but inspiration is truly a fickle thing. It's a spark that one cannot control, only capture and channel by chance. Regardless, I really do hope what I've typed here wasn't the ramblings of a madwoman, and I appreciate everyone's patience and understanding regarding my idleness. In so far as reading multiple entire books in a few months can be considered idle.

Thank you all for reading, and I hope new readers check out my stories and other blogs, and I can't wait to unveil the next blog or my next upcoming project! Stay tuned, and thank you again!