The Anabaptist Jacques
Crusader
Here is my attempt to explain the Dialectic of Enlightenment, which I believe leads to fascism.
So I'll start with the word dialectic.
here are the definitions from the American Heritage dictionary.
Dialectic. 1) The art or practice of arriving at the truth by using conversation involving question and answer.
My example of this would be a simple conversation asking about something, or court-room questioning. This is how Plato used the word. It is simple dialogue.
2) a) The process, especially associated with Hegel, of arriving at the truth by consideration of a thesis, development of an antithesis in reaction to this, and a combination of the thesis and antithesis into a coherent thesis.
This is how science works. For example, someone proposes a hypothesis. someone else points out something that contradicts the hypothesis. and finally the two ideas are combined to get a new hypothesis or theory.
b) Hegels's critical method for the investigation of this process.
This is Hegel's idea. Hegel points out that all history follows this pattern. First there would be an idea. then another idea conflicts with that.
The two ideas fight it out until a third idea which combines the first two ideas comes about.
3)the Marxian process of change through the process of opposing forces. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb.
This is Karl Marx's idea. Marx had the idea that each and every thing contains it's own contradiction within it--sort of the seeds of its own destruction.
Since Marx was a materialist, that is, he felt that things were primary to spirit, his idea of the conflict of things is called dialectical materialism.
4) dialectics (used with a singular verb) A method of argument that weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to their resolution.
For example, this is how debates are conducted.
5) The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their interaction.
This is a bit more specific in that it says the contradiction between two things actually cause their interaction.
And example of this would be the friction caused by different political views and the clash between them.
Esmb and the Church of Scientology is a simple example also.
The Enlightenment was a movement starting about 1650 with the philosopher Descartes. It was the idea that reason and science could make for a better world.
That freedom of speech and ideas would lead to an improvement of society.
Radical Enlightenment was the part of the Enlightenment movement that tended toward materialism and the idea that people could be conditioned to be better people.
The Dialectic of Enlightenment means specifically the dialogue within an Enlightened view which produces a synthesis of ideas.
The term dialectic of Enlightenment refers to the process and the result of that process, which the authors say is fascism.
So how does one go from the ideas of the Enlightenment to fascism.
Well that's the dialectical process.
Here is how it goes:
Western civilization is built upon the idea of a Logos and that truth and knowledge emanates from that Logos.
It is built into the binaries of our language.
It is built into our idea of truth and justice.
It doesn't matter if an individual believes it or not.
The Radical Enlightenment came along and with it the idea that society can be based on reason and science alone.
The difference between the Enlightenment and the Radical Enlightenment is that the Enlightenment did not reject the Logos being the basis of truth and justice; it just held the view that science and reason could improve society. (Voltaire, etc.)
The Radical Enlightenment stated that reason and science alone could improve the society and rejected the Logos as a basis for anything. (Laplace)
The Radical Enlightenment was materialistic.
But both the General Enlightenment and the Radical Enlightenment would undergo the Dialectic of Enlightenment.
The progress, and whatever good it bought, came at the price of separation of the rational ego of those in power from the emotion, from the body, and from others.
The notion is the self of the individual who seeks power---the members of the ruling aristocracy or capitalist owners and rulers--must differentiate themselves from the rest of society and the lower classes.
Those in power must say "I am not like them."
In other words, between the persons who are in power and those who are to be controlled there is to be a differentiation of self-understanding; the ruler must think, "I alone am in control of myself; my ego or self or mind is in control of my body. That's not the case for those people lower down the socioeconomic scale."
This is a dialectical process.
But modern scientific rationality as a result of the Enlightenment has performed a critique of this rational ego or self, emptying it of concrete values, sentimental commitments, and religious metaphysics--especially the religious metaphysics the very society is based upon.
This critique is an on-going process of ideas in society about the nature of the leader or leaders, especially in the eyes of the leaders themselves.
This produces a supremely powerful, instrumentally rational center of power, whose sense of self flourishes in separating it from all others.
So the rulers are left with an ego that can do anything but believes in nothing.
And without the restraint of the religious metaphysics people begin to be used by the institutions and government as means to the rulers end.
This is the Dialectic of Enlightenment.
The more you base social order on reason alone, the more you discover that reason has nothing to say morally.
Instrumental reasoning takes over and reasoning is used simply to match means to ends. And people become the means, not the end.
One person in power who fits this was Robert S. McNamarra.
In his book about the Vietnam War, he mention that one action they did was to recruit volunteers from the Vietnamese army to infiltrate the North.
They told the guys who volunteered that their job was to get information from the villagers.
McNamarra talks about how they new the guys would quickly get caught and tortured and killed when they entered the villages.
But he casually remarked how it was a cheap way to bother the enemy.
Do you see that viewpoint? That he is above the rest and the rest are not important.
They can be used as a means to his end.
The Dialectic of Enlightenment is a process. It doesn't mean instant fascism.
What the Logos provides in Western Civilization is a degree of restraint towards fascism.
In the American civil rights movement the leaders were almost all ministers.
It was their religious convictions which provided a context that made it imperative for them to change segregation.
It wasn't money or power.
And what made Americans side with them was the visions of injustice Americans saw on their TV screens in the evening.
And the American sense of justice was based on the Logos.
Ideas have consequences.
And when, over time, through the Dialectic of Enlightenment, the ideas of the leaders are that they are above the rest. and as part of that dialectical process the idea that the Logos doesn't exist or matter anymore, the result is fascism.
The Dialectic of Enlightenment seems to me an inevitable process; the only check and balance being the Logos of that particular part of Western Civilization.
I hope this explains it.
If anyone needs more clarification just let me know.
The Anabaptist Jacques
So I'll start with the word dialectic.
here are the definitions from the American Heritage dictionary.
Dialectic. 1) The art or practice of arriving at the truth by using conversation involving question and answer.
My example of this would be a simple conversation asking about something, or court-room questioning. This is how Plato used the word. It is simple dialogue.
2) a) The process, especially associated with Hegel, of arriving at the truth by consideration of a thesis, development of an antithesis in reaction to this, and a combination of the thesis and antithesis into a coherent thesis.
This is how science works. For example, someone proposes a hypothesis. someone else points out something that contradicts the hypothesis. and finally the two ideas are combined to get a new hypothesis or theory.
b) Hegels's critical method for the investigation of this process.
This is Hegel's idea. Hegel points out that all history follows this pattern. First there would be an idea. then another idea conflicts with that.
The two ideas fight it out until a third idea which combines the first two ideas comes about.
3)the Marxian process of change through the process of opposing forces. Often used in the plural with a singular or plural verb.
This is Karl Marx's idea. Marx had the idea that each and every thing contains it's own contradiction within it--sort of the seeds of its own destruction.
Since Marx was a materialist, that is, he felt that things were primary to spirit, his idea of the conflict of things is called dialectical materialism.
4) dialectics (used with a singular verb) A method of argument that weighs contradictory facts or ideas with a view to their resolution.
For example, this is how debates are conducted.
5) The contradiction between two conflicting forces viewed as the determining factor in their interaction.
This is a bit more specific in that it says the contradiction between two things actually cause their interaction.
And example of this would be the friction caused by different political views and the clash between them.
Esmb and the Church of Scientology is a simple example also.
The Enlightenment was a movement starting about 1650 with the philosopher Descartes. It was the idea that reason and science could make for a better world.
That freedom of speech and ideas would lead to an improvement of society.
Radical Enlightenment was the part of the Enlightenment movement that tended toward materialism and the idea that people could be conditioned to be better people.
The Dialectic of Enlightenment means specifically the dialogue within an Enlightened view which produces a synthesis of ideas.
The term dialectic of Enlightenment refers to the process and the result of that process, which the authors say is fascism.
So how does one go from the ideas of the Enlightenment to fascism.
Well that's the dialectical process.
Here is how it goes:
Western civilization is built upon the idea of a Logos and that truth and knowledge emanates from that Logos.
It is built into the binaries of our language.
It is built into our idea of truth and justice.
It doesn't matter if an individual believes it or not.
The Radical Enlightenment came along and with it the idea that society can be based on reason and science alone.
The difference between the Enlightenment and the Radical Enlightenment is that the Enlightenment did not reject the Logos being the basis of truth and justice; it just held the view that science and reason could improve society. (Voltaire, etc.)
The Radical Enlightenment stated that reason and science alone could improve the society and rejected the Logos as a basis for anything. (Laplace)
The Radical Enlightenment was materialistic.
But both the General Enlightenment and the Radical Enlightenment would undergo the Dialectic of Enlightenment.
The progress, and whatever good it bought, came at the price of separation of the rational ego of those in power from the emotion, from the body, and from others.
The notion is the self of the individual who seeks power---the members of the ruling aristocracy or capitalist owners and rulers--must differentiate themselves from the rest of society and the lower classes.
Those in power must say "I am not like them."
In other words, between the persons who are in power and those who are to be controlled there is to be a differentiation of self-understanding; the ruler must think, "I alone am in control of myself; my ego or self or mind is in control of my body. That's not the case for those people lower down the socioeconomic scale."
This is a dialectical process.
But modern scientific rationality as a result of the Enlightenment has performed a critique of this rational ego or self, emptying it of concrete values, sentimental commitments, and religious metaphysics--especially the religious metaphysics the very society is based upon.
This critique is an on-going process of ideas in society about the nature of the leader or leaders, especially in the eyes of the leaders themselves.
This produces a supremely powerful, instrumentally rational center of power, whose sense of self flourishes in separating it from all others.
So the rulers are left with an ego that can do anything but believes in nothing.
And without the restraint of the religious metaphysics people begin to be used by the institutions and government as means to the rulers end.
This is the Dialectic of Enlightenment.
The more you base social order on reason alone, the more you discover that reason has nothing to say morally.
Instrumental reasoning takes over and reasoning is used simply to match means to ends. And people become the means, not the end.
One person in power who fits this was Robert S. McNamarra.
In his book about the Vietnam War, he mention that one action they did was to recruit volunteers from the Vietnamese army to infiltrate the North.
They told the guys who volunteered that their job was to get information from the villagers.
McNamarra talks about how they new the guys would quickly get caught and tortured and killed when they entered the villages.
But he casually remarked how it was a cheap way to bother the enemy.
Do you see that viewpoint? That he is above the rest and the rest are not important.
They can be used as a means to his end.
The Dialectic of Enlightenment is a process. It doesn't mean instant fascism.
What the Logos provides in Western Civilization is a degree of restraint towards fascism.
In the American civil rights movement the leaders were almost all ministers.
It was their religious convictions which provided a context that made it imperative for them to change segregation.
It wasn't money or power.
And what made Americans side with them was the visions of injustice Americans saw on their TV screens in the evening.
And the American sense of justice was based on the Logos.
Ideas have consequences.
And when, over time, through the Dialectic of Enlightenment, the ideas of the leaders are that they are above the rest. and as part of that dialectical process the idea that the Logos doesn't exist or matter anymore, the result is fascism.
The Dialectic of Enlightenment seems to me an inevitable process; the only check and balance being the Logos of that particular part of Western Civilization.
I hope this explains it.
If anyone needs more clarification just let me know.
The Anabaptist Jacques