What's new

The Dialectic of Enlightenment

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
 

Dakota River

Patron with Honors
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

I strongly suggest one become "enlightened", particularly as taught by The Buddha, before even trying to discuss it. i.e. Find out how to bring your chakra system to life.
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron

I strongly suggest one become "enlightened", particularly as taught by The Buddha, before even trying to discuss it. i.e. Find out how to bring your chakra system to life.

Correct.

May I tell you a story? To illustrate how right you are?

Carlos Castenada... I had been hearing people rave about him for years, so I got a couple of his books, this was back in the 80's.

Each time I would attempt to read one of his books, I just did not 'get' it...
All those parables, about the Nagua, and Don Juan (The mystic shaman), a jaguar running through the desert.... and I would kind of glaze over and go WTF, seriously, what the hell is he going on about, I just did not get it...

Then that summer in 93 when AOL opened its gateway to the "Internet" I posted who I was and whether anyone that knew me back when I was IN $cientology, were they around... This was to alt.clearing.technology, because I had read a descriptor in an internet guidebook that listed something called "newsgroups" and one of them was that one, with a descriptor "Renegades from Scientology"

Anyway Joe Harrington,(note) a guy I knew back when Mystic was at FCDC, posted a reply, and we started corresponding. This was just after the awakening experience I posted about HERE, and I told Joe that story. He suggested I try some meditation, and suggested I try Robert Monroe's (NB: Monroe is the one who coined the term OBE, out of body experience in in 1966 book) Hemisynce Meditation Tapes.. he suggested The Gateway Series...

So I did. And they completely blew my mind. Opened many doors. And I did them for years till about 1997...I could write a book about the stuff that occurred during those meditations... but here is the point of this posting: (finally)..

I again picked up a copy of one of Carlos Castenada's books..."The Ring of Power" it may have been..

And everything in them made perfect sense!

I was amazed!

All it took was a change in focus...


And that was what Carlos was desperately trying to give to people through metaphor... Now I could instantly see what he was trying to do, he was trying to tell people something that cannot be described in words at all.. You really just have to go there, and see it yourself...

Arnie Lerma


Note: After RTC vs Lerma was over, Joe told me HE had been then one who had mailed me the OTIII, (OT1 thru 8) OT Materials that I scanned and then posted and was raided and sued for...and then on his death bed, Joe Harrington admitted that he was the owner of the anonymous nick scamizdat that had repeatedly posted all of the OT levels, NOTs, NEDS, etc to the newsgroups... I loved that guy.

PS: I met Dakota River, Mystic back there at FCDC in the 60's also...I was 16 and I looked up to him with awe, back then, he was so much fun to talk with, fourty-seven years ago!
 
Last edited:

I strongly suggest one become "enlightened", particularly as taught by The Buddha, before even trying to discuss it. i.e. Find out how to bring your chakra system to life.

bring the chakra system to life eh?

i was five years old and living with my grandparents in bartlett n.h. and my grandmother took me to north conway one day. while she was in the bank i went to the playground in the green before the beautiful old victorian railroad station. some kid my age asked if i wanted to play on the seesaw and i said sure. as soon as i was up and he was down the kid hops off and dropped me and i got my first major lesson in making the fire serpent rise from the kundalini to the chakra of a thousand lotus petals

not that i was grateful for it at the time mind you...
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
No I don't need clarification, it's beginning to hurt my head.

I'm beginning to think that America is a very different planet.

I don't recognise the Western Civilization you are talking about, here people just do what they do without logoses or dialectical chewy bits. We might not be religious but we know right from wrong and help from hinder. OK the government here are arsewipes, but they are even in America and the Vatican city. I know many people from religious and non religious backgrounds, some who might heard of Logos and some that know the Ramayana backwards, and many of them help people, despite their tiny knowledge of any scriptures. Right and wrong are concepts that don't need to be read about, I certainly knew when I was pulling the cat's tail that it was wrong, I stopped.

Sorry TAJ, you're a lovely human being, I just don't see western Europe goose-stepping towards New Nuremberg rallies because of a lack of church attendance. Greece and Hungary yes, not because of dial hectic materialism, but Greece because they're financially fucked and ex-communist countries with financial stagnation like Hungary react against communism by embracing the freedom to enjoy fascism and religiousness. Gypsies, Jews and Muslims are targeted by the Neo Facists many of them are religious and presumably love their logos.
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
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."

You seem to be implying that before the enlightenment came about (or at least the radical enlightenment) you didn't have rulers seeing themselves as distinct from the rest of the population. Is that an accurate assessment?

And without the restraint of the religious metaphysics people begin to be used by the institutions and government as means to the rulers end.

Again, do you see this as beginning with the enlightenment?

What the Logos provides in Western Civilization is a degree of restraint towards fascism.

I really don't see this at all. As I mentioned, Fascism has tended to go hand in hand with religious belief. I don't see where this restraint has shown itself.
 
No I don't need clarification, it's beginning to hurt my head.

I'm beginning to think that America is a very different planet.

I don't recognise the Western Civilization you are talking about, here people just do what they do without logoses or dialectical chewy bits. We might not be religious but we know right from wrong and help from hinder. OK the government here are arsewipes, but they are even in America and the Vatican city. I know many people from religious and non religious backgrounds, some who might heard of Logos and some that know the Ramayana backwards, and many of them help people, despite their tiny knowledge of any scriptures. Right and wrong are concepts that don't need to be read about, I certainly knew when I was pulling the cat's tail that it was wrong, I stopped.

Sorry TAJ, you're a lovely human being, I just don't see western Europe goose-stepping towards New Nuremberg rallies because of a lack of church attendance. Greece and Hungary yes, not because of dial hectic materialism, but Greece because they're financially fucked and ex-communist countries with financial stagnation like Hungary react against communism by embracing the freedom to enjoy fascism and religiousness. Gypsies, Jews and Muslims are targeted by the Neo Facists many of them are religious and presumably love their logos.

The Dialectic of Enlightenment at the time it was written was referring to Europe, not America.

I am not saying people will be goose-stepping anywhere.

That's related to a particular place and at particular time.

And I am not talking about dialectical materialism at all.

What I am saying, is that modern, or should I say post-modern leadership is subjected to a critique of the ego which produces leaders who are capable of anything but believe in nothing.

And when you have that you get a situation where people become a means to an end with no restraint upon their leaders.

It may not be that way this very day or next year, but this is how it will evolve.

It always does eventually.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 
You seem to be implying that before the enlightenment came about (or at least the radical enlightenment) you didn't have rulers seeing themselves as distinct from the rest of the population. Is that an accurate assessment?



Again, do you see this as beginning with the enlightenment?



I really don't see this at all. As I mentioned, Fascism has tended to go hand in hand with religious belief. I don't see where this restraint has shown itself.

I am not seeming to imply anything.

Leaders have always thought themselves separate. You can see that from their writings (like Julius Caesar) or their history (like Alexander).

What I am saying is that when you add the Dialectic of Enlightenment the rational ego of these people is critiqued to the extent that what is created are leaders who are capable of anything but who believe in nothing.

Maybe I am wrong, but I think you are so defensive about what I said about the Logos that you are misinterpreting almost everything I write.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Lermanet_com

Gold Meritorious Patron
Fascism has tended to go hand in hand with religious belief.

I have a nitpick... there are direct observations (reality) and there are belief systems, cults, religions, and organized religions. When you say fascist, perhaps you meant totalitarian? Certainly there are fascist organized religions, using Mussolini's definition of Fascist should be safe to do, which was the marriage of the government to business. Which could arguably be compared to the marriage between Vatican and various Kings, or even the Church of England and the King of England. The Cathars were a religion, but they were the complete opposite of fascists.
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
I have a nitpick... there are direct observations (reality) and there are belief systems, cults, religions, and organized religions. When you say fascist, perhaps you meant totalitarian? Certainly there are fascist organized religions, using Mussolini's definition of Fascist should be safe to do, which was the marriage of the government to business. Which could arguably be compared to the marriage between Vatican and various Kings, or even the Church of England and the King of England. The Cathars were a religion, but they were the complete opposite of fascists.

Yes, I was unclear. I meant that fascism appears to require religion but not that the reverse was also true.
 
Last edited:

Panda Termint

Cabal Of One
Thanks Mystic, Arnie, and Commander.

I so like the way this thread is going.

The Anabaptist Jacques
Me too. :thumbsup:

Apropos of nothing, this quote popped into my head,

“The trouble was that he was talking in philosophy but they were listening in gibberish.”

Terry Pratchett wrote that in his book, Small Gods.

Pratchett is my favorite modern day Philosopher.
 

La La Lou Lou

Crusader
The Dialectic of Enlightenment at the time it was written was referring to Europe, not America.

I am not saying people will be goose-stepping anywhere.

That's related to a particular place and at particular time.

And I am not talking about dialectical materialism at all.

What I am saying, is that modern, or should I say post-modern leadership is subjected to a critique of the ego which produces leaders who are capable of anything but believe in nothing.

And when you have that you get a situation where people become a means to an end with no restraint upon their leaders.

It may not be that way this very day or next year, but this is how it will evolve.

It always does eventually.

The Anabaptist Jacques

OK Blair didn't listen to his people marching to say no to Iraq, and Cameron proceeds with his nasty cuts, many of which are out of meanness and produce no reduction in spending, but generally speaking there are voters and even if one house approved a law it has to be looked at by the house of lords, and surprisingly they knock back a lot of badly thought out trash and are more on the voters side than the voted for politicians. Leaders give a toss mainly about pensioners, because they vote more than the young and voters in certain areas where they don't have safe seats. That's why pensions are not touched but nearly half a million job seekers were removed from the dole and many permanently disabled people including those coming back from Afghanistan are suffering as a result, charities are now handing out food in most areas. But in the end of the day politicians need to keep voters happy or they don't get back in, and this lot stand a very good change of being unelectable yet again, the economy might be slightly better but our standard of living has dropped even for those in work, those out of work are very badly hit and jobs are very difficult to find, and now though more people are working than ever before many of them are working part time and it's very hard to find the real stats. But Victorian Conservative politicians wanted to round up and shoot the starving Irish, we sent gun boats to take over a third of the globe, very Fascist behaviour at a very religious period in our history.

According to what historic precedents do say ''it always does eventually''
 
OK Blair didn't listen to his people marching to say no to Iraq, and Cameron proceeds with his nasty cuts, many of which are out of meanness and produce no reduction in spending, but generally speaking there are voters and even if one house approved a law it has to be looked at by the house of lords, and surprisingly they knock back a lot of badly thought out trash and are more on the voters side than the voted for politicians. Leaders give a toss mainly about pensioners, because they vote more than the young and voters in certain areas where they don't have safe seats. That's why pensions are not touched but nearly half a million job seekers were removed from the dole and many permanently disabled people including those coming back from Afghanistan are suffering as a result, charities are now handing out food in most areas. But in the end of the day politicians need to keep voters happy or they don't get back in, and this lot stand a very good change of being unelectable yet again, the economy might be slightly better but our standard of living has dropped even for those in work, those out of work are very badly hit and jobs are very difficult to find, and now though more people are working than ever before many of them are working part time and it's very hard to find the real stats. But Victorian Conservative politicians wanted to round up and shoot the starving Irish, we sent gun boats to take over a third of the globe, very Fascist behaviour at a very religious period in our history.

According to what historic precedents do say ''it always does eventually''

The history of every fascist country.

And I mean real fascist.

The Anabaptist Jacques
 

Udarnik

Gold Meritorious Patron

I strongly suggest one become "enlightened", particularly as taught by The Buddha, before even trying to discuss it. i.e. Find out how to bring your chakra system to life.

Chakras are a pre-scientific concept with no more basis in reality than the tooth fairy.
 

Rmack

Van Allen Belt Sunbather
Chakras are a pre-scientific concept with no more basis in reality than the tooth fairy.

I'm not so sure of that as you seem to be, Udi.

The body does have seven ductless glands, and seven major nerve ganglia, and the fact that things like acupuncture do seem to have effects suggests that the idea of an energy system of the body has merit. It would make sense if seven was involved somehow.
 

SpecialFrog

Silver Meritorious Patron
I'm not so sure of that as you seem to be, Udi.

The body does have seven ductless glands, and seven major nerve ganglia, and the fact that things like acupuncture do seem to have effects suggests that the idea of an energy system of the body has merit. It would make sense if seven was involved somehow.

Studies show that fake acupuncture works as well as "real" acupuncture.
 

oneonewasaracecar

Gold Meritorious Patron
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
I think I understand your position a little better now, and I don't find it offensive at all.

I still disagree with your argument of course, and in particular with your definition of science, but that is not particularly important.
 
Top