In class we discussed the sublimation of parts of opposing
arguments in order to arrive at a synthesis, or a compromising solution that
both negates both arguments but also blends the other parts of both arguments. But,
what happens when everything has been synthesized, and there is no longer an
antithesis for anything? Of course, ultimate knowledge and wisdom will be
reached. But if one reached ultimate truth, what would that mean for the human
race? Humans naturally seek knowledge so that one day we can answer any
questions still unanswered. But, if we can one day reach that point where
nothing ever need be synthesized or questioned, how would humans fill their
time? So many jobs depend on learning and not knowing that it would be
destructive for the world if humans were to know everything there is to know. Is
it possible that there will never be a way to synthesize everything? I would
hope so, because otherwise the world will one day be full of knowledge, and yet
there would be nothing else to look forward to in terms of knew knowledge to
discover and new theories to explore. Unless Hegel is talking about strictly
philosophy, where there would still be knowledge to explore scientifically.
But, in terms of synthesizing all knowledge, I find Hegel’s theory to be true
and yet completely detrimental to the progress of humanity which coincides with
our inherent desire to seek knowledge. Thoughts?
I also wonder about Hegel’s “ideal” situation in which two
opposing free beings acknowledge one another mutually and freely. In the case
where Dr. Johnson and Karissa confront each other, wouldn’t Dr. Johnson still
have to go around Karissa, or Karissa move out of the way, so that Dr. Johnson
can fulfill her goal of walking to the wall? One would still be submissive to
the other, whereas, ideally, neither one would have to be submissive to the
other and both could fulfill her goal of not moving and walking to the wall. Is
there ever a winner in these situations?
However, I do find the idea of not wanting to be submissive
extremely true in everyday situations, unless submissiveness is acknowledged.
For example: when I move out of the way of someone, I wish for him or her to
say “Excuse me” or “Thank you.” When someone doesn’t say this when I’ve gone
out of my way in order to simply stay out of his or hers, I find it extremely
irksome, and wouldn’t mind fighting about it, as Hegel suggests. Does anyone else find this as important as I
do? Or am I too expecting of others?
As far as the argument for ultimate knowledge is concerned, it seems to me that while rational beings may yearn to obtain ultimate knowledge, it is ultimately unattainable. Or, at least, it is unattainable for mortal, rational beings such as humans. In order to retain such a massive quantity of information, it would be necessary for humanity to transcend its current state.
ReplyDeleteBy the same token, if a consciousness were to ever reach the point of complete synthesis, it would reach an omniscient status. I would argue that such an entity could never be human as we perceive human to be, because it would have to be both all-knowing and immortal. Thus, it would have to be a god or a godlike entity.
I would say that people take a lot of pleasentries and "niceties" for granted such as being respectful to ones elders, holding the door for someone, saying thank you and just being an all around decent human being. I also have a very hard time believing that there is a situation in which there is no someone who subjects themselves to someone else's will. In the walking to the wall example, even if they both recognize their free wills, someone still has to either move out of the way or abandon their goal.
ReplyDelete