Democracy:
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
Evolution:
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
Synthesis:
2 a : deductive reasoning b : the dialectic combination of thesis and antithesis into a higher stage of truth
Dialectic:
4 a : the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process b (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences
5 usually plural but singular or plural in construction a : any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b : an intellectual exchange of ideas
"Love it or leave it." The fallback line for some in defence of what they see in this world around them. This concept of "Love it or leave it" brings to mind a question of what it is to be a "Good American." Does the "Good American," in fact, have to love everything their contry does? On the converse, what does it mean to be "Anti-American" these days? Is it possible to be both? Is it possible to be neither?
Whilst thinking about the "Love it or leave it" ideas brought about by a friends post on the
ToolArmy website about being a "Good American," I began to think about democracy, how it relates to the idea of evolution, and how both democracy and evolution relate to the concept of synthesis and dialectic. What struck me was how belligerence, both on the part of the “American” and the “Anti-American,” defeats the purpose of both synthesis and evolution, which seems to me to be a direct application of dialectics on a living system.
When one says “Love it or leave it,” one is going directly against all inherent systems of social and political advancement. The immediate analogy that comes to mind is likening the “American” to the ape that refused to ever leave the trees, and the “Anti-American” to the ape that left the trees before the group was ready to. What happened to both of these types of ape? They either died of under- or over- specialization. Because one fought against progression, it fell behind and became under specialized, not being able to adapt to the new terrain of the plains. The other, who specialized too quickly, was unable to bear the responsibilities of the new terrain, and easily fell prey to organisms that already inhabited the new environment.
What does this mean for us today?
It’s easy to fall into the “knee jerk reaction” category on either side of the political front-line. It is this reaction, however, that seems to me to be the root of contention in our society. Being closed-minded and unwilling to adopt, or even think about, neighboring philosophies, being unwilling to change ones own world-view, paradigm, etc., is what will lead us into our own demise.
What seems to me to be the most important discussion we can be having right now is how we can control ourselves and limit the amount of side-taking and knee-jerking on both sides of the line. I think that, instead of trying to argue someone into seeing things “your way,” why can’t we discuss with one another how things work and how we can better ourselves. I find it hard to believe that there can be one side that is right, correct, and in fact, synthesis would say that, even if there is a correct path to take, there has to be an even better path that what we can imagine. Dialectics is a never ending path; there is always room for improvement, both on a personal level, and on a social level.
Ours is not a battle to make someone think like us. No, ours is one that is much more difficult: our battle is one to make people think, not just as their fathers thought, but also how your father though, and how, on the other side of the world, their fathers thought. Once we have done this, we can strive to understand how we ourselves think, how the other person thinks, and how those attacking us think. Only by working together can we escape the draw of self-destruction.
