1.16. A Preliminary, Evolving Distinction Between Four Different Theories Of Evolution: 1. Creation; 2. The Hegelian Dialectical Theory; 3. The Darwinian Theory of Natural Selection; 4. Intelligent Design Theory -- And My (DGB) Editorial Comments It must be understood that there are numerous theories of evolution kicking around, some genetically based (as in Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection), others centering around the idea of 'Intelligent Design' -- with or without the attached idea of a Supreme Being (God) as The Ultimate Creator; and within the scope of 'Intelligent Design', theories of evolution can also be classified according to those that focus on genetics vs. those that focus on acquired, social learning as the key to understanding the nature and process of the acquired, social evolution of man. Hegel's Classic Dialectic Theory of Social Evolution (from his philosophical masterpiece, The Phenomenology of Mind) fits into this last category. However, Hegel created some confusion -- and/or a source of easy disagreement in his dialectic theory -- when he equated social dialectical determinism with social dialectical idealism. Hegel had a quote that I found in Bryan Magee's superb introduction to philosophy book called 'The Story of Philosophy'(1998, 2001, DK Publiishing, Inc., 375 Hudson St., New York, New York, Pg. 163, paperback edition) that said: 'The real is the rational and the rational is the real.' Now anyone that can see what is happening in the Middle East today, not to mention in many of our own countries, cities, towns, governments, businesses, families, personal and professional relationships, and so on, would be quick to put up a protest here in arguing that when it comes to human activities and affairs, 'The real is certainly not always rational, and the rational is certainly not always real.' Indeed, a strong argument could be made that the congruent link between 'realness' and 'rationality' is more of an exception in human affairs than a rule. Indeed, in classic Hegelian fashion (and/or in the fashion of Jacques Derrida's later 'Deconstruction'), we could use Hegel's own dialectical theory to throw up the obvious 'anti-or counter-thesis' to his argument: specifically, (more often) 'the real is the irrational and the irrational is the real' (which also makes 'the not real the rational and the rational the not real'). What would you say about that Professor Hegel?

Thus, this has always been a trouble-spot in Hegelian Dialectical Theory that other philosophers (Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, in particular) and common sense lay critics alike have exploited and used to tear Hegelian Dialectical Theory apart ('deconstructed' to use the technical Derrida philosophical term). So an easy philosophical adjustment in Hegelian theory would be to make it more 'humanistic ally-existential' (emphasizing man's freedom to either make the world a better or worse place to live in as a direct and/or indirect consequence of his collective actions, and in this regard, to make Hegelian Dialectic Theory less of a theory that tries to be both idealistic and realistic at the same time, that tries to in effect, 'have its cake and eat it too' or tries to 'breathe in and breathe out at the same time' or tries to 'play both ends towards the middle' -- sometimes as in this case arguably to the ultimate detriment of the theory. All Hegelian Dialectical Theory partly aims to play both ends towards the middle (that is totally what the cycle of 'thesis', anti-thesis', and 'synthesis' is all about) but all Hegelian philosophers have to be aware too of the danger of perhaps Hegel's own most important dictum -- that 'All theories carry within them the seeds of their own self-destruction' (including Hegelian Dialectic Theory) and that by trying to play both ends toward the middle in this case -- pushing idealism towards the centre to meet realism -- maybe he was creating a partly idealistic, partly realistic theory that didn't really address either of these human processes properly, the strength of the theory ultimately deteriorating into the weakness of the theory. In seeking to play both sides of a problem towards the middle -- in this case, idealism vs. realism -- it addresses neither problem properly; just squeezing both of them together into a mediocre, theoretical hodgepodge in the middle. And among some of his later critics, all of us who have studied any Nietzsche know how much Nietzsche, in particular, hated mediocrity. Here then, is one potential criticism against Classic Hegelian Dialectic Theory: It could be called a 'Compromise-Mediocrity-Towards The Middle' Theory.)

To add to this criticism, we find it not surprising at all when four of the greatest philosophers of the late 19Th century (Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Marx, and Nietzsche) who were all strongly influenced by Hegel (if mainly in their counter-reactions against him), each pounded their fists against Hegel in their own partly unique ways -- Kierkegaard and Nietzsche both rebelled against Hegel's extreme abstraction ism and his 'Grand Narrative' style, while Schopenhauer and Marx countered Hegel's 'oh so pretty idealistic picture of human nature and human evolution ' with their own much 'uglier' (i.e., materialistic, hedonistic, selfish, greedy, narcissistic) ones. None of these four philosophers that followed Hegel would dare to equate human realism with human idealism. The only way you can reasonably argue this point of view is if -- like Hegel did -- you argue that man individually and collectively will somehow learn from his darkest moments --, learn from his walking through the 'muck of human evil, tragedy, and despair' -- and somehow come out in a better place of existence after it is all through. Is there any guarantee of this? I don't think so. What if we pollute the world to the point where it can no longer support us -- or blow it up -- before we learn from our collective stupidity, narcissism, and/or evil? The only way this is going to bring us to a better place is if 'heaven' is a better place and being dead is being 'closer to God'.

Or you divide the two types of human behavior -- and create two separate theories of evolution: one idealistic one in which you work on a 'humanistic-existential' (or some other version) of 'human idealism'; and two -- a separate more 'deterministic' theory of social evolution that fully takes into account the extent of man's propensity for 'unbridled and unending materialism and narcissism'.

It is this latter course of direction that Gap Multi-Dialectical Philosophy has taken dividing its social theory of evolution into two theories of social evolution: one idealistic and humanistic-existential; the other, more narcissistic, deterministic, regressive, and realistic (in a more skeptical, cynical, pessimistic -- but probably 'real' sense of the term 'realistic').

It is this latter course of direction -- one that in effect 'splits Classic Hegelian Dialectic Theory into two Post-Hegelian modified versions of Gap Multi-Dialectic Social Evolution Theories: one, emphasizing what we will espouse to be humanistic-existential values that balance human compassion with human accountability aiming at a more ethically idealistic theory of social evolution; the other more narcissistic, deterministic, regressive and real that aims to take into account that man will probably never behave in any type of ethically ideal manner.

If this course of action and philosophy interests you, then you have come to the right place.

DB, July 23rd, 2006. dgbainsky@yahoo.com