Why is it that, advanced as we are in this twenty first
century, we look up to people like Johann Goethe, Voltaire, the framers of the
American Constitution, William Shakespeare and other giants, and seek guidance
from the wisdom they left behind as they considered matters that seem unrelated
to our current circumstances?
We seek their wisdom because we know what goes into a solid
system of thinking; and we know that these people had it because we see it in
their work. This is why we think of them as giants. What they do is begin with
a single idea or a number of related ideas that form one tight concept … and
they derive from such a construct the branches that, in the aggregate, make up
the philosophy they espouse.
This approach for constructing the substance that goes into
a philosophy prevents the branches from looking like unrelated tangents flying
off in every direction, even if they seem far removed from the philosophy's
core concept. The result is a single unit at the core bestowing solidity to the
entire philosophy. If, in addition to the substance, the work of an author has
a form that matters, that same unity must show up in the form as well. And this
is where the genius of someone like Shakespeare is apparent. It is that the
development of the storyline in each of his plays, flows naturally from the
characters, making them and not haphazard, the drivers of the plot.
What can go wrong with a work as solid as this? Not much can
go wrong with the work itself, but what usually happens is that lesser men and
women tend to use the works of giants to build on them and create shabby works;
even monstrosities that end up doing a great deal of harm. Examples are the
works of Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud which continue to be misused by
charlatans to the point that new “Darwinian” and new “Freudian” theories are
created – completely distorting the works of the original creators.
And this brings us to an article that came under the title:
“The Problem with 'the Best of Intentions' Foreign Policy,” written by Robert
D. Kaplan, and published on September 25, 2017 in The National Interest.
Of the giants: Hegel, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, our writer
Robert Kaplan uses Hegel's formulation of certain concepts––among them the
definition of tragedy––to reach a conclusion with regard to the military
intervention of America in foreign conflicts. This is what he says: “If we act
early, the conflict between the interests of state and those of humanity can be
lessened.” Fine and dandy, but did he really need to use Hegel's philosophy as
a vehicle to reach that conclusion? To get a sense of what the answer might be,
we follow his line of thinking.
Robert Kaplan begins with Hegel's example defining a tragic
situation as “when a family duty is in conflict with a wider social or
universal duty.” He goes on to say this could parallel “the interests of state
in conflict with the wider interests of humanity.” In a case like this, says
Kaplan, “both sides can have a claim on our sympathy [but] both sides cannot be
right.” Well then, what do we do? Kaplan has no answer to this question, and
neither does he say if Hegel had one. Instead, he offers that according to
Hegel, we are elevated not by the destruction of one of the parties but by “the
triumph of the truth which emerges”.
Kaplan uses that Hegelian view to draw a conclusion he seems
to have settled on at the start. It was not only to repeat the ongoing view
among the pundits of his ilk that it's okay for America to intervene in foreign
conflicts as long as the intervention comes early, but something more. To
explain this part, Kaplan begins by giving his own definition of tragedy. It is
this: “one thing that tragedy can be about is the story of a person (or group),
who, while right-thinking, acts wrongly. Such a person or group intends the
best outcome, but ends up with the worst outcome.” Oh yes, what he has in mind
has now become painfully clear.
Do you see it, my friend? Do you see what he was after from
the start? He was after absolving all the horrors committed by America in the Middle East
in response to Jewish incitements. This done, he went on to make a point that
ignores Einstein's definition of insanity being the act of doing the same thing
over and over, and expecting a different result. Kaplan's point is that you may
do the same thing over and over, but if you do it early each time, you might
get the result you expect. What a charlatan!
Darwin and Freud can now smile for; they will not spend an
eternity alone. Courtesy of Robert D. Kaplan, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
will be joining them in their “exclusive” heavenly retreat. And finally, the
boring disadvantages of their twosome will be relieved by the entertaining
value of their upcoming threesome.