Neo-Hegelian Societal Evolutionist

[Chema]

I wanted to post this in the "The Nature of Religion Memes" topic but it doesn't really belong there at all. This was my 9th grade final essay, for my World Civilizations class, This isn't the final draft (the final draft was made on a different computer, so I can't get a hold of it, sorry.) The references made to Jim Hahn and Jed Wolf, are because they are my teacher and friend respectively.

What do you guys think of it?




Neo-Hegelian Societal Evolutionist

Chema M. Caillet-Bois


It is impossible for every one to be happy. Someone being happy will always lead to another's unhappiness, although maybe not directly. Let’s say one person (call him Jim Hahn [not the mayor]) has a very, very, extremely beautiful, sextress of a wife. In fact she is the only, even remotely attractive woman in the whole village, and Jim’s neighbor (call him Jed Wolf) is very jealous, even envious of Jim Hahn the magnificent.

Jed has never had any form relations with a girl ever (the closest thing was this time where he actually gave someone a hug, but it turned out to be a man anyway). So naturally this lack of female presence makes Jed depressed and unhappy whenever he hears Jim and his wife from down the block.


Before we begin I must inform you of a Neo-Hegelian concept I call ‘Societal Evolution.’ Societal Evolution is the process in which society evolves. The current way of society is called the Thesis.1 There will always be a counter argument (or new idea of how society should work), this counter argument to the Thesis is called the Antithesis.1 The conflict between the two ideas will result in a new form of society (not necessarily a compromise) called the Synthesis.1 Once there is a Synthesis there will be a new Antithesis (it will be the counter argument to the Synthesis).

The process will go on forever or at least as long as our brains stay the way they are, because this whole process is based on the idea that thinking beyond necessity, questioning, contemplating life and maybe even philosophizing is all natural to us and is part of our human nature. To sum up the process...

{Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis | Synthesis + New Antithesis = New Synthesis etc...}

Let us look at this in a larger context; the transition from socialism to communism. The transition from socialism to communism is impossible, because it is impossible for every one to be happy (ie. Jed & Jim). Furthermore even if total happiness was possible (Thesis), people are always thinking and questioning life and their existence (Antithesis), and that would lead to new ideas or ways of living and existing (Synthesis).

The only way to attain (and maintain [if your still skeptic about the Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis part]) total happiness would be to get people to stop thinking or philosophizing, because again it is the contemplation of ourselves, by ourselves that inhibit our ability to maintain any society (or civilization for that matter), especially one in which the goal is total happiness. I say ‘especially one in which the goal is total happiness,’ because as I said earlier, total happiness is hard enough as it is (I personally think it’s impossible, but it was difficult to effectively discuss this topic under the assumption that it is impossible).

An acceptable argument to the idea that total happiness is impossible could be that; it would be possible if the entire society had mass paradigm that we shouldn’t worry about comparing ourselves to each other, because as Rousseau said “the fall of man kind happened when we began to compare ourselves to each other.”2

Although a mass paradigm is also impossible because, again it is natural for people to contemplate and question life, so there will always be new ideas or Antitheses (remember, Societal Evolution). Due to this the only way to achieve a mass paradigm would be to get people to stop philosophizing, contemplating, questioning, and basically get them to stop thinking beyond necessity.

If this is the case then, maybe total happiness isn’t good for us. Is giving up consciousness worth happiness? Maybe it’s the striving for happiness that we truly need, not the happiness itself.

1 Terms borrowed from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.
2 The quote is actually extreme paraphrasing of Rousseau by myself.

[cd]

Very interesting stuff, and well written and thought out for a 9th grade paper.

Have you ever read Brave New World? Some parts of your paper, especially the last couple paragraphs, remind me of that book. You'd probably like it.

[Chema]

I haven't read it, but I've been told to read it before. I'm so gonna read it now. Thank you.

[Hacky Cracker]

Nice stuff Chema, i wish i was in Jim's class. when i do my consciouness/evolutionary psychology essay i'll post it. it should be next year some time but it should be good.

[Chema]

Thanks man, I hope it goes well in her class.
Definately post your essay.