We started class by discussing Hagel’s view on his ghostly spiritual logic. Ghostly spiritual logic was not fully realized at the time that Hagel was writing, and wasn’t realized in the early time of history. This Rationality (with a capital R) or spirit is the force that organizes itself into the state of Logic (with a capital L). Human beings, through our own rational process, can bring order to a world. The world is not so hostile to rational organization. As a class, we discussed what this would look like, and shifted to the discussion of progressivism.
We shifted and started discussing progressivism and asked the question, “On what grounds does anyone want to criticize progressivism?” As a political movement, progressivism purports to advance the human condition through social reform based on advancements in science, technology, economic development, and social organization. The motor of history is driving in a certain direction. Progressivism is key to the survival of intellectuals. One of the large foes of progressivism is religion. We discussed how the biggest part about progressivism is advancement, and religion follows the logic of believing in past tradition and ideas that do not line up with advancement. Religion focuses on staying with old tradition.
We discussed for a while the question, “How do intellectuals fit into the utopian society?” We started the discussion by discussing what a utopian society would even look like, and if it was possible. Through coming to the conclusion that a utopian society is very hard to even imagine because of how impossible it is, we decided to shift back to how intellectuals fit into the utopian society. We talked about how since intellectuals are often focused on power, if intellectuals were in a utopian society, they wouldn’t be able to be corrupt anymore. This was a confusing topic, so we decided to break it down. We talked about how bad social institutions which lead to corruption are not the actual human beings doing, but the institutions themselves. If a utopian society existed, there would be no corrupt institutions and therefore intellectuals wouldn’t have the sway to gain power. This was definitely a controversial topic because it is hard to picture a world in which no human being is corrupt or evil. Even if there are no corrupt institutions, it is hard to believe a world where human beings are completely good. We talked about how wanting power could result in being corrupt, but wanting power isn’t necessarily an evil thing. It becomes evil when people want to use that power to do more harm than good.
We went back to the original idea of who an intellectual is. We talked about religious figures, especially those in power, and how they are considered to be intellectuals in their own respective field. We defined intellectuals as all pursing the realm of ideas as a profession or calling. Even though groups of intellectuals might be different, they all spend time in the abstract world of ideas. They focus on these ideas more than the typical human. This is interesting to think about because it connects the utopian society with religion. Religious institutions inherently can become corrupt, based on their traditionalist ideals. Conflict between religions is something that I do not see as completely disappearing, even if there is a utopian society. We talked about how as human beings, is there a way to judge our own actions? How would this work in a utopian society? It raises the question, in a utopian society how would there be a judge? Would everyone be on the same playing field?