ON HISTORICISM, METANARRATIVES AND THE OPEN SOCIETY

In the course of this essay I will point out to you a complex set of overlapping concepts in regard to how society thinks and responds to its own evolution and progress as a whole and as individual people comprising it. In my investigation I will cover many aspects of how the mass consciousness of people generally can so easily be manipulated by the false ideas, ideologies and control of philosophers, politicians and psychological experts. I will also point out that even though a society is made up of a multitude of impressionable as well as non-impressionable people, it is still individuals themselsves that make up this mass of people, so it is the job of all individuals within this society to arm themselves with wisdom, truth, knowledge and the active know how of what it takes to shape the world for the better in the real sense. Even though the postmodernists have pointed out the disadvantages of having many metanarratives, especially the erroneous ones, the following metanarrative, for example, is true: that patriarchy has systematically exploited, oppressed and subjugated women throughout history, this is a fact that cannot be denied. The metanarratives that in general were created by religions as well as by historicist philosophers and politicians are in a sense the worst of them all, an example of which are those by: the muslim and christian religions as well as some of the ideas of Plato, Marx and Hitler, etc. Some metanarratives have been a type of false invention made up by its creator or creators and this has caused a lot of uneeded manipulation and suffering in the world by those who have either invented these metanarratives or followed them in some way. Karl Popper in his two-volume work entitled "The Open Society And Its Enemies" contrasts the concept of an "open society" with that of a "closed society". In an open society the government is responsive and tolerant to changes, the political mechanisms are flexible. In an open society the state exists in a condition in which there are no secrets, the public are informed of what is occurring in the state, it is a non-authoritarian society in which all people are trusted with the knowledge of all that is happening. In an open society the people have many political freedoms and the human rights laws are always in existence for the inhabitants or citizens of any state. Any knowledge in the finite sense can be said to be provisional, fallible and limited in its own way and so any society or state must be open to alternative points of view whenever possible. It is said that open societies are associated with cultural and religious pluralism, for example, an open society is in a sense always open to changes and improvements, because knowledge and ideal conditions are never completed, but are always in an ongoing process of improvement and change. In a sense, any type of democracy can be viewed as example of an "open society". Any claims to certain knowledge or absolute or ultimate truths, such as you find in metanarratives and historicism and its theories leads to an attempted imposition of one version of reality onto the possibility of a more harmonious and fair one. A closed society is closed to freedom of thought, speech and behaviour, etc. In contrast to this, for example, in an open society the citizens need to engage in critical thinking, they also need to make a strong commitment to the pursuit of wisdom and truth, this requires good ecucation in knowledge and morals, they also need the cultural and legal institutions that can facilitate this process. Totalitarian dictatorships, theocracies and autocratic monarchies are all examples of a "closed society". Certain intelligent people in the field of psychology know of many sophisticated and powerful techniques of mass manipulation and deception, some of these techniques have been used in modern advertising and in cognitive science by political operatives. The electorates perception of reality can easily be manipulated and deceived by clever people in positions of power and that this has been done before on many occasions is obvious. It is now time for the masses to wake up from their self-incurred immaturity, this immaturity is self-inflicted and does no exist because of a lack of understanding, it exists from a lack of courage and independence to use their own reasoning abilities, intellect and wisdom, etc. This immaturity to act without the guidance or manipulation of another who happens to be more knowledgeable than ourselves is the main problem with society and the masses today, it is our fear of thinking for ourselves and standing up for ourselves in all matters that is the cause of many of the problems in the world today. Any democratic political discourse cannnot lead to a better understanding of reality unless we commit to standing up for ourselves properly in the ways that I have mentioned. For example, many politicians will manipulate people and abuse their power rather than respect people and reality, this is so unless the public cares about the truth enough and punishes any politicians when it catches them in the act of deliberate manipulation and deception. Historicism in the sense that there is an organic succession of developments to actual events in the world, is a false hypothesis from the standpoint of free will and contingency, we always have the choice to alter events because of wisdom and free will. I have also pointed out that historicism is also false and unnecessary from standpoint of metanarratives. Historicism in the sense that local conditions and peculiarities influence the results of the direction of history in a decisive way, is only true to a certain extent, certain cultures have influenced the direction of history more than others, i.e., the Greeks, the Romans and the British, etc. If historicism is viewed from the perspective of "process philosophy" (i.e., that the essence of reality and nature consist of inevitable and contingent processes) then I think that more fruitful ground can be covered by historicism as a philosophical method. The concept of change (that all is flux) in the universe, is a very real one. The things that make any proper theory of change useful, is the fact that one can find consistencies, patterns and actual processes in these changes that are real and that lead somewhere, these things that I mention that exists in processes can be observed and analyzed by anyone who chooses to notice them. Many of the metanarratives that have been thought up by the people of the past have had a mystical foundation to them, this in a sense is what made a lot of them lack credibility. One of the problems of historicism as a method, is the obvious fact that if a person cannot know the whole of the state of affairs of the world and of mankind at any given point in time, then it follows that they cannot know the future of the world and mankind in its entirety, they cannot account for all the variables involved. Any useful method of historicism should be based on the constants that one finds in evolution, progress, mass psychology, sociology, history, political science and in any particular cases that it applies to as well as in all the processes generally involved in any case to be predicted. Any good theories of historicism should be able to account for any variables that may arise amongst the foundational constants that I have mentioned that are to be found in the universal and particular processes involved. Thinkers should learn to become skilled at accounting for the different types of variables that may arise amongst all the constant things that happen in events for any theories of historicism to be valid. All good historicism is either suggestive or predictive, whereas bad historicism is usually manipulative and biased as well as being incorrect in a lot of cases. In historicism we are only predicting and dealing in finite and particular situations and events, because when we study a thing, we select certain aspects of it. It is impossible for us to observe, Know and also to describe the whole of the world, so we are only dealing in a piece of the world in our predictions and suggestions. It can also be argued that we cannot even know the smallest whole piece in its entirety, since all our descriptions are necessarily selective and limited. Computer programs that simulate events have become very useful, but they have their limitations also. Some people argue that all events are unique in history and so therefore in historicism potential events cannot be predicted from a study of history, I think that the above argument fails to account for the elements of determinism as well as the necessary and contingent aspects of processes in evolution and progress generally, you cannot separate events from processes by calling them unique, events are unique because of the exact circumstances and processes involved, these processes and their potentialities can be analyzed and understood to a certain degree of accuracy due to the elements of processes that are constant and predictable. Prediction as well as probability is a whole aspect of human reasoning and can be found in mathematics and logic generally, it is not too far of a stretch to find that human beings will be able to become skilled at predicting potential future events and scenarios through higher forms of reasoning. Seeing as though in philosophy we are mostly selective and our analysis of things is usually limited and finite, means that if we are to do justice to our subject, it is required that we be organized, rigorous, systematic, meticulous and thorough, otherwise our endeavours will seem pretty sparse and superficial. An example of a manipulative form of historicism, is Nietzsche's belief that a lot of people might become more nihilistic once the belief in God starts to wane. In point of fact, the only people that really seem to have become more nihilistic since the belief in God has been waning are Nietzsche's followers themselves (i.e., the nazis and others), most postmodernists seem to have become nihilistic also, this is because postmodernists have been largely manipulated by Nietzsche's writings, especially concerning nihilism, morals, subjectivism and perspectivism as well as by his claims that a lot of claims of truth and reason can be associated with institutions of power, such as the church, universities and the government. Nietzsche in his writings always makes the mistake of associating everything with a desire for power, just like the sophists did before him, it never seems to cross his mind that truth, reason, objectivity and morals are necessary for all human beings irrespective of any so-called desire for power that most people are meant to have according to his analysis of the world. I mentioned earlier that all good historicism is either predictive or suggestive. When I mention that good historicism is suggestive, I mean that it represents a sort of "mass wisdom" on the part of most people in the world in the sense that they are able to constructively suggest things to each other as well as being able to make good and serious judgements as a whole that will benefit them and their children. Mass wisdom can only come from a need of most people to want to become more educated, wise, moral and constructive, etc., for them to want to shape the world according to the best ideas, policies and decisions that they are capable of making. Predictive historicism applies more to ambitious philosophers themselves and their ability to predict what paths the events in the world will take or should take to benefit society for the better. Historicism is only useful if it can be used to benefit society generally, that is, if it is progressive and positive in certain ways, because any historicism that is negative, is useless and is anti-progressive as well as anti-evolutionary. An attempt to understand patterns and logical consistencies in the consciousness of organisms and societies and all its events in the sense of how it evolves and progresses through history can be found in the conceptual system of spiral dynamics, which I think is a very interesting and useful system to study. When it comes to power, people are more interested in what they can do with the power, rather than with the power itself, the power itself for its own sake can only give a person a buzz that seems somewhat empty and devoid of meaning without something specific that can be done with this power. If people were interested only in power then they would relinquish it or give it to someone else that they cared about once they had got it . The desire for power is really all about control, manipulation as well as the ability to change the course of events in the sense of what can be done with this power once it has been attained.