Blog 579 Structure

On the rebound from earlier philosophies that tried to erect systems, such as those of Hegel and Marx, the continental philosophers discussed in the previous item in this blog, militate against any structure, of organisation, politics, scientific theory, language, because, they claim, it is inevitably authoritarian and repressive, Hence this stream of philosophy is called ‘post-structuralist’. I think they are misconstruing their case.

All systems have elements to which the system as a whole adds things that the elements do not have, but for this the elements have to surrender some of their freedom of action, And indeed, this requires some form of authority, but that is not necessarily authoritarian and repressive. Power can be positive, in yielding options and new choices.

Each system has some form of homeostasis, keeping variables within bounds of viability.of the system. A human being, for example, has bodily limits of blood pressure, temperature, salinity, oxygen, and psychological limits of anger, fear, hatred, jealousy, maintained by streams of blood, hormones, and electrical currents through neurons.

Thus I agree that social systems carry more or fewer limitations of freedom, to enable the benefit of the whole. The challenge is to impose minimal constraints, leaving as much freedom  as possible, avoiding authoritarian systems. That is the task of democracy, which is full of conflict, precisely in balancing coordination and freedom. The full, unlimited freedom that the continental philosophers in this stream seek, is an illusion. To deny any form of system is not helpful, and threatens to make philosophy irrelevant.