Evolutionary Philosophy
  • Home
  • Worldview
    • Epistemology
    • Metaphysics
    • Logic
    • Ethics
    • Politics
    • Aesthetics
  • Applied
    • Know Thyself
    • 10 Tenets
    • Survival of the Fittest Philosophers >
      • Ancient Philosophy (Pre 450 CE)
      • Medieval Philosophy (450-1600 CE)
      • Modern Philosophy (1600-1920 CE)
      • Contemporary Philosophy (Post 1920 CE)
    • 100 Thought Experiments
    • Elsewhere
  • Fiction
    • Draining the Swamp >
      • Further Q&A
    • Short Stories
    • The Vitanauts
  • Blog
  • Store
  • About
    • Purpose
    • My Evolution
    • Evolution 101
    • Philosophy 101

Hegel: Poster Child For What is Wrong with Philosophy

8/29/2014

13 Comments

 
Hegel's philosophy is so odd that one would not have expected him to be able to get sane men to accept it, but he did. He set it out with so much obscurity that people thought it must be profound. It can quite easily be expounded lucidly in words of one syllable, but then its absurdity becomes obvious.
                                                              —Bertrand Russell, Philosophy and Politics



While scientists were performing astounding feats of disciplined reason [during the Enlightenment], breaking down the barriers of the “unknowable” in every field of knowledge, charting the course of light rays in space or the course of blood in the capillaries of man’s body -- what philosophy was offering them, as interpretation of and guidance for their achievements was the plain Witchdoctory of Hegel, who proclaimed that matter does not exist at all, that everything is Idea (not somebody’s idea, just Idea), and that this Idea operates by the dialectical process of a new “super-logic” which proves that contradictions are the law of reality, that A is non-A, and that omniscience about the physical universe (including electricity, gravitation, the solar system, etc.) is to be derived, not from the observation of facts, but from the contemplation of that Idea’s triple somersaults inside his, Hegel’s, mind. This was offered as a philosophy of reason.
                                                                 —Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual


Hegel is not a philosopher. He is no lover or seeker of wisdom—he believes he has found it. [...] By the end of the Phenomenology [of Spirit], Hegel claims to have arrived at Absolute Knowledge, which he identifies with wisdom. Hegel's claim to have attained wisdom is completely contrary to the original Greek conception of philosophy as the love of wisdom, that is, the ongoing pursuit rather than the final possession of wisdom.

                                          —Glenn Alexander Magee, Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition


A few weeks ago, I profiled David Hume in this series on the survival of the fittest philosophers and I found that he was far and away the #1 favourite philosopher among academic professionals. People cited his empirically justified naturalistic beliefs, clarity of thought, and just the fact that he seemed like he'd be a good dinner guest as the reasons for their selection. Keeping all of that in mind about Hume, and after reading the quotes above about Hegel, who do you think would be more popular in terms of driving PhD research? Think again.

Picture

I pulled the data for this chart from searches through the British Library's Electronic Theses Online Service (EThOS), which has over 350,000 PhD dissertations catalogued in it. I first searched for "Hegel" hoping to see that interest in his works was waning, but it has in fact been growing consistently through the decades. I then searched for "Hume" hoping to see that maybe Hegel's relative growth was small potatoes in the larger scheme of things, but in fact, I found just the opposite. Study of Hegel dwarfs Hume and produces terrible mouthfuls for titles that only an aspiring pseudo-intellectual could possibly conceive of. (The clear winner in that competition had to be this one: "Dialectic as the truth of reality and thought: a prolegomenon to the reconceptualisation of dialectic.") What does this say about society and academia? Is it any wonder scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, and Neil deGrasse Tyson have taken to bashing philosophy as a useless pursuit? Just look at Hegel's own words and my evaluation of his major thoughts to see where they are coming from.

Philosophy is by its nature something esoteric, neither made for the mob nor capable of being prepared for the mob.

The great thing however is, in the show of the temporal and the transient to recognize the substance which is immanent and the eternal which is present.

History, is a conscious, self-meditating process—Spirit emptied out into Time; but this externalization, this kenosis, is equally an externalization of itself; the negative is the negative of itself.

Matter possesses gravity in virtue of its tendency towards a central point. It is essentially composite; consisting of parts that exclude each other. It seeks its Unity; and therefore exhibits itself as self-destructive, as verging towards its opposite ... Spirit, on the contrary, may be defined as that which has its centre in itself. It has not a unity outside itself, but has already found it; it exists in and with itself. Matter has its essence out of itself; Spirit is self-contained existence.

Spirit is knowledge; but in order that knowledge should exist; it is necessary that the content of that which it knows should have attained to this ideal form, and should in this way have been negated. What Spirit is must in that way have become its own, it must have described this circle; then these forms, differences, determinations finite qualities, must have existed in order that it should make them its own. This represents both the way and the goal—that Spirit should have attained to its own notion or conception, to that which it implicitly is, and in this way only, the way which has been indicated in its abstract moments, does it attain it. Revealed religion is manifested religion, because in it God has become wholly manifest. Here all is proportionate to the notion; there is no longer anything secret in God.

This is pure nonsense!! And there's so much of it!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georg Hegel (1770-1831 CE) was a German philosopher and one of the creators of German Idealism. His historicist and idealist account of the total reality as a whole was an important precursor to continental philosophy and Marxism.

Survives

Needs to Adapt
Hegel's dialectic was most often characterized as a three-step process, "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" - namely, that a "thesis" (e.g. the French revolution) would cause the creation of its "antithesis" (e.g. the reign of terror that followed), and would eventually result in a "synthesis" (e.g. the constitutional state of free citizens). The three-step process is a nice way to characterize a methodical search for knowledge. Propose a thesis, find the antithesis, let them compete and form a synthesis. Repeated ad-infinitum, this leads to powerful understanding. Hegel misunderstands the causation though as coming from the thesis itself rather than from the search for knowledge, which found the thesis lacking and simply proposed a new idea. Hegel goes further off the rails after this.

Gone Extinct
The fundamental notion of Hegel's dialectic is that things or ideas have internal contradictions. From Hegel's point of view, analysis or comprehension of a thing or idea reveals that underneath its apparently simple identity or unity is an underlying inner contradiction. This contradiction leads to the dissolution of the thing or idea in the simple form in which it presented itself and to a higher-level, more complex thing or idea that more adequately incorporates the contradiction. Hegel's main philosophical project was to take these contradictions and tensions and interpret them as part of a comprehensive, evolving, rational unity that, in different contexts, he called "the absolute idea" or "absolute knowledge.” These contradictions and tensions are a process. They are not some rational unity. They are the hallmark of knowledge evolving towards the absolute knowledge. They are the hallmark of an evolution of philosophy.

Hegel's philosophy has been labeled by some critics as obscurantist, with some going so far as to refer to it as pseudo-philosophy. His contemporary Schopenhauer was particularly critical, and wrote of Hegel's philosophy as, “a colossal piece of mystification which will yet provide posterity with an inexhaustible theme for laughter at our times, that it is a pseudo-philosophy paralyzing all mental powers, stifling all real thinking, and, by the most outrageous misuse of language, putting in its place the hollowest, most senseless, thoughtless, and, as is confirmed by its success, most stupefying verbiage.” Excellent summation from Schopenhauer. To look at the scientific method winnowing down hypotheses through an evolutionary battle of survival of the fittest ideas, and calling all the surviving and expiring ideas part of some unitary whole is just to re-label reality as “everything we have seen.” Hegel does nothing to further our understanding and fails to recognize the wisdom of the truths that survive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It saddens me greatly to see the research facts above about Hegel after reading the man's own words and agreeing with the highly critical evaluations of him from others who have come before me and who also had to bother with his writings. I sometimes think philosophers purposefully keep arguments alive—refusing to render judgment about what is right or wrong—just to ensure their job security. But I suppose this is the penalty we pay in a field that a) recognises that all knowledge is probabilistic, and b) is confined to nebulous questions that once clarified give birth to new scientific disciplines. Well, let's not pay that penalty any more than we have to. Next!
13 Comments
John
1/17/2015 07:02:34 pm

The line about the "negative is the negative of itself" maybe comes from a statement Meister Eckhart made about Oneness being a "negation of negation". If negation is a demurring from Oneness, then the negation of negation would return to Oneness.

Reply
@EdGibney link
1/18/2015 03:47:21 am

I haven't seen that connection made anywhere else, but you may be right about Eckhart's influence, John. The wiki entry on Eckhart's Doctrines, specifically his view of God, clearly uses the "negation of negation" phrase to explain Eckhart's arrival at the view that God is a non-finite being.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrines_of_Meister_Eckhart#View_of_God

The wiki entry on dialectical materialism, specifically the section on Engles' dialectics, says Engles' third law of dialectics--the law of the negation of the negation--came from Hegel, although the description of the use of that law sounds more like Hegel's thesis->antithesis->synthesis rather than a simple return to Oneness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_materialism#Engels.27_dialectics

One problem with claiming this negation of negation would return to oneness is that we are not talking about 2-dimensional numbers where one step back followed by one step in the opposite direction from that backwards step (i.e. forwards) gets you back to the beginning. We are talking about the real world with multiple qualities and multiple directions for negation. The negation of the theory of evolution might be intelligent design, but the negation of intelligent design might be a mythology of a flat earth on the back of turtles that go all the way down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

So besides my criticism in the post that these theories are deliberately obscure where everyday language is clearer, they are also mathematically and logically incorrect once you penetrate their obscurity.

Reply
John
1/22/2015 10:54:24 am

Yes, there are many directions you could take a negation in the sense of contradiction. But it looks like Hegel is talking specifically about the temporal process, history, as the negation of non-externalized Spirit. Can you imagine the negation of time-process?

It would seem like the negation of time would take one out of the supposed dialectical process. Yet maybe Hegel wants to involve Spirit in that dialectic. How can the Absolute Spirit be brought down to the level of relations and dialectics? How can the Absolute be negated? This is the part I have trouble with. I don't understand Hegel's ideas well enough to know how he handled this question.

The book Hegel and the Hermetic Tradition indicates that Hegel did draw from Meister Eckhart.

John
1/22/2015 10:53:43 am

Reply
John
1/22/2015 11:29:20 am

(I'm reading William James' lecture on Hegel's Method, so this is on my mind.)

As for the question of involving the Absolute Spirit in the dialectical process: this can only work if the Absolute Spirit asserts itself as a thesis. From what James says, the assertion of a thesis implies that it has already negated the antithesis. So the two stand in opposition. Does the Absolute Spirit impose itself as a thesis?

Reply
@EdGibney link
2/2/2015 08:45:25 am

John - Sorry, but I think all this talk of an "Absolute Spirit" existing and acting on history is just fantasy. I'm really uninterested in dreaming up such explanations for reality. I do know of a professor who likes this kind of mental gymnastics though so check out his Half-Hour Hegel Series if you really need to explore this (though I don't advise it in the least).

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4gvlOxpKKIgR4OyOt31isknkVH2Kweq2

Reply
Brian
8/14/2016 02:26:01 pm

A better consideration of Hegel, if you have the time: https://youtu.be/Fidb5QHX7ME

Reply
@EdGibney link
8/14/2016 04:08:27 pm

Zizek? I don't know what you mean by "better consideration," but I listened to 15 minutes of that and learned nothing. Maybe you have a simpler point to make?

Reply
Wittgenstein
8/16/2016 03:33:48 am

Simply, you're wrong. In your last paragraph: Hegel does not hesitate to negate inductive conclusions and "refus[e] to render judgement on what is right or wrong," and you conflate his arguments with what you believe are his personal intentions as a philosopher, "to ensure [his] job security." He instead noted not only the importance but the necessity of these inductive theories in the development that more accurately describes things as they actually are, which is what he means by the absolute. Unlike Kant, whom he is largely responding to in his Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel sees language and the consciousness that produces it as constituted by definite physical mechanisms, reducing the source of phenomenal experience from a cause in itself, such as Kant's noumenal ego or 'soul,' to a phenomenon that is comprehensible through a scientific dialogue. Hegel asserts that this methodical approach is the clearest method of discerning truth, or things as they exist materially, but acknowledges it is merely one approach among a larger dialectic of ideas that will ultimately fail to cultivate any understanding of the absolute. Hegel revels in "the wisdom of the truths that survive" because they more fully capture the 'things in themselves' that Hume and Kant were so concerned with.

"The more conventional opinion gets fixated on the antithesis of truth and falsity... It does not comprehend the diversity of philosophical systems the progressive unfolding of truth, but rather sees it in disagreements" (Phenomenology of Spirit 2).

But simply, too, you're right. He is obscure, almost to absurdity. Yet, there is something to be understood when you consider his text itself, and not merely others' criticism of it, in relation to the opinions of his contemporaries and predecessors. This is what it means to study a dialectic. Hegel speaks in metaphors in order to address and critique prior misconceptions about the nature of human conscious through using a vernacular that maintains the denotations and connotations of the German language in his time. It is most important that we do not demand that a centuries-old text meet the analytic standards of what might today considered to be mathematical and logical language, which itself has its flaws (see my name, ...and Derrida). And despite all the obscurity, you should never dismiss an idea because it does not appear clear to you.

"...he who rejects a philosophical system does not usually comprehend what he is doing in this way; and he who grasps the contradiction between them does not, as a general rule, know how to free it from one-sidedness, or maintain it in its freedom by recognizing the reciprocally necessary moments that take shape as a conflict and seeming incompatibility" (2)

I think if you want to justly criticize someone you have to at least entertain the idea that maybe there's something that you're not seeing. Be fair and watch the video. Zizek arrives at his important premises late because he spends a while elucidating context certain contexts. Though If you'd rather be right than understand, stay simple...

@EdGibney link
8/16/2016 08:17:35 am

Firstly, thank you very much for taking the time to write a long response in clear language that is trying to correct and educate me. I know I'm not a deep expert for any one of these philosophers, I haven't pored over all of their texts and the criticisms of their text, and the criticisms of those criticisms, etc...so I'm happy to be corrected whenever my short judgments misunderstand something. However, even after your long comment, I still feel like I'm swinging at air with Hegel. Let me try anyway though.

To start with your starting point, I didn't "conflate his arguments with what [I] believe are his personal intentions as a philosopher." My comment about philosophers refusing to render judgment was aimed at the amount of scholars still encouraging the study of Hegel, as indicated in the graph at the top of the post.

Now, is Hegel actually worth studying? Sorry, but I'm not persuaded that he's said anything helpful. Take this quote you gave:

"...he who rejects a philosophical system does not usually comprehend what he is doing in this way; and he who grasps the contradiction between them does not, as a general rule, know how to free it from one-sidedness, or maintain it in its freedom by recognizing the reciprocally necessary moments that take shape as a conflict and seeming incompatibility" (2)

My second biggest problem with Hegel (after the obscurantism, which is not a hallmark of philosophers older than he (see Hume), so the passing of centuries is no excuse) is the phrase "reciprocally necessary moments." I don't see anything *necessary* about this at all, and my comments above to John (about the negative to a negative not leading back to the original) implies that it is not reciprocal either. Hegel, to me, is describing something embedded in the nature of reality that just isn't there. This passage from the wiki entry on Hegelian dialectics expands on this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Hegelian_dialectic

"Critics argue that the selection of any antithesis, other than the logical negation of the thesis, is subjective. Then, if the logical negation is used as the antithesis, there is no rigorous way to derive a synthesis. In practice, when an antithesis is selected to suit the user's subjective purpose, the resulting "contradictions" are rhetorical, not logical, and the resulting synthesis is not rigorously defensible against a multitude of other possible syntheses. The problem with the Fichtean "thesis–antithesis–synthesis" model is that it implies that contradictions or negations come from outside of things. Hegel's point is that they are inherent in and internal to things."

Inherent and internal? Where exactly? A naturalist worldview from evolutionary philosophy doesn't see what Hegel is talking about.

Later, you said: "I think if you want to justly criticize someone you have to at least entertain the idea that maybe there's something that you're not seeing." Well, as I said at the top of this comment, sure, maybe I'm not seeing something, but then how can I comment about something I'm blind to? I criticised what I saw. I think that is just. I tried to listen to the Zizek video to see if I was missing something, but I've listened to him on other things and don't find Zizek to be helpful. You say he was spending time "elucidating certain contexts", but I found no such elucidation in the 15 minutes I watched. To me, he's a rambler with much sound and fury signifying nothing.

I'm headed off on a short vacation now, but out of respect for the time you spent trying to help me, I'll try to listen to the rest of the video when I get back to see if there's a nugget I can extract. I'll let you know if I find anything.

Reply
Kripke
9/1/2016 03:13:29 am

So, Hegel didn't come up with the thesis-antithesis-synthesis model of dialectic, as is mentioned early in the segment on Hegel that you quote from. In fact, the one time he mentions it is when he criticized Kant for 'everywhere positing thesis, antithesis, synthesis.' The wiki page says Hegel "...never once used these three terms together to designate three stages in an argument or account in any of his books. And they do not help us understand his Phenomenology, his Logic, or his philosophy of history; they impede any open-minded comprehension of what he does by forcing it into a scheme which was available to him and which he deliberately spurned [...]" Hegel spurned this three valued model as "[t]he formula, thesis-antithesis-synthesis, does not explain why the thesis requires an antithesis."

Hegel's own model- "abstract-negative-concrete, suggests a flaw, or perhaps an incomplete-ness, in any initial thesis—it is too abstract and lacks the negative of trial, error, and experience." Hegel is not concerned with logically invalidating unsound premises, as a scientist would. He is instead describing how thought develops in time from broader immediate premises to a more exact understanding of truth once those initial ideas have been held up to skepticism. Two conflicting arguments are "reciprocally necessary" because one emerges from the other, just as evolution sought to replace the view of intelligent design which had been held by theistic traditions for millennia prior. Could Darwin have postulated his theory without the influence of Lamarck, Malthus, or Lyell? or they without their precedents? Could we have had the Enlightenment without the Renaissance, without the Middle ages, and so on... ? "For Hegel, the whole of history is one tremendous dialectic", as all of human actions have come down to basic philosophical assumptions about what things were. Hegel does not dismiss these assumptions because they don't capture the whole truth, but sees capturing the whole truth as an impossible task. Hegel is appreciative of the limitations of that one vision: 'Hegel stated that the purpose of dialectics is "to study things in their own being and movement and thus to demonstrate the finitude of the partial categories of understanding."'

With this, we can see how the bit of criticism you posted is really meant to clarify Hegel and does him service. Hegel's contradictions are rhetorical and not logical as he sees that synthesis can result in multiple inductive theories: "the resulting synthesis is not rigorously defensible against a multitude of other possible syntheses." Fichte wants to say that "contradictions or negations come from outside of things" as though a complete understanding of the truth were interrupted by the irrational separation of a coherent premise into two incoherent, contradicting statements. "Hegel's point" is that these incoherences result naturally from a limited reason, and that the rectification of these premises builds toward an absolute knowledge, or truth, that may never find completion. Hegel makes an important distinction in seeing the human being as irrational, versus the rationalism of Kant and Fichte, though that would be the matter of another long discussion.

However, if you are an avid fan of Hume, Kant especially would be the one to read up on as his arguments are concerned with rebutting Hume for the points that make him so much less interesting than Hegel when it comes to writing philosophy. Hume was brilliantly skeptical of idealism in his time, but his epistemology claims that our thoughts are merely impressions of material interaction that we can have no true knowledge of. This invalidates not only the pursuit of metaphysics, but physics- in a time close to Newton, Hume refutes that mathematical propositions cannot describe functions of the physical world. For him all our thoughts are merely assumptions that can never be verified, even simple expectations like "the sun will rise tomorrow" or "things I drop will fall down" cannot be relied upon because we have no way to tell whether or not causation exists. It's difficult in a dissertation to expand beyond this point beside by rehashing Kant's critique.

I'm sorry if this bit on Hume is not convincing enough, but I've written perhaps too much and I'd rather not go to such lengths debating the opinion of what makes for interesting philosophy. I have tried to present what makes Hegel fascinating to all those, like myself, who find him worth studying and writing about. I can assure you, there are just as many Humeans vying for their job security as Hegelians. I submit humbly and amiably: As with any text, Hegel can be difficult if you are unaware of precedents in the history of philosophy. He has not written nonsense. You simply do not understand it. Cynicism isn't wisdom.

Also, Hegel wrote before Darwin, though I won't get into that, too. If you're interested: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help

Reply
@EdGibney link
9/1/2016 12:03:54 pm

Ah, I think you may have finally uncovered the root of our disagreement. You find Hume "so much less interesting than Hegel" and seem to think his skepticism about certainty in epistemology is wrong, but I think it's absolutely true that the Problem of Induction shows that things like: " "the sun will rise tomorrow" or "things I drop will fall down" cannot be relied upon." I mean, obviously we do, but our knowledge is probabilistic and never certain. Pragmatically we still act under assumptions in order to stay alive in this world, but I think the point is that we must remain open to the possibilities that anything we believe might be wrong. I'm sorry if you disagree with this, but that is the worldview that makes sense to me as an evolutionary philosopher. That doesn't make me an "avid fan" of Hume, which makes it sound like I'm an uncritical swallower of his dogma, it just makes me agree with him on this point.

Hegel's endless obscurantism certainly gives more alleys of interpretation to wander down, making him "more interesting" to some, but not to me. That's not cynicism; that's my judgment. I just find him to be either just plain wrong or unoriginal and obscure when he is right. Huge generalisation there. Sorry. But obfuscation bores me. I find that clarity brings wisdom. Where, for example, is the clarity coming from our discussion? As you said, you've: "written perhaps too much and [you'd] rather not go to such lengths debating the opinion of what makes for interesting philosophy." But that's not what I'm doing. I don't care for philosophy for philosophy's sake. I'm laying down arguments about the nature of the universe we find ourselves in and what we ought to do to survive in it, and then judging other philosophical worldviews as helpful or harmful for that pursuit. You say, "I submit humbly and amiably: As with any text, Hegel can be difficult if you are unaware of precedents in the history of philosophy. He has not written nonsense." Well, I claimed in my original essay above that several of his points were nonsense (in the common usage of that word, not the analytical philosopher's strict usage of sense vs. non-sense). For instance, I pointed to this quote from Hegel: "History, is a conscious, self-meditating process—Spirit emptied out into Time; but this externalization, this kenosis, is equally an externalization of itself; the negative is the negative of itself." In my last comment I asked about Hegel's dialectic: "Inherent and internal? Where exactly?" Now I say about Hegel's view of history: conscious and self-mediating? Where exactly?

You seem remarkably well intentioned and I really appreciate you making a clear and sincere defense of the point of studying Hegel, but maybe you and I are talking past one another. I might agree there's value to be had in sharpening one's knife against the unending onslaught of a spinning grinding wheel, but I might also still see at the heart of that activity nothing but an adamantine stone. I'd personally rather use the knife edge elsewhere.

Reply
Richard Cheimison
8/22/2021 12:34:38 am

First of all let me remark that I think Hume's ideas are fundamentally flawed on a metaphysical level and that these flaws have ruined formal logic and made scientists ontological mystics. Causality is real, physical reality does exist and we are part of it and thus have direct access to it (though we have to learn how our access works by critical analysis and research).

That being said all of Hume's doctrines are very easily understood and written in plain English, even his mistakes. Thus he makes a terrible choice for the unemployable parasites of professional academic pseudophilosophers.

All of these obsolete universities are propaganda mills and tax parasites and should be abolished, and academics who can't get real jobs should starve. That would end this PhD nonsense right away. Credentialism and institutionalism are garbage and anyone who respects them is no philosopher or scientist.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Subscribe to Help Shape This Evolution

    SUBSCRIBE

    RSS Feed


    Blog Philosophy

    This is where ideas mate to form new and better ones. Please share yours respectfully...or they will suffer the fate of extinction!


    Archives

    January 2023
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    August 2021
    June 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    May 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    July 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    April 2012


    Click to set custom HTML
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.