Speculative Philosophy Of History

[Aquinas21]

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments about philosophy of history in the speculative sense of the phrase?

Do you think that there is a general meaning and purpose in society and history (past, present, and future)? Perhaps the world of human history is truly a vale of soul-making (a standard phrase) where individuals are developing their character and progressing towards their eternal destinies? Maybe there is also a gradual progress in the realization of noble ideals in human society and history? Or maybe history is mainly just wars and rumors of wars (or other conflicts) most of the time, probably ever since competition between Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals a long time ago (or something like that)? These are just some obvious examples of possible questions or aspects. Perhaps you have enjoyed some well-known authors in this general subject area, as for example maybe Toynbee or Hegel or Teilhard.

My reason for asking is just that I have probably been reading too many news headlines on the Internet in recent years. Sometimes it almost seems as if the world might be gradually approaching World War III sooner or later, complete with cyber-attacks downing power grids so that electric power is off while H-bombs are arriving in all the wrong places at the wrong times while the lights are out (or something like that, lol).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There are many ways to speculate on a philosophy of history. Will and Ariel Durant published a small volume near the end of their lives titled The Lessons of History. It is a fascinating attempt to craft a philosophy of history, a way of showing how history unfolds in both a logical and illogical manner, including many predictable developments and unpredictable surprises along the way.

Plato does much the same thing in his Republic, though his analysis of history is mostly concerned with the progress of politics, which he believed to be a cyclical process. For example, he regarded democracy as the state of equality so complete that it was doomed to anarchy, and the only way to heal anarchy was to create a dictatorship, or tyranny. The French Revolution was an perfect example of Plato’s thesis, in that the revolution was intended to destroy monarchy and aristocracy and institute equality for all, but actually resulted in widespread massacres and anarchy that could only be quelled by the arrival of Napoleon, who restored order by tyrannical means. In his turn, Napoleon was toppled to restore a republic. So Plato observed this pendulum effect in history.

Some might say we are in one swing of the pendulum toward democracy, and even anarchy in America, from which we can only be saved by the appearance of a leader or leaders strong enough to restore some sense of order and sanity. Others might say there is little democracy left in America, and that the ruling class are out for themselves and little concerned about anything other than making promises that get them elected but promises that are never fulfilled.

One thing is for sure: there is no common consensus on a philosophy of history.

This is perhaps due to the fact that there are too many political philosophies competing with each other, and none of them is completely satisfying to everyone.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

There are many ways to speculate on a philosophy of history. Will and Ariel Durant published a small volume near the end of their lives titled The Lessons of History. It is a fascinating attempt to craft a philosophy of history, a way of showing how history unfolds in both a logical and illogical manner, including many predictable developments and unpredictable surprises along the way.

Plato does much the same thing in his Republic, though his analysis of history is mostly concerned with the progress of politics, which he believed to be a cyclical process. For example, he regarded democracy as the state of equality so complete that it was doomed to anarchy, and the only way to heal anarchy was to create a dictatorship, or tyranny. The French Revolution was an perfect example of Plato’s thesis, in that the revolution was intended to destroy monarchy and aristocracy and institute equality for all, but actually resulted in widespread massacres and anarchy that could only be quelled by the arrival of Napoleon, who restored order by tyrannical means. In his turn, Napoleon was toppled to restore a republic. So Plato observed this pendulum effect in history.

Some might say we are in one swing of the pendulum toward democracy, and even anarchy in America, from which we can only be saved by the appearance of a leader or leaders strong enough to restore some sense of order and sanity. Others might say there is little democracy left in America, and that the ruling class are out for themselves and little concerned about anything other than making promises that get them elected but promises that are never fulfilled.

One thing is for sure: there is no common consensus on a philosophy of history.

This is perhaps due to the fact that there are too many political philosophies competing with each other, and none of them is completely satisfying to everyone.

 

[Aquinas21]

Charlemagne III (posts 2 and 3) – Thank you for posting some thoughts and comments. :yup: :dancing: :clapping: :curtsey: