Compos Mentis

It really just doesn't matter, in the End.

I was running yesterday and thinking about the Philosophy of History. I just realized that I may be the only person to ever put that last sentence together, or at least be the only one telling the truth when I said it. Anyway, I bought a book in England entitled, conveniently enough, The Philosophy of History. Yes, I admit it. I buy textbooks because they look like interesting reading material. Anyway, it got me thinking, and while running, I found some general parallels among the various philosophies:
1. They tend to be linear in direction, i.e. history is moving toward some end. (Rather than the cyclical idea of history in many early cultures.)
2. The present time period of the author is the culmination or nearly the culmination of some vital aspect of thought that will end or cap all. In other words, just about all of them not only thought humankind was moving in a positive direction, but that the end of that movement was near. The end of history was at hand. No more to be said.
3. They based their analysis of history on one aspect that was important in that time period, but may or may not have been in other time periods.
The first one is simple enough. It may or may not be true, but it certainly can be used as a framework in order to better organize what we know of history. It is the second and third ones I have problems with. The second one pretty much hits me as ludicrous, as people refuse to learn from other people's mistakes. For at least two and a half centuries (from the early 1700's to the late 1900's) philosophers have been predicting the end of history, while the most that happens is the culmination and eventual end of one aspect of history. The mistake these philosophers make is assuming that an aspect of human existence that is very important in their day is the prime aspect of human existence. This is of course tendency number three.
Another, related issue is the idea of an 'end of history.' What would such an existence mean? None of the philosophers take the next step and describe what happens after all the conflicts have been resolved or completed. This is because such an idea is impossible in the framework of history that they have set up. Hegel was right when he claimed that history is made up of conflicts and changes. But that is not only true of history; it is a basic fact of human existence. Humans come up with new conflicts when old ones have been resolved, and rehash old conflicts when it suits their purposes.
But don't get the wrong idea. I don't dislike philosophy of history. I just don't like what it has become. I think if someone with insight took a fresh look at the meaning of history, what it can tell us and what its limits are, I think the philosophy of history can become something useful and good. Or maybe I should just give up and become an engineer. Nah.

posted by Emmett @ 17:37