Critique of Historical Theory

By Emerita Quito

This work is essentially a philosophy of history. The author’s research on this topic spans more than three decades. Part One of this book has three chapters. Chapter I is divided into seven sections featuring philosophers who see a plan in history. Chapter II is divided into two sections featuring those who do not see a plan in history. Chapter III is divided into three sections featuring scientists whose ideas are relevant to the philosophy of history. Part Two is divided into four chapters. The first three chapters feature the three philosophers of history—Arnold Toynbee, Jean-Paul Sartre and William Dilthey—who stand out in the 20th century for their uncommon stance. The fourth chapter discusses the relationship between the Philosophy of Man and the Philosophy of History. Finally, Part Three is the Critique. While the philosophers mentioned here have written several volumes, only their ideas relevant to the philosophy of history are discussed.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Anvil Publishing, Inc.
• Release date: Oct 3, 2017
• ISBN: 9789712727368

Book preview

CRITIQUE OF

HISTORICAL THEORY

EMÉRITA S. QUITO, 1929

ANVILLOGOBLACK2

Critique of Historical Theory

Copyright to this digital edition © 2012 by

Anvil Publishing, Inc. and

Emérita S. Quito

This electronic edition:

Published by Anvil Publishing, Inc. for De La Salle University-Manila by special agreement.

All rights reserved.

No parts of this publication may be reproduced stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means – whether virtual, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise – without the written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.

Published and exclusively distributed by

Anvil Publishing, Inc.

7th Floor, Quad Alpha Centrum

125 Pioneer Street, Mandaluyong City

1550 Philippines

Sales & Marketing: (632) 4774752, 4774755 to 57

Fax: [phone]

[e-mail]

www.anvilpublishing.com

ISBN 9789712727368 (e-book)

Cover design by Darwin G. Geraldez

Layout design by Jo B. Pantorillo

Version 1.0.2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

PART ONE

Chapter I There exists a plan in history

Section 1 Jacques Bénigne Bossuet

Section 2 Giambattista Vico

Section 3 Johann Gottfried von Herder

Section 4 Immanuel Kant

Section 5 George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Section 6 Johann Gottlieb Fichte

Section 7 Friedrich Wilhelm von Schelling

Chapter II There exist no plan in history

Section 1 Oscar Spengler

Section 2 Karl Popper

Chapter III Scientist and the Philosophy of History

Section 1 Carl Hempel and William Dray

Section 2 Robert Ardrey

Section 3 Jared Diamond

PART TWO

Chapter I Arnold Toynbee

Chapter II Jean-Paul Sartre

Chapter III Wilhelm Diltrey

Chapter IV Philosophy of Man and Philosophy of History

PART THREE

Critique

BIBLIOGRAPHY

INDEX

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

FOREWORD

Thomas Aquinas is reported to have remarked that one should be a theologian as young as possible, but if one wishes to be a philosopher, especially a metaphysician, it would be better to attempt to do so later rather than early in life.

What he meant by this, of course, was based on the dominant paradigm of theology and philosophy at the time. Theology is based on revelation to which the Christian assents with his faith. If the faith is there, then it is advisable to start as early as possible for one can use the Word of God in Scripture as one’s premises for arriving at conclusions in one’s attempts at faith seeking understanding.

However, metaphysics relies on reason, not faith, in the Medieval paradigm. It takes years of practice, of attempting to do philosophy, of doing scientific ratiocination (reasoned knowledge through causes) to arrive to conclusions from premises that one arrived at only with great effort and difficulty—the path to wisdom is long and arduous and it is wisdom which ultimately spells the difference between an ordinary thinker and a philosopher.

In the wedding feast in Cana, the steward of the feast remarked after the conversion of wine from water, Thou has saved the best wine till now. One can remark of Professor Emeritus Emérita Quito’s work in her years of wisdom that she has saved the best until now.

For her latest work on the philosophy of history, preceded by other works on the same theme but now integrating the thoughts of the thinkers of history of the West, represents an integration that leads to wisdom especially in the final chapter of this work, which is a masterly summation and a critique. In the clear and broad strokes characterized by years of deep study leading to a clarity of explanation and felicitous choice of citations to ring out her points, she reviews the thoughts of the great thinkers of the Western world from the 18th-century German idealist to the 20th-century evolutionists, from Herder to Teilhard de Chardin. She delves into the meaning behind the historical events of which man constitutes both a subject perceiving and an object being affected. Looking at historical events and interpreting these events through causes, she shows how the thinkers investigating the larger picture of historical events, the macrodesigns, have been influenced by their ‘angle of viewing’ and, depending on their own presuppositions, look upon the broad events of history either as having an end or teleology (Providence or Spirit) or merely as the result happenstance or chance. She likewise shows that depending on one’s views of history and ultimately, depending on one’s level of mental depth, one looks upon such events either as an avowed atheist or an explicit theist. In other words, one must make a nexus between one’s view of historical events and one’s stance as a believer or nonbeliever in a Supreme Being (and therefore as a student of theology) and one’s philosophical views of man (either as a structuralist who posits that man’s nature is predetermined or an existentialist who posits that man’s nature is created by man himself without need for a Supreme Cause) to explain one’s ‘being there’. The book ends by offering an option.

The volume is a service to students of history and to serious seekers of wisdom with a woman of wisdom as guide through a plethora of literature on the subject by some of the finest minds in the Western world. It also challenges the serious student to define his own stance about the causes of events, whether or not he sees a deliberate teleological plan merely the confluence of chance events, ultimately calling for the positing of a Supreme Being or an agnosticism or even denial of such a Supreme Being. The serious study of world events is likewise as opportunity to define one’s views of man as a nature that is preformed or a creature of chance that is ‘there’ and needs to define himself through his freedom.

We hope that Professor Quito, now having given up formal teaching, will continue to teach the academic communities of our country through her writings, and that this period of her life—when she can put things together and share the fruit of a life of thought and scholarship, of erudition—will be an opportunity for her to let us benefit from her knowledge and wisdom.

—Andrew Gonzalez, FSC

Vice-President for Academics and Research

De La Salle University

Manila

August 2002

PREFACE

This work is essentially a philosophy of history. My research on this topic spans more than three decades. While I have written on other topics, the philosophy of history has been put on the back burner. In 1977, I wrote an article, "Philosophy of History: An Introduction to this work. In 1979, my book, Four Essays in the Philosophy of History was published. It featured the German idealists, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, as philosophers of history; William Dray and Carl Hempel who explained history in a scientific manner; and the effects of Freedom and Time in history.

In 1990, Philosophers of Hermeneutics was published. Friedrich Ernst Daniel Schleiermacher and Wilhelm Dilthey were featured among others, mainly as hermeneutes, and partly as philosophers of history.

Since this is a work on the philosophy of history, the theologians of history will not be included such as Aurelius Augustinus, Jacques Maritain, Reinhold Niebuhr, M.C. D’Arcy, Osmund Lewry, etc.

Part One of this book has three chapters. Chapter I is divided into seven sections featuring philosophers who see a plan in history. Chapter II is divided into two sections featuring those who do not see a plan in history. Chapter III is divided into three sections featuring scientist whose ideas are relevant to the philosophy of history. Part Two is divided into four chapters. The first three chapters feature the three philosophers of history—Arnold Toynbee, Jean-Paul Sartre and William Dilthey—who stand out in the 20th century for their uncommon stance. Toynbee is a British who does not agree with many Britons about the existence of a plan in history. Sartre is universally known as an Existentialist but towards the ends of his life wrote the classic on the raison d’être of wars and history. Dilthey wrote voluminously on philosophy; it was he who wanted to write a Critique of Historical Reason. The fourth chapter discusses the relationship between the Philosophy of Man and the Philosophy of History. Finally, Part Three is the Critique.

While the philosophers mentioned here have written several volumes, only their ideas relevant to the philosophy of history will be discussed.

—The Author

INTRODUCTION

While Philosophy and History are ancient disciplines, the Philosophy of History as a separate discipline, is barely two centuries old.¹ Some contend that it was Giambattista Vico (1668-1744) who first wrote o a philosophy of history in his Scienza Nuova although Jacques Bénigne Bossuet had earlier written Discours sur l’histoire universelle for the perusal of the Dauphin of France. Some claim that Voltaire (Francois Marie Arouet, 1694-1778) was the first to allude to the expression in his Dictionnaire Philosophique while others give the credit to Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744-1803) for his Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit.

For a relatively new discipline, so much has already been written, and anyone who wades through the thick spate of literature cannot but be struck by its awesome dimensions. The problem itself is formidable: one either has to be naïve or blind or foolhardy to undertake a further study thereon.

Despite the teeming literature, however, no last word has yet been pronounced. Not all ideas have been exhausted; there are still unexplored angles which can throw a new light on the Philosophy of History.

To our mind, the Philosophy of History is the crowning achievement of both History and Philosophy, and anyone who has delved into either would inevitably come around to this topic. By their very nature, history and philosophy need each other. Great history is not complete without a philosophical basis, nor can philosophy be sound without historical connections with the past. Benedetto Croce says, But every serious history and every serious philosophy ought to be a history and a philosophy.²

The professional historian, however, resents the intrusion of philosophy into the historical domain.³ And the philosopher looks upon history with quiet disdain. The sad truth is that one needs the expertise of the other; historians and philosophers should join hands and share talents in this common interest. This is not to say, however, that in doing so, the conflict between the two disciplines would cease. So long as history continues to write the study of mankind, and so long as philosophy speculates on a constantly expanding universe, the conflict between history and philosophy will remain. If so, what is the purpose of a coming together? What tangible profit may be derived from a confluence through compromise if the result would be tenuous, the peace momentary, and the future just as uncertain? Indeed, if our purpose is charged with pragmatism, it would be futile to undertake a Philosophy of History. The affairs of the intellect, however, are not, and have never been, pragmatic; if they were, the world would never have savored, among others, the humanistic output of the Renaissance—for what use is there in a Marsilio Ficino spending years at Careggi castle studying the works of Plato, or a Pico della Mirandola poring over his Oration on the Dignity of Man? And yet, mankind is greatly enriched by the works of these two Renaissance thinkers as history tells us.

The Philosophy of History is its own reason for being. If man desires to know the philosophy of man or of nature or of life, would it not be nature to wish to know the philosophy of history?

It must be stressed that any attempt to write on the Philosophy of History is always a risk. The ground is full of pitfalls, causing many an earlier traveler to stumble. And what can be said now which has not been said before, and perhaps in a better way?

What, in fact, is the Philosophy of History? And in what way does it differ from either history or philosophy?

What is history? History is an angle of vision over the past. It is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.⁴ It is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an unending dialogue between the present and the past.⁵ Karl Popper specifies that there can be no history of the past and as it actually did happen; there can only be historical interpretation and none of them final, and every generation has a right to frame its own.⁶ Collingwood believes that history is a re-enactment of past thought in the historian’s own mind.⁷ History cannot be scientifically written unless the historian can re-enact in his own mind the experience of the people whose actions he is narrating."⁸ History is written in order to throw light on the past, thereby enabling us to understand ourselves and the present.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is a discipline that determines the reason for being of all reality. It envisions totality in its sweep and investigates through the light of reason what might be the ultimate cause of all reality. By its very nature, philosophy must be partially speculative since no human mind has grasped the essence of total reality except in a hazy and analogical manner. Philosophy, therefore, outreaches by means of intuition; it is doubtful whether true philosophy can do without it. Philosophy tries to interpret more than what is experienced and yet does not surrender its claim to being an ordered science of causes.

Viewed separately, philosophy and history resemble each other. They view a unity, and each discipline interprets according to its own viewpoint. However, whereas, history views the unity of the past, philosophy includes the future, and hence, interpretations differ. History deals with facts, finished and accomplished, and claims to be objective; there are even some thinkers like Hempel⁹ who believe that history can be scientific. Philosophy, on the other hand, has never been known to be a pure science in the experimental sense, and is none the worse for it. Philosophy sometimes resorts to extra-logical means to explain its object.

The philosophy of History is a cross between philosophy and history but differs from either. At the present time, there are still raging controversies over what a Philosophy of History should be, or worse still, whether it is a legitimate discipline at all. Some contend that it is a bastard discipline with dubious parentage and saddled further by its lack of scientific pedigree. There are those who proposed that the Philosophy of History be called forthright a Theology of History. There are even those who question the existence of a Philosophy of History, but instead of weakening the claim of the philosophers of history, they have merely succeeded in strengthening it, for the claim that there should be no Philosophy of History is itself a Philosophy of History.

From the very outset, the philosopher of history is working with a handicap. He is trying to steer between two artificial cliffs of his own making. He thinks that he has to navigate between