Last class we discussed Hegel’s idea of progress through history. As a history major this thought stuck with me and I know this idea will be important to Marx later so I thought I would address it. Like Dr. J said there can be no doubt that intellectually we are at a better state than ever. But even if this is what Hegel means, I think this idea of inevitable progress can be disputed, or at least has very little grounds. We like to think progress throughout history is this nice linear line leading up to today. That way we would know the world would continue to get better and better. But historically “progress” certainly could not be considered linear. Undoubtably Hegel is considering a merely Western historical perspective, but even then it would be difficult to argue the “Dark Ages” were intellectually more progressive than Greek and Roman times. The Arab world clearly had its own ups and downs throughout its own history. Intellectual progress is based on a host of other factors, such as economics and politics. If the Cold War had gone to a Dr. Strangelove direction then history would have not seemed to have progressed at all.
Would Hegel connect the progress of geist to include other aspects of life, such as morality and even happiness? I think that this intellectual history clearly cannot be accounted for separately. But there are easier arguments to make in several categories if we wanted to expand that out. Suicide rates are skyrocketing, indicating happiness is tumbling rather than progressing. In any case I find the argument that history has to progress a basic logical fallacy. There is not necessarily a correlation that because we believe today’s world to be more progressive than the past that it will continue to progress to the future. Could it? Certainly. Would it have to? That seems doubtful.
What kind of logical fallacy is it that history has to progress? I am pretty sure time just keeps churning on and on without stop. More history is being made each day.
ReplyDeleteNow seriously, I think it isn't quite a logical fallacy but rather a different interpretation of different evidence as well as a misinterpretation of Hegel's idea. No where does Hegel say that history is on a linear path of more happiness and rainbows. There could be dips and such as long as it all ultimately contributes to a fully matured spirit.
Hegel existed in a time where new things were being invents, industrialazation was skyrocketing, the world had basically been colonized, and Europeans could only see it continuing in this direction. Now we can see the failure of many of these old institutions and we can see the emotional pit we live in now.
Arguably, there has been a trade-off of sorts as we progress into the future. On one hand, we all have increasingly more first-world problems like too many bombs and medication that gives us suicidal thoughts but makes us more 'normal.' On the other hand, we in general are becoming more self-aware in manners of racism, sexism, and various other things. We even have the internet to facilitate the merging of the world into a contributory culture (which is not what Hegel envisioned in his more homogeneous one).
Looking back on things now, I think I would agree with you that progress did not occur evenly and may have gone back and forth. But if we were living at the time of the Dark Ages for example and even if we were somehow familiar with Hegel's philosophy, I don't think we would see ourselves as having taken a step backwards. This is because we would be living with different ideas about what exactly is good and bad due to living at a completely different time. Furthermore, just because something doesn't seem to be progressive, it doesn't mean it didn't contribute to overall progress in the big picture. It might be the case that if we have progressed to our current point, the things in the past that seem regressive were part of the process of us getting here and thereby contributors to progress even if it doesn't seem that way.
ReplyDelete