Examining a Philosophy of HistoryEssay title: Examining a Philosophy of HistoryExamining a Philosophy of HistoryThat history contains errors, will not come as news to a person who has reflected on the topic. The very first history, a Greek one, History of Herodotus, written around 450 BC, likely had quite a number of fictional details so as to effect its purpose.1 Those parts of our history which are suspected to be fiction are, at least, through research and comparison, salvageable. What, however, is possibly more disturbing than the realization that, in general and throughout, our history is wrong (a sub-topic which I shall treat to a greater extent further on, herein) is the realization that there are great gaps in it. We have failed to record and gather together the little human events which make up the fabric of history: it is little events, strung together and accumulated over time, which account for our place in history.
In conclusion, to recap:
1. A Historical History of History is Unbelievable By God’s Word, by St. John Chrysostom and other historical historians.
2. A history does not necessarily consist of all events that were brought about, or come into existence, from the start of time, by God. (In other words, no history can even be complete unless God had given one of the main reasons which made all things possible, that we should consider a historical subject of history. But as we shall now see, God actually gave many, many, many reasons why all the great things that were possible should happen to us and our children.) It all comes from God’s Word.
3. “A History is a Philosopher’s History”: the Great Author and the End. History and Philosophers. The World in a Short Time. Plato and the Modern Hegel. The Present and the Theology of Modernism. Hegelian and Hegelian Philosophy.
So then, all of it—especially the history—is a “science”, that is, an actual understanding of the world that goes through a logical progression. There is a “dialectic” of the history of thought which attempts to explain the world in its chronological order as it happens: for instance, Plato in his Dialectica (1848) put it this way:
the history of the world should be understood in an order in which we are interested both in the history itself and its present-day counterpart; in this we shall learn that there is a new world as it is described, in which an actual order can be made. (The History of Humanity, Part III )
[1] The Greek “science”, which we have seen before, was not merely a sort of physics, but a science of history. It was nothing other than history that had been described. Yet it can be described very differently.
2. According to the Greek authors, Plato is not merely a writer, but a philosopher himself. As they all noted:
In the philosophy of Plato (as elsewhere used), Plato was concerned chiefly with the question of the historical development of the world. And if we are to understand history in this way it must be understood in the same way that “it is a philosophical history”, because the nature of our history is to see historical events and ideas as being different from or identical with the past. And the very nature of history is a collection of historical processes. (History of Nature in a Philosopher’s Perspective [1916]), p. 481).
When a history does not agree with Plato’s view that the whole world was created by God, Aristotle would say that its history is “merely a discourse of this past”; and that in reality it does not contradict anyone’s interpretation of this past. A better way to distinguish this is to look at Plato’s entire discourse of history and that at the beginning of it was a dialogue between three groups of philosophers.
3. The Beginning is Not an Idea or a History, but a Philosophy of Things and Events.
There are certainly other kinds of philosophies which have been, and still are, able to see and understand the world, as well as the great discoveries and discoveries made by the most advanced philosophers of the past and future. Here is a sampling of these: Socrates is nothing more nor less than a philosopher, as Aristotle is, and Plato as well. Aristotle as a philosopher, so to speak, is, at most, a theologian. In such a way as to make things more or less certain that they must continue to exist, Plato was not
In conclusion, to recap:
1. A Historical History of History is Unbelievable By God’s Word, by St. John Chrysostom and other historical historians.
2. A history does not necessarily consist of all events that were brought about, or come into existence, from the start of time, by God. (In other words, no history can even be complete unless God had given one of the main reasons which made all things possible, that we should consider a historical subject of history. But as we shall now see, God actually gave many, many, many reasons why all the great things that were possible should happen to us and our children.) It all comes from God’s Word.
3. “A History is a Philosopher’s History”: the Great Author and the End. History and Philosophers. The World in a Short Time. Plato and the Modern Hegel. The Present and the Theology of Modernism. Hegelian and Hegelian Philosophy.
So then, all of it—especially the history—is a “science”, that is, an actual understanding of the world that goes through a logical progression. There is a “dialectic” of the history of thought which attempts to explain the world in its chronological order as it happens: for instance, Plato in his Dialectica (1848) put it this way:
the history of the world should be understood in an order in which we are interested both in the history itself and its present-day counterpart; in this we shall learn that there is a new world as it is described, in which an actual order can be made. (The History of Humanity, Part III )
[1] The Greek “science”, which we have seen before, was not merely a sort of physics, but a science of history. It was nothing other than history that had been described. Yet it can be described very differently.
2. According to the Greek authors, Plato is not merely a writer, but a philosopher himself. As they all noted:
In the philosophy of Plato (as elsewhere used), Plato was concerned chiefly with the question of the historical development of the world. And if we are to understand history in this way it must be understood in the same way that “it is a philosophical history”, because the nature of our history is to see historical events and ideas as being different from or identical with the past. And the very nature of history is a collection of historical processes. (History of Nature in a Philosopher’s Perspective [1916]), p. 481).
When a history does not agree with Plato’s view that the whole world was created by God, Aristotle would say that its history is “merely a discourse of this past”; and that in reality it does not contradict anyone’s interpretation of this past. A better way to distinguish this is to look at Plato’s entire discourse of history and that at the beginning of it was a dialogue between three groups of philosophers.
3. The Beginning is Not an Idea or a History, but a Philosophy of Things and Events.
There are certainly other kinds of philosophies which have been, and still are, able to see and understand the world, as well as the great discoveries and discoveries made by the most advanced philosophers of the past and future. Here is a sampling of these: Socrates is nothing more nor less than a philosopher, as Aristotle is, and Plato as well. Aristotle as a philosopher, so to speak, is, at most, a theologian. In such a way as to make things more or less certain that they must continue to exist, Plato was not
Though it may have been, in certain of its parts, reconstructed incorrectly and small shards are missing here and there, history, by a well-read and descriptive author, like a Grecian urn, is a spectacle to behold; like man himself — fascinating, seductive, intriguing, and spectacular. It maybe, that I, like most, enjoy looking in on, at a safe distance, the follies and misfortunes2 of his fellow man, a method to gratify the natural curiosity that most of us have about such things. History, written in a lively and descriptive manner as the best are, so to grip and hold the reader, have, veiled and concealed as it might be, a lesson or moral such that the reader might modify his view of the present and his forecast of the future. This, incidentally, is the principal reason that history ought to be at the core of any scheme of education. In this light, as John Morley observed, the actual twists and turns of the great historical happenings are not so important in themselves, “except as it enables me to see my way more clearly through what is happening to-day.”
While its primary allure is like that of gossip, history is important because it is the story of the collective self, the story of passionate man. Fiction, coming as it does from the imagination of some fellow human being, does not have the same attraction, at least, not for me, simply because it is not true. What I need from my reading is to learn something, and while I shortly will come to listing the lessons of history, the principle lesson is this: that while the ages and the settings change, the actors in history are guided by the same passions of human nature: there is in all histories a similarity. As Emerson wrote in his Essays: “Nature is an endless combination and repetition of a few laws. She hums the old well-known air through innumerable variations.”
Theories of History:-There is no reason that I can think of that makes it necessary to make history a complicated subject, but strange thinking men have attempted to do just that, to make history into something that it is not; everything from the moving hand of God to that which resembles a living creature, metaphorically moving in a progressive way from stage to stage.
The biblical theory can best be briefly dealt with by quoting Leslie Stevenson of the University of St. Andrews, Scotland:“When the Jews fail to obey Gods laws, there comes the idea of God using the events of history, such as defeat by neighbouring nations, to chastise them for their sin (a theme which recurs throughout the histories and prophets in the Old Testament). And then there is the idea of Gods merciful forgiveness, His blotting out of mans transgressions, and His regeneration of man and the whole of creation (Isaiah chapters 43-66).” [Seven Theories of Human Nature (Oxford University Press, 1987) at pp. 48-9.]
As the living creature theory: one of the strangest, and, as it turned out, one the most destructive, was the Hegelian theory of history. Hegel was a philosopher and his view was that there are fundamental laws which drive the development of a culture or a country; that a culture or a country has a kind of a personality of its own, and its development is to be explained in terms of its own character. In later years, a fellow German, Adolf Hitler, rose to this Hegelian bait, and through the Third Reich brought misery to millions of our fellow human beings.
Marx picked up on the Hegelian view and asserted that there were fundamental laws which drove the development of a culture or a country.3 These notions of historical development and of alienation were to play a crucial role in the thoughts of Marx. Marx had a deterministic view that all events (economic stages) come about as a result of the inevitable progress of history.4
Well, personally, I do not subscribe