The Narration of Danto

The book Narration and Knowledge by Anton Danto is an attempt to explain history. He believed that history is a narrative and I can’t oppose that idea because history is indeed a story. It tells us of an event that has happened in a narrative presentation.

According to Danto two distinct kind of inquiry are covered by the expression “philosophy of history.” These are the substantive and analytical philosophy. Danto made a clear distinction between the two and I would say it is a clear distinction. Substantive philosophy deals with the event in itself. Of the account of what happened in the past. On the other hand, analytical philosophy deals with the some concept on the practice of history.


According to his writing, and I quote “a philosophy of history seeks to give an account of the whole story.” (Danto, 1985) I believe that what historians indeed need to have an account of the story if not the whole of the past. That is why we need evidence and some sources to fill in the gaps that we need to recreate the story. He even mentioned the two patterns that a historian can use to rewrite history; these are the descriptive and the explanatory theory. I believe that these two are always connected in the sense that a historian should not only create history but also be able to explain it.


Another statement that I found interesting is when he said that historians are concerned only with the past. And I quote: “for all our present data come from the past; we cannot gather data from the future.” (Danto) I would agree on this statement for the simple reason that history is about the past. Probably, we can predict or tell about the future but not prophesy about what will happen or what the future will be like. But it is distorting to think that all the data that we are recreating are data to be used for future philosophers because it is important in the present. It is to satisfy our hunger for information and our hunger for knowledge. Danto presented that historical accounts are narrative in structure. I would agree because it is a sequence of events.


Danto, in his book also opposes three arguments in history. The first is a sort of positivist view. This positivist view states that history is meaningless. I would have to disagree with whomever who said this. I believe that history even if it cannot be recreated completely is still important. It is still a source of a great chunk of knowledge.


On the other hand, history is not just bunk. This is the second argument. That everything is created so as to recreate the past. This according to Bertrand Russell is what history is about. Danto’s smart reply answer is to say that everything is created like a bunk too. Just like all the sciences. “It might or might not have” according to Danto. (1985) and for that we can make a true statement of the past or perhaps we cannot just as Danto might have said it better.


The third charge and what Danto thinks is very serious is that belief that history is biased according to the political or personal agenda of the historian. Like everything written down is according to the prejudice of the historian. I would have to say that the recreation of the past is not always accurate for there are distortions somewhere made on the part of the historian who would like history to appear according to his will. But as what Danto might have put it and I quote: “For they are not saying something like ‘everything is crooked but only a certain class of things are crooked. Then there might be a class of straight things, which would make it intelligible. “

Danto wants to argue that history is neither an art nor a science but rather the elements of each. It has artistic elements in that it is a narrative, it is a story. And all stories can be told sometime with flaws. Like every narrative, it has a beginning and an end. It comes with conflict with something else to make the story more interesting and results in the end of the story. And as Danto quoted: “The past is known through a correct interpretation of something given, including certain given characters which are marks of past ness.” (Danto 1985) History has a beginning, middle and an end. We may have different views on how a particular story happened but nonetheless it is still history. We have to start from something and explain how it happened. But there is always a surface and there is something beneath those events that makes history really fascinating and endless.

_______________________________________________________________

Sources:

Danto, A.C. (1985). Narration and Knowledge. Columbia University.

Staloff, D. (1995). The search for a meaningful past philosophies, theories and interpretations.
NY: The Teaching Co.

Carl Hempel and the Laws of History

Carl Gustav Hempel, a German-born philosopher was one of the prominent philosophers of science in the twentieth century. He was known as one of the proponents of the so-called logical empiricism or logical positivism which is a central concept in science and the scientific method. It states that all evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on evidence that is observable by the senses. According to logical positivist, everything can be explained by science. Empirical is used in science with working hypotheses that are testable using observation or experiment. In this sense of the word, scientific statements are subject to and derived from our experiences or observations. (wikipedia)

. Hempel attempts to explain that history is a science and to check on that challenge that history claimed the methodological patterns of science. I would have to disagree with him on the idea that history is a form of a physical science and I quote: “history is concerned with the description of particular events of the past rather than with the search for general laws which might govern those events.” (Hempel, 1942)

That is where the term “law” came into picture. The main function of these laws according to Hempel, is to connect events in a pattern usually referred to as explanation and prediction. If I may say, the function of the general law is to explain the event in such a way that there is a cause and an effect or preceding and causal conditions. Hempel brought about two explanations for these:

First, A set of statements asserting the occurrence of certain events C1 through CN at certain times and places and second, a set of universal hypothesis such that: a) The statement of both groups are reasonably well confirmed by empirical evidence, and, b) From the two groups of statements, the sentence asserting the occurrence of event E can be logically deduced.

The first group which according to my understanding would mean the initial conditions before the event and the event itself is definitely undeniable. . It is like the boundary conditions that creates the event. History is about events so there is no question about it. The second group however, And in fact one could argue that the same thing would hold for history doesn’t follow because history cannot follow a specific model. Although, an event may seem to happen in the same pattern as another event like some Great Wars and revolutions or the aftermath of a bloody election, we will see that history have shown that it is not always that way. We should always consider the context of the event. And I quote Hempel: “...is impossible to give a complete explanation of an individual event in the sense of accounting for all its general characteristics by means of universal hypothesis. All explanations are connected to a particular description or set of descriptions. It is ideographic or concerned with the Individual. The determining conditions are not always the same in all events. “(Hempel)

And then there’s what is called as the pseudo explanations. I disagree on this issue because it is not right to explain things historical events using false explanations. It’s like a guess. There should always be a document, a source to prove the event. There must be a scientific explanation rather than by just mere understanding of the conditions. It must be valid. Although, according to Hempel, there are events that has an incomplete explanation or can be summed up and explained without the pseudo explanation because we have reason why we have to believe such an event and some events cannot be explained but also cannot be dismissed as not important.

Another statement that I would like to discuss is the Nomothetic and ideographic. Nomothetic is based on what Kant described as a tendency to generalize, and is expressed in the natural sciences. It describes the effort to derive laws that explain objective phenomena while Idiographic is a tendency to specify and the effort to understand phenomena. I would have to stress that these two although related in the sense that they both explain an event they are quite different. But I would have to say that Hempel made quite a good notion using this on his theories. The nomothetic model tries to find the variables that account for the differences in the historical events (because not all events will happen the same way if I may say) and the idiographic focuses on the completeness of the event.

As a whole, I believe that Hempel made a good discussion of his general laws of history. I believe that history is unique.

________________________________

Sources:

Logical positivism. Retrieved September 21, 2008 from www.wikipedia.org

Hempel, C.G. (1942). The function of general laws in history. In The Journal of Philosophy, 39, 35-48.

R .G. Collingwood's The Idea of History

History begins with a question. It proceeds through research of the evidence filtered and critiqued by our own rationality and experience. It is the longing for the accurate reenactment of the event. To understand historical reading, or to write history, there is a need for us to understand the discipline behind history writing. As Robin George Collingwood wrote, "All history is the history of thought."


The book the “Idea of History” made a great impact to me as a future historian and I must say it has already contributed a lot to history writing. His historical work gave him a special interest in the activity of understanding and interpreting the past, an activity that he saw as continuous with our self-understanding and self-interpretation. I would have to agree with Collingwood’s theory on the idea of history for some reasons.


First, history according to Collingwood has an inside and an outside and these are two basic features of a historical event that we cannot deny. The outside is the physical manifestation. It’s the event by itself. What has happened? Who were the characters involved. So the outside of events is always the physical. The inside on the other hand is the rational thought behind the event. When we say rational we mean the thought process behind the event. What is the person thinking of when the event happens. Collingwood made a good definition of the inside and the outside by talking about the physical and the rationale behind the event. It’s as if to say that every event happens because a character is thinking of something that he may or may not expect to happen.

The second idea is the reenactment of past events. A central motif of R. G. Collingwood's philosophy of history is the idea that historical understanding requires a re-enactment of past experience. How do we go about recreating past events? That is where the argument of Collingwood comes into picture. The human past comes from interpreting primary sources -- the evidence. A historian is like a lawyer who argues a case by presenting evidence to produce a reasonable answer to questions. The problem, however, is that the answers may sometimes be the 'Truth,' sometimes not.


Historians require “active” critical thinking. Collingwood is telling us about “re-thinking” what the source or person in history was thinking and I quoted “a re-enactment in the historian’s own mind” I believe this is correct because historians do reenact past events. And I quote once more: “A historical imagination reconstructs events and this autonomous thinking may begin inside the historian but must be based on scrutiny of source-evidence. Yet this cannot be merely ‘scissors-and-paste’ history but must be re-thought through various sources and scenarios. The historian must locate the most accurate basis and interpret the outcome, not just present the sources pasted together.” If a historian cannot show that the reconstruction of the event is not as accurate or cannot be reconciled with the evidence, the historian must suspend judgment. Paul Edwards (1967) on the Encyclopedia of History states that “Historians must not only show what happened but also must be able to explain it. “


I couldn’t argue more on Collingwood because historians I would say need an open mind. There must also be some sort of imagination. However, the term imagination all depends on how well we are going to make use of it in history writing or up to what extent should our imagination aids in explaining past events? There should always be a critical analysis of the source. The work of Collingwood tells about history in itself. There is a need to present an event as fully and accurately as possible, how the people of that particular event saw themselves, and not the way the historian wants to present it.

In Collingwood’s term, we call it the a priori imagination. It is the event before the facts or before the event happens. It is the criteria that a historian sets for himself to describe an event. It is the criticism of evidence presented and recreating the event according to documents, evidences and of course the imagination. History is done in accordance with the a priori imagination. Historians of course may not have all the evidence possible but with imagination and sound judgment, they can narrate an event. There must be something to fill the gap and that is the imagination. Of course, Historians begin by wondering, not by knowing.


To sum up, I would say that Collingwood’s work is safe. It doesn’t require a great mind to understand his stand on the writing of history. His work although not as grandiose as the other philosopher’s of the past is still remarkable. WE can never deny the fact that history and the event that has happened in the past is a rational balance between evidence and of imagination. The retelling or narrating of the event should be a balance between a great source and a great imagination. It is not always an interpretation of the writer’s perspective but there exists the idea that it cannot be separated because those ideas and those events. History changes and there is always a flaw somewhere. It may never be perfectly re-created. But Collingwood had never denied the fact that history is about evidence but one thing that is good about his work is that it has given us the idea that historians need an experienced imagination to be able to recreate the past.

_________________________________________________________________

Sources:

Collingwood, R. G. (1946). The idea of history. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Pp. 205-334 .

Staloff, D. (1995). The search for a meaningful past philosophies, theories and interpretations.
NY: The Teaching Co.


Roger Collingwood. www.wikipedia.com/ Collingwood. Retrieved September 14, 2008


Collingwood. http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/history/r_g_collingwood_history. Retrieved September 14, 2008

Paul Edwards (ed) Collingwood. The encyclopedia of social sciences. NY: Macmillan Company 1967

The walls of Rome

The main thrust of Arnold Toynbee’s work in his book “A Study of History” is the theory of Challenge and Response. That a civilization progress or fall as an answer to the challenge inflicted on it by the following factors: a hard environment; a new environment; one or more ‘‘blows,’’ such as a military defeat; pressures, such as a frontier society subjected to frequent attack; and penalizations, such as slavery or other measures in which one class or race is oppressed by another.


As an example, I will make use of the Holy Roman Empire to prove the claim of Arnold Toynbee. In ancient Rome, there stood a wall now known as The ‘Roman Limes.’ It represents the border line of the Roman Empire at its greatest extent in the 2nd century AD. It stretched over 5,000 km from the Atlantic coast of northern Britain, through Europe to the Black Sea, and from there to the Red Sea and across North Africa to the Atlantic coast.


The Latin noun limes had a number of different meanings: a path or balk delimiting fields, a boundary line or marker, any road or path, any channel, such as a stream channel, or any distinction or difference. The word limes was utilized by Latin writers to denote a marked or fortified frontier. This latter sense has been adapted and extended by modern historians concerned with the frontiers of the Roman Empire. The Latin word limes originally was an expression used by land surveyors and indicated the boundary between two fields, for example the path between two meadows. Several ancient authors, however, use the expression to describe the outer frontiers of the Roman Empire. Modern scholars use the word in an even wider sense to describe several aspects of the imperial system of defense, which includes tactical and strategic aspects, the diplomatic and military means, fortifications, economic means, religion, and so on.

Roman writers and subsequent authors who depended on them presented the limes as some sort of sacred border beyond which human beings did not transgress, and if they did, it was evidence that they had passed the bounds of reason and civilization. To cross the border was the mark of a savage. They wrote of the Alemanni disrespecting it as though they had passed the final limitation of character and had committed themselves to perdition. They tried to make use of the wall as a symbol of holiness, of some sort of understanding of what a Roman soldier or citizen should be like.

But the truth is that the wall was built in order to protect the empire from invasions. More so of invasions from a small yet powerful tribe. (Chatti" eventually became "Hesse" through a series of sound shifts.) The barbarians of the northern bordern sometimes known as barbaricum are a threat to the empire. This is where a tribe known as the Chatti used to invade the borders of the empire. While Julius Caesar was well informed about the regions and tribes on the eastern banks of the Rhine, he never mentions the Chatti. But the Chatti were disciplined warriors famed for their infantry, who (unusually for Germanic tribes) used trenching tools and carried provisions when at war. Instead of invading the barbaricum, the Roman Empire created the limes.


In Brittania the Empire built two walls one behind the other (known as the Walls of Hadrian), for Mauretania there was a single wall with forts on both sides of it. In other places, such as Syria and Arabia Petraea, there wasn't a continuous wall; instead there was a net of border settlements and forts occupied by the Roman army. In Dacia, the limes between the Black Sea and the Danube were a mix of the latter and the wall defenses: the Limes Moesiae.


The remains of the Limes today consist of vestiges of built walls, ditches, forts, fortresses, watchtowers and civilian settlements. Certain elements of the line have been excavated, some reconstructed and a few destroyed. The two sections of the Limes in Germany cover a length of 550 km from the north-west of the country to the Danube in the south-east. The 118-km-long Hadrian’s Wall (UK) was built on the orders of the Emperor Hadrian c. AD 122 at the northernmost limits of the Roman province of Britannia. It is a striking example of the organization of a military zone and illustrates the defensive techniques and geopolitical strategies of ancient Rome According to Arnold Toynbee’s challenge and response theory, when a civilization responds to a challenge, it will grow but when it fails to respond to it, the civilization will undergo a period of decline or may even fall. In the case of Rome, the walls are built not just as a defensive strategy but for some other reasons.

According to Arnold Toynbee, when a civilization responds to a challenge, it will grow but when it fails to respond to it, the civilization will undergo a period of decline or may even fall. In the case of the Roman Empire, it did not fall but rather made its empire stronger by preventing the attacks of the invaders from all its frontiers. The civilization went on because it responded to the challenge and that is the blows or invasion from other tribes. Toynbee is correct saying that a civilization is constantly being bombarded by challenges and it has to make a way to continue or if not, it will collapse.

_________________________________________________________________

Sources:

Limes. http://www.wikipedia.org/limes/html. Retrieved 14 September 2008

Toynbee, A. J. (1935-1948). A study of history (Vol. 1). London: Oxford University.

Staloff, Darren (2000) “The search for a meaningful past,philosophies,theories, and interpretation of human history”. New York: The Teaching Company

World Historical Speculation of Arnold Toynbee

Arnold Toynbee’s a “Study of History” is a work of epic proportions. It is truly a huge amount of work. For someone to analyze the birth, progress and decline of every civilization known to man is really impressive. It focused on questions of how civilizations were created and why some flourished while others failed. His work focused more on the rise and fall of civilizations rather than its people, race or ethnic groups.

I would like to focus on some of the ideas he presented including the challenge and response theory, the all too broad discussion on how a civilization rise, fall and petrify, and the so-called universal state, universal empire and universal church.

In his book a “Study of History” Toynbee identified civilizations according to its cultural criteria rather then to its national criteria. And I quote Toynbee: “Societies of this species are commonly called civilizations.” I agree with the idea of treating nations and societies as a part of the same civilization rather than a just a nation or a society. A civilization then encompasses a group of nations having the same culture, language and probably existed in the same manner. There is a fundamental unity of its mores, institutions and probably of mentality. I would say that the proper study of history involves studying civilizations rather than nations or cultural periods.

The main thrust of his work is the theory of challenge and response. In my opinion, it is quite hard to ignore the fact that civilizations of the past arose and progressed in response to some set of difficulties or challenges. In his Study of History Toynbee describes the rise and decline of 23 civilizations. It is his over-arching analysis that made me realizes that civilizations of the past progressed or can decline as a response to a challenge posed by time. Toynbee identifies five challenges that aid the process: a hard environment; a new environment; one or more ‘‘blows,’’ such as a military defeat; pressures, such as a frontier society subjected to frequent attack; and penalizations, such as slavery or other measures in which one class or race is oppressed by another. Some challenges, however, prove to be too severe and do not result in a civilization’s growth. These can be the challenge of the environment like flooding that has been given prominence in the Indus or the annual flooding of the Nile river and the Yellow River, or it can be the attack and invasion from outside like the Roman Empire that is open to the attacks of the barbarian invaders or it could be an internal revolution. I would agree because a civilization did not spring up easily in every corner of the globe. Something must have happened. An event must have occurred before a civilization can be born.

When a civilization responds to a challenge, it will grow but when it fails to respond to it, the civilization will undergo a period of decline or may even fall. He is correct though and I couldn’t disagree more with the idea that and I quote: “None the less, it can be proved that challenges can be too severe: i.e. the maximum challenge will not always produce the optimum response.” He even mentioned something as the golden mean – a challenge that is not too much or to easy. The saying that to much of something is bad enough comes to my mind. Progress in civilization consists in meeting difficulties by responding in creative ways.

The breakdown of society occurs when creative individuals fail to lead through the exercise of creative power, resulting in withdrawal of the faith of the majority and a subsequent loss of social unity. It is the time when there is social unrest and when the creative man became a part of a society that thinks of particularity or of differences. An example was given by an American Professor and I quote: “… in which the Roman plebian no longer feels himself a Roman but simply a plebian.” And to continue “A feudist state who may share interest with the large scale owners of other civilizations of perhaps a Persian civilization.” Following the decline comes the process of disintegration where according to Toynbee can be divided into three. These explanations are really impressive. It tells us of three units – the dominant minority that can create another empire, the internal proletariat that will produce universal churches and the external proletariat that will make up the barbarians because they don’t want to be a part of any of the organizations once more.

The universal state on the other hand appears as part of the ‘‘rally’’ stage in the decline of civilization; it follows a ‘‘Time of Troubles’’ and brings political unity. History clearly shows us examples that when a civilization got in to the so called times of trouble, it will undergo a state of peace or a time when a society moves towards progress. This will lead into a creation of probably a much larger empire to cover the existing empires which are experiencing internal fissures. But according to an American Professor it could also lead to the fall of the civilization. The breakdown of civilization can also be predictable for it occurs when the civilization cannot face the challenge anymore. History tells us of course that most of these civilizations had fallen.

The universal churches on the other hand are something that I would like to make an argument. The emergence of the higher religions seems to me to mark so important a new departure in human history that these cannot be dealt with adequately in terms of the civilizations whose declines and falls give rise to them. It is on the one hand, an event by itself and can be dealt with separately from the study of the civilizations. Religion is themselves societies. Religions have obviously played an important role in history.

Toynbee also mentioned the so-called heroic age. I personally see this as a great part of his work. It is the time when the barbarians take over beyond d the frontiers. I believe that it is quite an easy theory. It’s as easy as explaining that the barbarians were cut off from the civilization. Until came a time when they will do their destructive descent. The barbarians are the reason that can sweep an entire civilization.

Although the author’s work is really huge in terms of volume, I believe that we can sum it up by saying that there is a pattern of laws that is happening through every civilization. It is like saying that a primitive society will evolve into a civilization. The pattern of challenge recurs or happens over time and each successfully met challenges will generate another challenge and of course, will demand another response from that particular civilization.

Our study of history is all about how and why things happen. I do not think that history, in the objective sense of the word, is a succession of facts, nor history-writing the narration of these facts. It is always have to be really comprehensible. Toynbee’s work jumps from one civilization to another but it is still significant. His work is comparative and the succession of facts flows in a number of ways. If I may consider myself a historian, I would say that Arnold Toynbee’s work is a curiosity to explain and understand the world. It shows an excited man studying the past. And I guess his excitement has taken itself a notch higher creating a wonderful work.

I would say that Arnold Toynbee was able to present us an amazing work. It is a vision of how civilizations started, where it has been, and where it may be headed. I believe that civilizations flourished because of the factors that challenged its growth. Our historical experience is not yet over because we are constantly being bombarded by struggles and we just have to wait until our society can no l longer face the challenge and went to trouble times until another great man came into picture and create a new order of things and our civilization will grow once more as Toynbee have predicted it.

___________________________________________________________________

Sources:

”Arnold Toynbee” Retrieved September 12, 2008 from . http://www.historyguide.org/ancient

“Arnold Toynbee”. Retrieved September 12, 2008 from http://www.philosophyprofessor.com/philosophers/arnold-toynbee.

Galens, David (2002)Non-fiction classics for students. USA: Thomson Learning

Staloff, Darren (2000) “The search for a meaningful past,philosophies,theories, and
interpretation of human history”. New York: The Teaching Company.

Toynbee, A. J. (1935-1948). A study of history (Vol. 1). London: Oxford University.

Weber and the 3 types of Leadership

The existence of power and authority is one of the characteristics of civilizations. Furthermore, many would agree that the emergence of power is one of the most important aspect of social evolution. The work of Max Weber, “Economy and Society” took a broader view of history. Weber wrote about politics as a means of interaction and change. His work distinguished three types of leadership like a taxonomy and it defined legitimate authority and its basis.

Weber was able to distinguish three types. It is like Darwin’s taxonomy because it has given us a definition of these types and how it played certain roles in certain civilizations. Now, Weber defined legitimate domination as and I quote: “the probability that certain specific commands, or possible all commands will be obeyed by a given group of persons.” This is correct because it is directed towards another person. There is a relation between the ruler and the ruled.

The three types that are discussed by Weber includes: the rational grounds or legal authority because those elevated in power have the right to issue commands through legal means; the traditional grounds that is probably about the respect for undying traditions and the last being the charismatic domination that talks about the sanctity of a per son, the respect and the patterns ordained by the society. Let’s talk about these three types.

The belief that lies in the rational grounds is legal in some sense. According to Weber, it lies on five basic beliefs and seven basic features. I could not disagree with him in the sense that the legal authority is always supported by legal means. The staff must obey not just the rulers but the law in itself, they just don’t follow the rules because of admiration but because the person occupied a spot in the hierarchy, there should be rules for the members to obey and they are subject to norms. The seven features in the sense were able to support the perspective of Weber. There is always legality like written orders, there is officialdom that is like a hierarchic domain that a member cannot just intrude, there are trainings and of course there is a benefit or salary. I believe that this type of authority is rational in the sense that there is a formality. It is a bureaucracy. It defies race, sex or other things as long as the person is technically trained to fill in the position. The problem, however, lies on the scheme that it is impersonal. This type borders on formality and strictness that there is no more room for interrelations because of social leveling.


The next type, the so-called traditional authority is quite different because the followers are not members but subjects. Suffice it to say that the subject has a personal loyalty to the ruler. It is a nobility and there is no question about that. The third type lies on the belief of charisma. If before, the leadership may connote superhuman abilities or heroic deeds, at the moment it could mean those people who opted for change and got it. I believe that Weber’s point on charisma is correct because authority can sometimes be associated with the person’s individual personality. The history of many ancient civilizations is characterized by the frequent ruling of people who are charismatic. But I see no reason for Weber to say that there are certain revelations for one to say that a leader to be charismatic. We don’t live at those times when we still need oracles of some sort to choose a new leader.


As a whole, Weber’s take on the sociology of politics is quite remarkable. But we cannot dismiss the notion that not all three types are particular to a certain society. It is not always true that the best equipped leaders became leaders. This is not necessarily the case, whether leaders are appointed through legal means, with respect to tradition or the charisma of the person. A glance of history reveals too many mad leaders, weak generals, and inefficient politicians. However, Weber’s work is still worth the time.

Leadership does not mean merely exercising power. There are no true leaders without followers. Furthermore, it is in the study of the relationship between the two that we begin to understand what leadership is really about.

_________________________________________________________________

Sources:

Weber, Max (1978). Economy and society. (G. Roth and C. Wittich). Berkeley: University of California. (Originally published in 1922).

Whitehouse, R. and Wilkins, J. (1986) The making of civilization. New York: Roxby Archaeology Ltd.

Plebeians vs. Patricians

According to Karl Marx, class struggle is one event in the history that can cause a great change in any civilization. Marx view of history that came to be known as historical materialism that looks for the causes of developments and changes in human societies giving an emphasis, through economic analysis, to everything that co-exists with the economic base of society (e.g. social classes, political structures, ideologies).


One event in history that would fit his belief would have to be the constant struggle of the Plebeians and the Patricians of ancient Rome. Plebs were the general body of Roman citizens in Ancient Rome. They were distinct from the privileged class of the patricians. A member of the plebs was known as a plebeian (Latin: plebeius). The term "patrician" originally referred to a group of elite families in ancient Rome, including both their natural and adopted members


Plebeians were the average working citizens of Rome. They were the farmers, the bakers, builders or craftsmen who worked hard to support their families and pay their taxes. For many of them, Roman life was a daily struggle. But although individual plebeians had little power, there were a lot of them. In bad times, or during political unrest, there was always the risk of the Roman ‘mob’ rioting or rebelling against the upper classes. The Emperor Augustus was well aware of this risk and was keen to keep the poorest plebeians happy enough and reasonably well fed so that they would not riot. The emperor began the system of state bribery known as ‘bread and circuses’.

The Unequal Division of the Public Land (ager publicus) is something that has kept the plebeians in a state of poverty. . This land properly belonged to all the people, and the plebeians believed might have been used to relieve the distress of the poor. But the government was in the hands of the patricians, and they disposed of this land for their own benefit. Although they allowed it to be “occupied,” there is what is known as a nominal rent, by members of their own order. As long as the land remained public, it could not be sold by the occupants; but the longer the rich patricians retained the occupation of this land, the more they would look upon it as their own property. It is a clear showing that they are ignoring the fact that the land belonged to the whole Roman people. So, the common people were deprived of their just share of the land which they had helped to conquer.


As civil rights for plebeians increased during the middle and late Roman Republic, many plebeian families had attained wealth and power while some traditionally patrician families had fallen into poverty and obscurity and these leads to several conflicts. The Roman Empire created The Agrarian Law of Spurius Cassius. To remove this injustice was the effort of the consul Spurius Cassius. This man was both a patriot and a statesman. He loved the people and so he labored to protect their interests. In order to strengthen Rome against her foreign enemies, a strong citizenry must be achieved.


The most famous act of Spurius Cassius was the proposal of the first “agrarian law,” that is, a law intended to reform the division of the public land (B.C. 486). It was not his purpose to take away any private land which legally belonged to the patricians; but to make a more just distribution of the land which properly belonged to the whole state. As a constant struggle for power, the patricians used their influence to prevent its passage when the law was proposed. After his year of office had expired, Sp. Cassius was charged with treason and with the attempt to make himself king. He was tried, condemned, scourged, and beheaded; and thus one of Rome’s greatest patriots suffered the doom of a traitor. But the people remembered Sp. Cassius, and his name was inscribed upon a tablet and placed in the Forum, where it remained for many generations.


Marx class struggle theory is really an event that can change an entire civilization. It is because civilization place strong emphasis on economic factors and emphasize conflict. It is a conflict between the “haves” and “have-nots” in the rapidly differentiating society of a civilization.

____________________________________________________________________

Sources:

“Patrician.” Retrieved 13 September 2008from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrician

“Plebeians.” Retrieved 13 September 2008 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrician

“Rome.” Retrieved 13 September, 2008 from http://www.forumromanum.org/history/morey07.

Marx, K. (2002) Das kapital (Vol. 1, 4th ed.). (Ehrbar, H.G., Trans.) (Originally published in 1890).

Whitehouse, Ruth and Wilkins John (1988) The making of civilization. NY: Alfreda A. Knopf, Inc.

Marx Class Struggle

Karl Marx [1] took his cue from the dialectical method of G. W. F. Hegel[2]. According to Hegel, history is a dialectic process[3] moving towards “the consciousness on the part of the Spirit.” The mystic process is involves going through a series of stages. The spirit develops in stages, underlying a succession of opposition from within and then the reconciliation after the struggles: that any given state of society (the thesis) produces its main opposite (the antithesis), and the conflict between the two leads to their progression (the synthesis). Marx adopted this dialectical method. Where I believe Hegel found it in the realm of ideas, Marx was able to apply it in material conditions. In Hegel’s view, history is determined by the universal spirit which shapes the worldly institutions while Marx formulated the reverse: that institutions shape ideas. Although, we can still see the connection because both believed that history is a dialectic process or is continuing. Human history is moving, according to dialectics.

It is quite good to note, however, that Marx applied Hegel’s view and gave it a material concept. The idea of the thesis, antithesis and synthesis were given a body. Thus, the thesis corresponds to the ancient, pre-capitalist period when there are no classes or exploitation. The antithesis corresponds to the era of capitalism and labor exploitation. Synthesis is the final product – communism.


The 3rd stage, I believe is where I disagree with Marx. The last stage according to him is communism. The logical implication is with the establishment of this society, history comes to an end. I believe that this is historically inaccurate and absurd to say the least. There is no such thing as a final process or the end of historical evolution. Marx is not a prophet.

However, if we are going to look closer at his writing we would come to the idea that in the course of history there is an effort to master the forces of nature. Indeed, man has been trying to control events. Man has been trying to rule the cosmos. Marx, I believe was able to introduce an entirely new idea. A new element to make people believe that history is not controlling the society along with its ideas and institutions but rather it is the other way around. It is the economic system and the institutions that is shaping history. He introduced a new element, of course by attributing to the characteristics of the economic system and its relation to the society.

This system is the main prime mover that will determine the prevailing idea of a given epoch. The movement of the spirit happens when there is a conflict between classes. The idea of change results from conflicts between social classes. Marx argues that there have been exactly three modes, distinct modes of production in the civilized west.

If I must say, Hegel got the spirit, Marx got the economic institutions that evolved in regular stages. Each stage was characterized by a different mode of production and I would say who owns the means of production. Of course, primitive people were organized in a simple and primitive form in which all means of production was collectively owned and all power was shared. The second stage according to Marx is the feudal mode of production that is found in the medieval period. This is the time when a few people owns a huge measure of land and needs many laborers. This is followed by the so-called capitalism. This is the time of the machines.

I would say that Marx idea is quite convincing in the sense that he was able to provide us with the sort of explanation that Hegel wasn’t able to do. He applied the idea into some thing that is material in nature. I believe that he was able to point it out that is not just ideas that shaped human societies but rather economic forces. We have the cities as we do because of these economic forces. He put strong emphasis on the economic factors. It is class conflict of class struggle. In Marx analysis, all ideas and culture forms reflected material motivations.

I would have to agree with Marx analysis on the idea that the chief feature of every society is that it is divided into two classes: those who owned the means of production and those who did not. The society and the means of production are indeed controlled by the most powerful class. It is the basic struggle for material power or who owns more. I should say that Marx theory includes both material and philosophical element. It is material because it deals with real social events in society, on the other hand, it is philosophical because it is an interpretation of the future. There is no such thing as a society without conflict. In any society, these conflicts are unavoidable and a society where there is no group or inter-group conflict is impossible. I believe that human progress was determined, structured and distorted by many factors. Not just by economic struggle but by a lot more.

If I would consider his idea on a more personal level, it has provided a new meaning and a new hope. . I would seriously hope that there will come a time when there will be no inequality and no exploitation. Such a time when we live in a society that is free from oppression and inequality. But surely, it is from realization because history is a continuing process and I don’t believe that the end of it is near to reality.
[1] Karl Marx (May 5, 1818 – March 14, 1883) - a 19th-century philosopher, political economist, sociologist, humanist, political theorist and revolutionary. Often called the father of communism.

[2] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (August 27, 1770 – November 14, 1831) was a German philosopher and is the author of the famous slogan “thesis, synthesis and antithesis.”

[3] Dialectic – all things unfold in a continuous evolutionary process

_________________________________________________________________

Sources:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx. Retrived 24 July 2008-07-25

“Karl Marx.” Wikipedia.org. Updated 2008. Retrieved 24 July 2008.

Karl Marx. In the Encyclopedia of World Biography. (Vol. 7, p. 230). USA: McGraw Hill

Sills, D.L (1968). Marx, Karl. In the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. (Vol. 10, p. 35). USA: Macmillan Co. & the Free Press.

Alexander the Great

According to Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel[1], there is a time when a “Great Man” will make a profound change in the history of mankind. Historical figures who aimed for changed and were successful in so doing - sweeping an entire nation, changing political systems, norms of moralities or even national principles. Alexander the Great[2] is one of those who came victorious. He became well known and is up to now a great person who historians look up to as one great general.

The Achaemenid Empire or Achaemenid Persian Empire was the first of the Persian Empires to rule over significant portions of Greater Iran. At the height of its power, the Achaemenid Empire encompassed approximately 7.5 million square kilometers and was territorially the largest empire of classical antiquity.

The empire spanned three continents, including territories of Afghanistan and Pakistan, parts of Central Asia, Asia Minor, Thrace, much of the Black Sea coastal regions, Iraq, northern Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, and all significant population centers of ancient Egypt as far west as Libya. It is noted in western history as the foe of the Greek city states in the Greco-Persian Wars, for freeing the Israelites from their Babylonian captivity, and for instituting Aramaic as the empire's official language. Because of the Empire's vast extent and long endurance, Persian influence upon the language, religion, architecture, philosophy, law and government of nations around the world was prevalent.

Darius III[3], one of its rulers gave the Persian Empire the organization that his predecessors had not been unable to create. In 331 BC the Persian King Darius III suffered his shattering defeat by Alexander the Great at the battle of Gaugamela. With an army of 35, 000 soldiers he subdued Asia Minor, Palestine and Egypt he defeated the powerful forces of Darius III. In the aftermath Darius was murdered by his kinsmen. With his death ended the Achaemenid dynasty which had reigned supreme over the Ancient world for more than two centuries.

During the eleven years of life he had left – he died at Babylon in 323 B.C. at the age of thirty three – Alexander proved conclusively that he was one of the greatest generals who ever lived. Alexander was a king of Macedonia, a poor country that needed to expand in order to survive. Setting out an army of thirty thousands and five thousand horses, he took most of Asia Minor within a year. Syria, Egypt, the whole of Eastern Mediterranea and Persia. He declared himself the “King of Asia,” plunging deep into Central Asia, past the shore of the Caspian Sea, Afghanistan, into northern India and finally down the Indus river and Babylon. On his death he was planning to capture Arabia to link both his Indian and Near Eastern provinces.

In thirteen years that he had marched twenty thousand miles, won every battle he had fought, caused the death of thousands of soldiers in battle and from disease (even his own soldiers), and created an empire that stretched from Greece to India. With authority, civilization under his rule flourished. But the fascination of Alexander’s career goes beyond the rapidity and scale of his conquests. He had created a kind of “Alexander Legend,” a myth of individual grandeur. He is the elaborated again and again in later periods. In legends in the Middle Ages, his career was romanticized.

From the death of Alexander the Great, the fragments of his kingdom produced three great kingdoms under the Hellenic culture that Alexander the Great was able to maintain during his lifetime. These are Macedon, Egypt and Syria. Ptolemy established the Kingdom of Egypt ruling from the great new city of Alexandria, where the conqueror lay entombed. Seleucus reigned over a huge territory from the Aegean sea to the Indus River. Antigonus settled for Macedonia.

What is the driving force behind Alexander’s conquest? This is where Hegel’s sphere of the Great Man comes into picture. That these figures all arise out of particular situation. As a nation develops, it outgrows its mores. It changes to a point where the laws that it once had, the institutions that it once had, no longer fulfill it’s changing patterns of behavior, aspirations and goals. (Staloff 1995).

The problem then is solved by the so-called Superman as I might call them. Vaulting ambition maybe his driving force but he was able to move the spirit and change the course of history. According to Hegel, they move the spirit forward. Hegel, then, was correct with his thesis, antithesis and synthesis and also with the story of a great man that will make a mark in history. Darius III is the thesis, Alexander the Great is the antithesis believing that he could do something about the vast war torn area of the Achaemenid empire and the synthesis being the 3 kingdoms of the Hellenistic age that featured a combination of Greek, Middle Eastern and Indian culture.
________________________________________________________________________
[1] Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831) was a German philosopher and one of the representatives of German idealism. (Wikipedia)

[2] Alexander the Great (July 20 356 BC – June 10 323 BC), also known as Alexander III of Macedon. He was one of the most successful military commanders in history, and is presumed undefeated in battle.

[3] Darius III (or Codomannus) (c. 380–330 BC) was the last king of the Achaemenid Empire of Persia from 336 BC to 330 BC. He was deposed during Alexander the Great's conquest.

_______________________________________________

Sources:
“Alexander the great.” ( 2008). Wikipedia. Retrieved July 18, 2008

Bailkey N.M., Taylor M.A., Walbank, T.W. (1962) Civilization past and present.
USA: Scott Foresman and Co.

Borton, Paula (2000). Encyclopedia of question and answer.
UK: Miles Kelly Publishing

Doren, Charles (1991). A history of knowledge. NY: Ballantine Books

Hegel's Philosophy of History

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831) is a German philosopher and is one of the representatives of German idealism. (Wikipedia). His general philosophy and how he conceived history is difficult to assess. His work, The Philosophy of History, is grand in its scale by defying his predecessors. He gave a definition of history in a different plane by using terms as historicism[1], the dialectic[2] process and the more familiar slogan ‘thesis, synthesis and antithesis’ that is quite easy to understand but became quite hard according to his very difficult style. His theory can be best explained using the four sentences that could briefly explain how he views history as process.

Hegel’s idea of historicism suggests that any human society and all human activities such as science, art, or philosophy, are defined by their history, so that their essence can be sought only through understanding that. The history of any such human endeavor, moreover, not only builds upon but also reacts against what has gone before; this is the source of Hegel's famous dialectic teaching usually summed up by the slogan "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." (Wikipedia 2008).

I would agree with him in on the argument that there are really no logical criteria for judging a culture or a society. Every culture is unique by the time being and that a culture is always developing. It is something that we can say as “developmental.” There is no mathematical law to define history according to Hegel but rather it is always progressing. The standards of action changed over time. There is really no fixed human nature that would define civilization or a culture.

According to Roy Willis (1982), Hegel believed that history is a dynamic process, or dialectic, that moves forward through a series of conflicts: any given state of society (the thesis) produces its main opposite (the antithesis), and the conflict between the two leads to their progression (the synthesis). Hegel believes that history is indeed a system of thought that as human history displays a process of dialectic whereby a ‘thesis’ comes into a conflict with an ‘antithesis’, producing a ‘synthesis’.

Here is where I see the complexity of Hegel’s thought. I would not be able to understand the things he is claiming if not for research and reading some other writings that would explain in quite an easy manner his authority. Hegel is hard to understand in the sense that he is using simple words and making it all too complicated. This will include the idea of the spirit, of the state and of freedom.

Charles Van Doren (1973)[3] defined spirit as the self-manifestation with all man has in common. According to Hegel, the development of the world spirit is also the stage of individual growth. The spirit, on the other hand, is the agent. It is a collection of people. It exists within. It can take the form of the national spirit. The spirit I would say is similar to the culture of people. It is constantly reworking itself to keep up with the changes of the society. This is what he means when he says that it is dialectical. The spirit develops in stages, underlying a succession of opposition from within and then the reconciliation after the struggles.

To Hegel, history is a process of evolution. To which the primordial or the primitive instincts gave way to the reign of clear reason – thus, the “world spirit” – as manifested in the state. This is the part that I will disagree with Hegel. He exalted the state so much that I would say that it is close to being anarchic. A sort of a nationalistic act to exalt your motherland (for Hegel it is Prussia)[4] making it a symbol of what you have in picture. It is quite a form of a virulent or infectious nationalism. To exalt the state and believe that Prussia of his day offered the best example of the world spirit because all man knows what freedom is.

If this is what he believed in, he would contradict his own theory that there is no model, in that sense no civilization and no culture that will exemplify the state as the best spiritual organism. Every culture is unique and it is the self-manifestation with all man that makes it so. No society would define an entire civilization or an entire epoch.

One thing I admire most about his work is the premise of the great man, I would say superman - World historical figures exalted by nations. These are people who changed the course of history because of an act like Alexander the Great, Martin Luther, Julius Caesar and a lot more. These figures all arise out of particular situation. During the time of a great happening in history, they emerged and changed the entirety of a nation. But if we are going to analyze events, we would be able to come up with the idea that these people are not just heroes of their time because they want a change in the society but they want change to satisfy their own need. It is in a sense a satisfaction of their own craving for something. They do great deeds always for the most selfish of reasons and in the end, they never achieve happiness.

Man then has something to do with the progress. All human thought and all reality is pervaded by contradiction, which makes possible the development of the being. Through this continuing process of opposition, Hegel then was correct. I believe that the world is still in the process of completion. This is a definite essay because every process must bring forth an opposite to make it work or for people to make notice of the change that has happened.

The premise of dialectic history satisfies me. Human knowledge is not fixed. It is timeless. It evolves through time. Man is progressing along with the intellectual, cultural and religious development of the spirit. What at any moment was seen as fixed and certain was overcome by the evolving mind, thereby opening up a new possibility and greater freedom. We all must be open to the idea that we could shatter the most established beliefs about the world.

The spirit brings forth its own order through man. All human thought is part of a greater freedom. I believe that man is not just a victim of history but the creator of it (or should I say the co-creator) along with God and nature itself.

To sum it up, Hegel’s historical judgment seemed preemptory, his view about the state is nationalistic, and his language and style is perplexing. I still believe that he is one great philosopher in terms of defining history. I would say that every era’s world view was both a valid truth that the world spirit is moving, changing over time in the larger process of unfolding history. It hasn’t ended and it is still moving.

[1] Historicism refers to philosophical theories that there is an organic succession of developments.

[2] Dialectic – all things unfold in a continuous evolutionary process
[3] Charles Lincoln Van Doren (born February 12, 1926, New York City), a noted American intellectual, writer, and editor.

[4] Prussia - a historic state originating out of the Duchy of Prussia and the Margraviate of Brandenburg and had for centuries substantial influence on German and European history.

__________________________________________________________________

Sources:

“Hegel.” (2008). Wikipedia. Retrived July 18, 2008.

Bailkey N.M., Taylor M.A., Walbank, T.W. (1962) Civilization past and present.
USA: Scott Foresman and Co.

Doren, Charles (1991). A history of knowledge. NY: Ballantine Books

Hegel, G.W.F. (2001). The philosophy of history. (J. Libre, Trans.)
Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books

Sills, David L. (Ed.) Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. In The encyclopedia of the social sciences. Vol. 6, p. 341). USA: Macmillan Co.

Staloff, D. (1995). The search for a meaningful past philosophies, theories and interpretations.
NY: The Teaching Co.