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.