The Validity of Philosophical and Teleological Histories - Thought Piece

The Validity of Philosophical and Teleological Histories - Thought Piece

“History in general is therefore the development of Spirit in Time, as Nature is the development of the Idea in Space” (72).

“Spirit—consuming the envelope of its existence—does not merely pass into another envelope, nor rise rejuvenescent from the ashes of its previous form; it comes forth exalted, glorified, a purer spirit. It certainly makes war upon itself—consumes its own existence; but in this very destruction it works up that existence into a new form, and each successive phase becomes in its turn a material, working on which it exalts itself to a new grade” (73).

“We have already discussed the final aim of this progression. The principles of the successive phases of Spirit that animate the Nations in a necessitated gradation, are themselves only steps in the development of the one universal Spirit, which through them elevates and completes itself to a self-comprehending totality” (78).

In the Philosophy of History, Hegel addresses the theme of history and its interpretation. Hegel’s ideas regarding history contrast those of Tolstoy’s but before I contrast the two, we need to examine the questions that Hegel’s writings elicit, namely the validity of philosophical and teleological histories.

Hegel’s thoughts ultimately raise the question regarding the definition of history. Often, the term history is understood so loosely that we fail to grasp how history is created. For many, history is the recounting of past events related to you by an authoritative textbook. Obviously, though, history has to be compiled and gathered. In his text, Hegel makes the distinction between the three types of history: original, reflective, and philosophic. Original history is written by actual observers who “simply transferred what was passing in the world around them” (1). Reflective history is authored by historians who are writing about the past. Finally, Hegel believes philosophical history is the highest. Hegel believes that a rational, philosophic mode can be used for historical interpretation to find that history is grounded in a Universal History with a spirit of Freedom. This Universal History is inherently rational, and by the use of reason, one can see that human societies, which are the expression of human reason, are moving towards states that more perfectly embody Freedom and the ideal of Universal History (16-17). As referenced in the three quotations on which I have based my thought piece, Hegel believes that history progresses along a timeline and that through antitheses, the ideal Universal History unfolds in our space and time towards perfection (77-78).

Hegel’s assertion, however, raises the following question: is his philosophic history valid and is it unnecessarily teleological? In the modern world, we recognize both scientific and rhetorical histories. Scientific histories work from empirical investigation of evidence and primary texts in an attempt to create an objective account of history. Pure objectivity is impossible, but the scientific method strives to be as close to objectivity as possible. Rhetorical history is an interpretive account. It is written for an audience with that culture’s views, beliefs, and sentiments in mind. Essentially it is a Nietzschean view of history. I have no doubt that Hegel pored carefully over his historical studies, but his assertion that societies and history itself is teleological and that states become more perfect seems untenable. Doesn’t a good historian avoid feeding interpretive, preconceived notions into the text? This significantly contrasts with Tolstoy’s view of history. Tolstoy viewed history as cold, aloof, and remote. History is the aggregate of all human actions, and it barrels along out of our own control. Those who attempt to control it, like Napoleon and other heroes, become enslaved and ultimately are deluded. History is unintelligible. For Hegel, however, history is completely knowable because it is inherently rational and follows rational, teleological principles. In fact, Hegel believes that great men affect historical events because they are in tune with the Universal Spirit, and this history has a teleological purpose. Instead of writing a philosophical history, has Hegel written a mythology instead?

498 Words Excluding Internal Citations