Rise of Progressive Historical Views

Introduction

The theological views of history were observed to fade away gradually during the renaissance age and during the age of enlightenment during the eighteenth century, new historical views came about. In line with the new view of history, history was not driven by the providence of God but by human beings. According to this new view, the progress of history was in a straight line and necessarily in line with the progress of the human spirit. The historical view is referred to as the progressive view of history or the spiritual view. Those seeking deeper understanding of these shifts may find history dissertation help beneficial in exploring the nuances of these transformative periods.

Conceptions of Providence

Hegel had a unique rather than general optimism of the interrelationship between modern philosophy and Christianity, and more specifically of the power of philosophical conceptualisation in bringing out Christian dogmas true meaning (S.W, 1894). The Philosophy of History by Hegel was a conceptual/rational elaboration of the concept of Christians of divine providence. Hegel stated that in his initial lectures during the lectures on the Philosophy of History, where he began by criticising theologians. He cited the scriptural injunction that human beings should always know God, love and serve him and went ahead and also observed that philosophy had been obliged in recent times to defend the religion domain from the numerous attacks of different theological systems. Hegel posited that God had revealed himself in the Christian religion and had given human beings the power of having a proper understanding of who He was such that He would no longer be concealed or His existence be secret. Hegel then proceeded to apply the general optimism on the powers of human knowledge to the Divine Providence doctrine of the Christians. His idea of God was very idiosyncratic and he referred to it as Geist which meant ‘mind’ or ’spirit.’ According to him, a philosophical understanding of world history`s progression would put a man in a better position to understand God and to further comprehend the purpose of Geist and its nature.

The bulk of the Philosophical History lecture by Hegel is concerned with elaborating three different aspects of rational spirits history guidance. The first aspect is concerned with the Spirit`s abstract characteristics: rational freedom is the Spirit`s central principle, which the Spirit gets to realise in the world through the human history mechanism. The human aspect is then considered second. This is concerned with the means used by the spirit for purposes of actualising itself in the world the passions and interests of human beings are particular and subjective and do not in any way to conform any laws that are universal. The unfolding of history happens as the human passion subjective realm is joined to principles that are universal and as such allowing the Spirit, in its subjective aspect, to become conscious of itself. The subjective aspect facilitates the Spirit to unfold a concrete world. The third section is focused on the union of the objective universal and subjective particular. It is in the form of the state that the union occurs. As such, the state is the material in which universal Spirit realises itself in forms that are particular.

Karl Marx, just like Hegel, adopted a view of history that was directional. However, while Hegel exhibited history as being a representation of an inner spiritual principle`s unfolding, Marx was observed to look elsewhere for the determinants of the character and course of history. Marx viewed human beings as creative who were situated in a largely material world that stood before them as a reality that was objective and which provided their activities field (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2017). This is one primitive truth which the mystifying abstractions of Hegel obscured and which afforded an even better key to the understanding of history as a process of that was governed finally by the methods that were ever changing whereby human beings sought to derive the means of their subsistence from the natural environment and the satisfaction of their ever evolving needs and wants.

Voltaire (1594-1778) held a completely different view that excluded the power of God in working on history. According to him, it was the wits of people who had higher education and who had mastered science who drove history and not God (Campi, 2018). Voltaire`s view of history that was shared by the revolutionaries and philosophies of enlightenment of the eighteenth century, was not so much of a philosophical reflection on history but an emerging cultural and political worldview. According to Voltaire, the philosophy of history began when problems were brought about by the view. Vast amounts of new literature were produced by the late enlightenment period on travel and history which led to the beginnings of history being considered to be an assertion that was justifiable and that had methods that were critical. The term philosophical history originated with Voltaire in the 1760s.

The forays of Kant into the philosophy of history brought about questions that were critical about what was never doubted by the enlightenment philosophers. As much as Kant wanted to share in the enlightenment point of view, he also wanted to endorse the natural theology claims. However, he was forced to limit the pretensions of natural theology by his critical reason. It is worth noting that Kant did not take granted the idea of divine providence.

Conclusion

Focusing on the philosophical history, Hegel defended the idea that history was ruled by reason. He argued that reason was infinitely free as a result of its self-sufficiency and depended on nothing outside of its conclusions and laws. He also held the view that reason is powerful, because, by its very nature, it aims at actualising its own laws in the world. He argued that in senses that were real, that the substance of world history was nothing but Reason because all history was guided and brought about by processes that were rational. He further pointed out that this view was different from the idea that those plans of God that guided history were unknowable. Hegel believed that that was close to the truth but that through philosophy, God`s plans were knowable.

The withering of democracy

Introduction

Karl Marx held the view that all states are dictatorships. What that implied is that all states are imposed by extra-legal and extra-moral force. The correct explanations for the nature and existence of states are that they are brought about by force and also maintained by force. One of the ideals of democracy is respect for the equality of all persons. Karl Marx held the belief that the State would disappear with the establishment of socialism. Democratic socialists hold the belief that societies and economies are to be run democratically so that they can meet the needs of all members of the public and not just to make profits for only a few people. To achieve societies that are more just numerous structures o economies and governments would require to be transformed radically through greater social and economic democracy so that all ordinary citizens are able to make in the making of decisions that affect their lives.

State`s which exist where societies are divided into owning classes and other classes that are property-less and which are coercive institutions through which the classes that are dominant impose their will on their subjects are bound to lose such functions in the event the societies ceased being divided into classes.

Withering of the State

Because State`s re instrumental for class control, the history of class conflicts have always been political- the struggle for controlling government apparatus. For centuries, the bourgeoisie laboured to turn the State from the landed feudal nobility`s service, the modern liberal state is the result. The founders of Marxism insisted there would be no more State in socialist societies; the societies would banish entire state machinery to places which would then be the most proper for them- to the antiquities museums. The class conflicts would no longer occasion interventions of police forces, and the isolated individual crimes would also disappear, when the wretchedness and want that drove people into crimes like murder and stealing are replaced by the literally unbounded wealth that is offered to all by socialism (Marx and Engels, 1848). Marx and Engels viewed the state as an organ of class domination, of one class oppressing another. with the state being an instrument of class control, the class conflicts history had been a political one – the struggle to control the apparatus of the government.

The idea of the withering of the state was first introduced by Engel who attributed the underlying concept to Karl Marx. In line with this concept of the withering away of societies, eventually, communist societies would no longer require to be coerced to induce individuals to behave in ways that would be beneficial to entire societies. Engle wrote in the Socialism – Utopian and Scientific pamphlet that the proletariats seize political power and convert the different production means into state property. In doing so, the proletariat would abolish itself from being a proletariat and abolish all class antagonisms and class distinctions and further abolish the state as a state. The state was the society`s official representative as a whole, it`s gathering into an embodiment that was visible. What follows is that the interference of the state in social relations becomes superfluous in one domain after another and ends up dying by itself: administration of things replace the government of persons and through the conduct of production processes. That provides the measure of the value of the phrase of free states both justifiable to use at times by agitators and as to its ultimate insufficiency ultimately and also of the anarchists demand the abolition of the state.

With no doubt, Lenin`s State and Revolution contains a sound exposition of the Marxist theory of the state. Lenin made an emphasis that the key idea that Engels enunciated of the withering of the state from the view of the abolition of the state which is quite anarchist. Engels had at the outset said that the seizure of state power by the proletariat abolished the state as a state (The State and Revolution: The Marxist Theory of the State & the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution V.I. Lenin, 1918). There exists a difference however between abolishment and withering in that the bourgeois state would be abolished by the proletarian revolution and after the proletarian’s capture of power, they would use the bourgeois state for purposes of furthering their personal interests. That would imply that there would be certain remnants of the bourgeois state that would find their way in the states that would have been seized.

Lenin, however, states that the proletarian revolution is never the final stage because, after it, social revolution comes by. According to Lenin, the bourgeois state`s remnants would only disappear after the social revolution. Engels held the view that the state was a special repressive force, an instrument of exploitation. With the overthrowing of the bourgeoisie from power, proletarians would completely abolish the bourgeois state`s exploiting character. With abolishment, the proletarians would destroy the weapons that are repressive through the capture of power and take all the means of production. According to Lenin, the withering away of the state would be directed against the opportunists and anarchists. The anarchists always advanced the destruction of the state something which Engels and Marx never supported. One important point that Lenin advances is that while a violent revolution has the potential of destroying the character of bourgeoisie state which is quite repressive, all the counterrevolutionary agents and forces that act against the interests of the proletarians could not be simply destroyed by simple revolutions.

Looking for further insights on Cultural Relativism vs. Universal Human Rights? Click here.

Conclusion

The State disappearance precondition is as such, an abundance that the world has experienced even up to date. And that is attributed to the real anarchy of production under a global socialist regime that comes about from the economic calculation impossibility. Every year, rising misery and want are observed. The most colossal states in history would be necessary to suppress the masses who are starving, constantly on the point of revolt or crime. There would be no one left caring that the State is no longer a tool of the capitalist class.

References

Campi, R., 2018. On a recent Italian edition of Voltaire's Essai sur les moeurs et l'esprit des nations. Araucaria, 20(40).

Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848). Manifesto of the Communist Party.

The State and Revolution: The Marxist Theory of the State & the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution V.I. Lenin. (1918). 25th ed.