The Impact of the Enlightenment

The Impact of the Enlightenment READINGS:
M.J. Condorcet, "Progress of the Human Mind" (Article)
Max Weber, excerpts from The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (Article)
Eric Hobsbawm, "Karl Marx's Contribution to Historiography" (Article)
Appleby, Hunt, Jacob, Telling the Truth About History, (Chapters 1, 2, 5)

A continuous thread thus far is embodied in Hobsbawm's observation that "we choose the history we see" (272).

In our class discussion, we focused on the idea that we are "standing on the shoulders of giants," meaning we base our understanding on the understanding of major thinkers that have come before us.  If that foundation is faulty, then all of our subsequent assumptions are invalid.  In fact, I would argue that there is no such thing as complete, strong, and absolutely "true" foundation on which to build.  Rather, as we saw in Carr, history is highly subjective.  It is based on the interpretation of historians from the vantage point of their cultural context, including location, era, and current events.  Thus, progress is only made in a sense that we consistently build on past knowledge through a series of "experiments" that push us to maintain or alter prior understanding of history.  This is a very scientifically-based assertion, as it implies that we continuously build on information we have gained in the method of the scientific process.  We must make repeated "edits" to information in our search for truth and our acquisition of new knowledge.  That said, Appleby, Hunt, and Jacob outline history and the development of society within the context of science.

Marquis de Condorcet

In the same vain of development, 18th century philosopher, mathematician, and political scientist, Condorcet, wrote on the indefinite perfectibility of man.  This indefinite move toward an absolute morality flows with the constant stream of progress.  Condorcet's predictions of the progress of the human mind as outlined in his 10 stages of development are quite accurate in a contemporary context.  In fact, his thinking was decades before its time. 
Still, I think that humankind has yet to realize that progress is most definable as a "universal progress of the human mind."  Condorcet mentions that our society's developmental endeavors have overlooked the necessary aspect of the soul.  The societal issue is a insufficient effort to fulfill happiness for people in the overshadowing context of consumerism and inequality of wealth.  Weber's writings define this phenomenon at its core of capitalism as beginning as a practical idealism of the aspiring bourgeoisie that ends in "an orgy of materialism" (3).

It seems difficult to fully assuage the discrepancies between our perception of progress in the context of capitalism and cultural development and the progress of the human mind/ability to think and fully understand.

Cohen Lecture

Stephen Cohen at Fairfield University
February 5, 2015

Stepen Cohen, an historian and analyst of Russian and Soviet politics/history, as well as a professor emeritus of NYU and Princeton came to Fairfield University to present a lecture on "The Unkrainian Crisis: Why a New Cold War?"

Cohen identifies the crisis as a cold war worse than the infamous Cold War that followed WWII for five reasons:

1. The epicenter of the crisis is Ukraine, which is right on the border of Russia, and therefore right in the center of an area saturated with intermarriage, culture, and religion.  As a result, there is a high potential for friction, misunderstanding, mishap, and provocation.

2. It's unfolding in a "fog of war" -- there is a spread of misinformation
Who's telling the truth and who's lying?  It's hard to tell.  This is a common motif of all of history.  In terms of this particular historical occurrence Cohen said, "It comes down to the fact that the facts are all bad and dangerous and getting worse." (16:00)

<<<Technology, including social media sites like twitter, as well as email, and other forms of online communication are indeed advantageous when information needs to travel quickly and efficiently.  However, the progress due to these technological tools seems to also be hindered by its immensely public nature.  With great ease, one can post skewed stories, fill "facts" with bias, spread propaganda, and ultimately, mislead the public.>>>

3. The conflicting powerhouses in the crisis lack attention to the mutual rules and practices of constraint that were developed over the decades since the last cold war.  Agreements between Moscow and Washington, such as the Red Phone hotline, the "check before acting" promise, as well as the "we won't do this if you don't do that" mentality, have gone with the wind.

<<<Progress or regression?  This seems like regression.  Are we children fighting or intellectual, culturally and morally developed human beings, capable of policy formation, negotiation, and constructive behavior?>>>

4. "Thug!" "Bandit!" "Murderer!"  Cohen argues that while Putin may not be a good leader, our attempts to restore relations and negotiate with Russia are blocked by "the demonization of Vladimir Putin, president of Russia."

<<<Cohen makes a point that rather than focusing on the unfolding of the event and searching for truth behind information labeled as "fact," the American media and government is "personally vilifying a Soviet Communist Russian leader."  Is our goal to provoke?>>>

5.  There is no effective American opposition to it.  Cohen scoffed; only a handful of people are opposed and/or critical of America's contribution in regard to Russia.

Cohen calls it a "failure of our democracy" (21:15)

<<<I realize that Cohen's thinking is completely submerged in Russian thought.  He even said so himself: "90% of my time is spent thinking about Russia."  Thus, his perception leans far toward Russia.  His insight is still valuable in that he pushes for Americans to have these challenging discussions so that we can act in a way that will potentially warrant better results.>>>

 

Ancient and Medieval Heritage

 Ancient and Medieval Heritage READINGS:
Thucydides, On Justice, Power, and Human Nature (Entire)
Ibn Khaldun, selections from The Muqqaddimah (Article)
Tung Chung-Shu, "Historical Cycles" (Article)
Abraham Heschel, selections from The Prophets (Article)


Classist and early historian, Thucydides, wrote a history of the Peloponnesian Wars.  While it is important to understand the context in which he was writing (wars), the focus is more his insight into what the Athenian empire did wrong as the first democracy, and in turn, its implications for human progress.  One of my classmates offered a quote from the book: "The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools."  Thus, it seems that in order to understand progress, we must make an effort to fully comprehend not only the context of events and historians but also over-arching themes such as justice, democracy, physical conflict, and intellectual conflict.

This dynamic approach aligns with Tung Chung-Shu's recount of Confucianism and the dynamic universe in which we act.  He describes the universe as a well-coordinated system, an organic whole in which everything is interrelated.  In concordance with beliefs of Confucianism, Chung-Shu explains that there are historical cycles.  Therefore, progress is cyclical.  At first, I was confused as to whether or not I agree with this statement.  History does seem to repeat, yet there is a novelty to each "repetition"...perhaps then, it is more of a spiraling cycling that extends outward, rather than spinning on itself.  On that note, it is humankind's responsibility to decide which way to go.  The distinguishing factor of a human being is that she can think about her thinking and consequently, "brilliantly show his patterns and color" (281).  Human beings are agents in the world.  Heschel puts pressure on human beings as the cause for everything: "[f]ew are guilty, but all our responsible."  Maybe, then, it is our job to recognize that for which are responsible (i.e. history in its entirety) and make more trained decisions in our path of development.

Tung Chung-Shu speaks to the human being's ability to think and Ibn Khaldun expands that by adding how/what spurs the human being's thinking and processing: intellectual understanding (discerning intellect), thinking with ideas and behavior need to deal with other human beings (experimental intellect), and hypothetical knowledge (speculative intellect).  These three types of intellect further imply human beings' responsibility to perceive the world with attention to detail and context but also to consider the way in which he/she thinks and its effect on any conclusions drawn.

What is History and Progress?

History and Progress READINGS:
 E.H. Carr, What is History, (Entire)
Appleby, Telling the Truth About History, Introduction

Key questions/points:

"How do we make connections with the past if we are skeptical of the truth in our knowledge of the past?" (Appleby 10)

If it will "always [involve] power and exclusion, how will we define 'our' history?"  Who fits into "our"? (Appleby 11)

History takes into account:

-perspective
-historian's choice of facts, interpretation of those facts
-present context

-commonsense view: there is a set of "basic facts"
V.S.
-Carr: accuracy of facts has nothing to do with the significance/quality/decision of historian to include the facts

So, how might we define history?  Author E.H. Carr says, "My first answer therefore to the question 'what is history' is that it is a continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts, an uneding dialogue between the present and the past" (30).  It is important to realize that the historian exists as a part of history.  He or she is not separate, but rather, he or she engages with the past through the filter of the present context (44).

History is not stagnant. It's fluid quality depends not only on the historian who analyzes it but also the immense impact of present-day society.  Progress, then has no specific beginning, nor end (Carr 114).  Our understanding of the present as it continuously shapes and molds us, shifts our topic, focus, and direction of discourse with the past.  Thus, our conception of the world, and the past, fluctuates, and in turn, our idea of "progress" is only valuable at each unique time and place that we define it.  For in the next moment, the next place, we will see with different eyes.  It is paramount that the historian work to transcend the limits of his narrow perspective and interpretation saturated with accepted beliefs of culture and present-day society in order to find the most objective explanation possible (Carr 117-118).  Carr describes progress as unlimited.  Breaks and deviation occur (Carr 116).  These breaks are all a part of history, and that is what we aim to uncover.

"The past is intelligible to us only in the light of the present; and we can fully understand the present only in the light of the past.  To enable man to understand the society of the past, and to increase his mastery over the society of the present, is the dual function of history" (Carr 55). 

Initial Thoughts

I chose a tree to fill with these words that I associate with progress, because a tree is a living organism.  It grows, parts of it die, it changes from season to season.  It is part of the cycle of nature.  Likewise, progress, and the history and future of progress, is a living, breathing entity. Therefore, the constant flux makes it difficult to define.  Has the human race really made progress? To what extent? In what areas? Have we fallen behind or taken backwards steps at all?

Let's make some progressive movements to attempt to break down this quandary.