Our Histories, Ourselves [2]
Nov 20th, 2007 by Micah Tillman | 11 Comments |
This is the modernist view of history:
Thinkers in the modern era saw history as a continual progress. Think of Darwinists (ever higher and more complex forms of life!) and Hegel (ever higher and more rational forms of mind!) and Politicians (ever more expansive, rational, and peaceful forms of society!).
Christians in the Modern Era had this view of history:
An initial Fall in the Garden of Eden gave way to continual downslide which will end in the Tribulation, followed by the sudden introduction of the the New Heavens and Earth (eternal heaven!).
These are, of course, not the only ways to see history. Nietzsche, as well as certain cultures, saw history this way:
While some saw it this way:
And still others (for instance, some environmentalists) saw it this way:
. . . where everything was going fine till humanity came along.
But there is another way that Christians have seen history. It’s more like this:
An initial Fall followed by “Redemption History,” which restores humanity and the world to the point where it all began, to the way God intended it to be.
The Apocalyptic Christian view of history is like this, except there’s no sense of God being even now redeeming the world. Jesus came, and made that redemption possible for humans, but it’s not going to ever happen for the universe. The universe will simply be replaced.
In both Christian views, however, there is the sense that to understand the world/how things should be/were intended to be, one has to “get back to the beginning.” The Apocalyptic view means this epistemically (you look to the beginning for the sake of understanding how much better things should be than they are). The Redemption view means this almost literally (you look to the beginning not only to understand, but to see what God is in the process of achieving).
And that is the same as the way modern Social Contract Theorists (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) use history. Look back to the beginning to understand the nature of society/politics (Hobbes, Locke). Look back to the beginning to see how humans should be (Rousseau).
And that is the same as (many) environmentalists see it. Look back to before humans were around to understand how things are/should be. Some even want us to actually get back to how things were before humans were around (e.g., the “no-impact” movement, the “voluntary human extinction” movement).
Even the “get back to the Constitution” and “originalist” movements in American law theory (both of which I support) reflect this “back to the beginning” view, I think. What precedes is to be preferred. The precedence of precedence.
It seems to me, therefore, that the Modern Era actually had two theories of history: the Continual Progress View, and the Back to the Beginning View.
Boo.
I could have gone the rest of my life without knowing about the voluntary human extinction movement people Micah. Thanks for nothing.
*grin* Sorry.
It does seem to be the logical consequence of the idea that humans are the only unnatural species.
It is the logical consequence. It’s a very good thing they exist since they point out the central absurdity of extreme environmentalism. By the way, has anyone considered environmentalism as secular Christianity? Pollution is Original Sin. We must expiate our sin with sacrifices and self-flagellation. Etc., etc.
By the way, I agree with the first arrow. But I would make it more jagged. There are lots of periods of backslides and recoveries present in the historical record. Moreover, I don’t think the modernists ever believed that the arrow just continues going up for forever, though that’s a possibility.
Environmentalism as a religion has been dealt with by Michael Crichton specifically. From what I’ve heard of what he has to say, he’s right. And I’ve heard many people use the metaphor of selling carbon offsets/credits as the selling of indulgences.
I shall label your view of history the “stock-market view.” I like it. Lots of ups and downs but generally trending up.
And you’re right about the modernists not necessarily seeing history as going up forever. Many (for instance Hegel) thought/think history levels off (essentially: comes to an end, since development stops) eventually, when things have reached their highest point.
Once pure mind is reached, once universal peace and rationality are achieved, we have hit eternal paradise, in which there is nowhere further to go. It’s an attractive view in many ways.
Crichton: Environmentalism as Religion.
Never read it, but heard it summarized.
I suppose I could just be thankful that these people are voluntarily removing themselves from the gene pool.
I feel as though they should receive some sort of special Darwin award for their efforts.
Thanks for the link on Crichton. Now that I’ve read it, I think he is where I originally picked up the “meme” (to use a Dawkinsian expression), because a lot of the language sounds familiar to me, so I’m pretty sure I’ve read it before.
By the way, Scott, you should definitely check out http://www.vhemt.org. My favorite bit was an “intelligence test” where they ask “In light of the 40,000 children dying of malnutrition each day, and considering the number of species going extinct as a result of our excessive reproduction, do you think it would be a good idea to create another of yourself?” If you answer yes, you get “We’re sorry, your intelligence is not high enough to perform basic logic. Thank you for trying. Please consider the many options to creating ‘one of your own.’” If you answer no, you get “Congratulations! You’re smart enough to pass on your genes. Thanks for not doing so.”
Note the presence of my current hobbyhorse, the unthinking equation of intellect with moral worth. (Even though, paradoxically, they believe the most intelligent species, humans, is the least valuable.) Also note the breathtaking ignorance and lack of ability to perform simple logic which is present throughout the site and the even more breathtaking arrogance about their own (fairly unimpressive) intellects. These folks give Nietzsche a run for his money for most undeserved egomania.
By the by, whether the Left is more correct than the Right in this country or vice versa, I have no idea. (I’ve argued before on this site that I think both views come about through epistemic irrationality.) I do think that the Right is likely to have at least a temporary victory in a generation or two, though, through outbreeding their opposition.
Oh, trust me, I’ve already been there. I didn’t get as deep into the site as you did, but I read plenty.
Had I merely seen Micah’s mention of them and been able to resist the urge to Google them, things would have been much better.
It’s still Micah’s fault though. He shattered my blissful ignorance.
Oooh, hubsand made pretty pictures.
What about the Hegelian dialectical view of history? I want to see the jagged line of progress! *looks fussy* Dialectical!!!!! Materialism!!!
(if you put the drawing of apocalyptic Chty next to the one of redemption history, they kind of make that floral petal design you were remarking on yesterday.)
Hmmm . . . . So you don’t think the first picture is good enough for Hegel’s view?
Hmmm . . . . Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis. It’s at the Synthesis stage that the next level is attained, so perhaps a better version of the Hegelian upward line would look like stairs?
Show me what you mean about the floral design when you get home. My brain can’t see it yet. :-)