Hegel's Philosophy of History

HEGEL’S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY- A SUMMARY

1.       Introduction

History plays a crucial role in our life for we are all the products of history. Every aspect of our life is very much affected by the past. So, to have a comprehensive knowledge of our being in the present, we need to know our past. As like history, so does philosophy play an important role in our life, for we are all the products of rationality, which critically analyzes the life events of the present and the past rather than accepting them blindly. So both, philosophy and history would be incomplete without the other. Therefore, this little article presents Hegel’s philosophy of History.

2.      Hegel’s Philosophy of Spirit

In order to understand Hegel’s philosophy of history, we require an understanding of his philosophy of Spirit. For Hegel, history is ultimately is the history of the Spirit. He speaks of Spirit in a dialectical process in which subjective spirit is the thesis, objective spirit is the antithesis, and the Absolute Spirit is the synthesis. Subjective spirit refers to the inner workings of the individuals like thinking and willing.[1]  Objective spirit is the objectification or the material form of the subjective spirit/individual. It is the common spirit of a society, an institution, custom or law manifesting the character and the consciousness of the individuals of the group. The Absolute Spirit/the World Spirit is the unity of the subjective and the objective spirit. It is this Spirit that manifests in History and that governs the rise and fall of the nations.[2]

3.      Hegel’s Philosophy of History

Hegel was the first one to put history on the map of philosophy, and thus he becomes the first great philosopher of history.[3] For Hegel, history is a history of Reason or Spirit as it unfolds itself and develops in time and space, passing through different ways.[4] History of the world is not meaningless without any hope but meaningful, for there is a development of the consciousness of freedom found in history. Therefore, history is a history with a purpose destined to Self-consciousness.[5]

3.1 Hegel’s Historical Outlook

Hegel’s lectures on history manifests his historical outlooks: 1) The individuals are subordinate to the Absolute Spirit which develops in history through them. 2) A comprehensive understanding of the present requires our knowledge of the past. 3) One can’t know by knowing history alone but we need to also know how rationality develops in history. 4) The way people of the past thought and acted is radically different form the present but at the same time they are co-related through a dialectical process.[6]

3.2 Types of History

Hegel’s distinction of history is very instructive. He distinguishes three forms of History: original history, reflective history and philosophical history. 1) Original history is the history of events, the deeds of people, and the condition of the society, written by the chronicler of ‘that’ time. 2) Reflective history attempts to record the event of the past with interpretation and reflection over it. Reflective history in turn can be divided into four types: A) Universal history is the whole history of a people, a nation or the world, on the basis of the original histories.          B) Pragmatic history tries to learn from the past for the betterment of the present.      C) Critical history critically analyzes the validity of the past historical accounts. It is a ‘history of history’. D) Specialized history presents the history of any particular field like art, right, religion, philosophy, etc. 3) Philosophical history presents how the Spirit unfolds itself in time and how the World Spirit is developed through the rational growth of the individual spirits.[7]

3.3 The World Historical Individuals

By ‘world historical individuals’ Hegel means some great historical figures in history like Alexander the great, Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Cicero, Socrates, etc. who have influenced the history in a radical manner.[8]  Such historical figures, in the pursuit of their own private goals, also fulfilled the will of the World Spirit.[9] They emerge as the instruments or the executives of the world spirit, and lift the nations to a higher level of progress and perfection.[10] Though they were unconscious of the general idea they were unfolding, yet they were very practical and political. They were the heroes of the time, whose deeds and words were the best of that time.[11] They might have been immoral in certain matters but they should be hardly judged in terms of morality that belonged to the epoch out of which a nation was led.[12]

3.4 Consciousness of Freedom as the End of History

As gravity is the essence of Matter, so also freedom is the essence of Spirit.[13] Freedom, for Hegel, is not the absence of restrictions to do anything one wants or to do that which pleases one.[14] Freedom has to be realized within the limits of the moral duty, the laws of the state.[15]  And an individual becomes self-conscious only when sees himself not just an individual will but as a part of the Universal Will or the State which is the embodiment of the rational freedom.[16]  This Spirit, throughout the history, aims at the final cause, which we call as ‘Consciousness’ of its own freedom.[17] 

3.5 Developmental Stages of Freedom in History

Hegel speaks of Universal History as manifested in different stages and places. In the Oriental stage, the Eastern nations like China, India and ancient Persia, though had rich resources, believed that only One – the king or the ruler- is free. All others are not totally free; they are just subordinate to the will of that particular Emperor.  Since they lacked in the consciousness of true freedom, Hegel does not consider their histories in his World history. In other words, they are outside history.[18]  It is with Greco-Roman stage that the history begins, for the consciousness of freedom began to develop in those people. Greeks and Romans had the concept of citizenship and believed that only some are free and others are slaves.  It is Germanic Stage that consciousness of freedom attained a culmination. German people under the influence of Christianity believed that all men are free. The consciousness of freedom, which is the final cause of the Spirit, occurs here.[19]

3.6 The End of History

Though Hegel seems to have said that in the Germanic world, the progress of the idea of freedom reached its consummation. This is not indeed a climatic ending. His description of Germanic stage is Germany of his own time, for he believed his own country, in his own time, to have achieved the status of a rationally organized society. Then what could be the end of History? The true ending of history will blossom when the individuals start to govern themselves rationally organized. Such is the situation where there is a perfect harmony between individual wills and the laws of the State. There is no more restriction of freedom, for individuals always choose to do that which is rational/objective/universal.[20]

Conclusion

Though Hegel’s philosophy of Spirit is so abstract, his philosophy of history and of right is practical. Hegel sees history as a progress and explains it in a remarkable way. But we can criticize Hegel first of all for universalizing the history of only some nations as the World History ignoring all other nations, and secondly for speaking of history as One History, for we know that there are different histories of different people, different times and of different places, and each of them is so unique that we can’t exclude them. This is the major mistake Hegel makes. He also speaks of history as history of only great and extraordinary people not of simple and ordinary people. He is also indifferent to individuals that they are dissolved in his universal aspects.

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

Burns, Robert M. and Hugh Rayment – Pickard (eds.) Philosophies of History: From Enlightenment to Postmodernity. oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000.

Caputo, John D.  Philosophy and Theology. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006.

Inwood, Michael.  A Hegel Dictionary. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1992.

Singer, Peter.  Hegel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

Stumpf, Samuel Enoch. Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy. 2^nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975.

---

[1]   Samuel Enoch Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy, 2^nd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975) 333.

[2]  Michael Inwood, A Hegel Dictionary (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1992) 275.

[3]  John D. Caputo, Philosophy and Theology (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2006) 38.

[4]  Caputo, Philosophy and Theology, 39.

[5]  Peter Singer, Hegel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983) 11.

[6]  Inwood, A Hegel Dictionary, 120.

[7]  Inwood, A Hegel Dictionary, 119-120.

[8]  Robert M. Burns and Hugh Rayment – Pickard (eds.), Philosophies of History: From Enlightenment to Postmodernity (oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd., 2000) 88.

[9]   Burns, Philosophies of History: From Enlightenment to Postmodernity, 87.

[10]  Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy, 338.

[11]  Burns, Philosophies of History: From Enlightenment to Postmodernity, 87.

[12]  Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy, 338.

[13]  Burns, Philosophies of History: From Enlightenment to Postmodernity, 86.

[14]  Singer, Hegel, 27.

[15]  Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy, 335.

[16]  Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy, 336.

[17]  Burns, Philosophies of History: From Enlightenment to Postmodernity, 86.

[18]  Singer, Hegel, 11.

[19]   Stumpf, Socrates to Sartre: A History of Philosophy, 338.

[20]   Singer, Hegel, 22.

Gandhian Economics

GANDHI AND THE FUTURE OF ECONOMICS - BOOK REVIEW

Howard Richards and Joanna Swanger, Gandhi and the Future of Economics: Dialogues with some Indian Intellectuals. Ed. Fr. Ivo Coelho, SDB. Lake Oswego: World Dignity University Press, 2013.  ISBN 978-1-937570-29-3. Pp. 304.

Economics and morality are two important fields in world today. Both can affect each other: as economy grows, morality is simplified in the modern world. Seemingly every nation is judged by its economy rather than morality. Some even strongly feel that modern economy has nothing to do with morality.  But year ago Gandhi held that modern civilization would self destruct and economical progress without moral progress is useless and adharma. Gandhi was even thought to be irrational for his view. But two people, who have realized of Gandhi’s prediction coming true, are Howard Richards and Joanna Swanger. Thus this book becomes the fruit of their positive approach to Gandhian economics which emphasizes much on morality.

This work is divided into eight main chapters excluding the introduction (7), and the first one specifically on Gandhian economical thinking and other seven chapters are on seven Indian renowned intellectuals namely Jawaharlal Nehru, Jayaprakash Narayan, Tariq Ali, Vandana Shiva, Arundhati Roy, Amartya Sen, and Monmohan Singh whom the authors encountered, discussed Gandhian thought and gained comparison and contrasts (17). As the editor Ivo Coelho would say this book is not meant to be a research work but to shed more light on the known thought of Gandhi (10). The purpose of this book is to prove the realized truth of Gandhi’s prediction that the modern civilization is unsustainable and that he wisely identified reasons for its unsustainability (14).

The 1^st chapter on ‘Gandhi and the Future of Economics’ holds that Gandhi’s ideal Indian Village was not completely imaginary but practical too (21).  Despite the authors’ acknowledgement of five reasons why this book’s view can be wrong, this chapter also discusses two main aspects of Gandhian thought i.e. caste and Hind Swaraj. Firstly the authors claim that Gandhi’s Varnashram makes sense in the context of the ideal Indian Village (29), which accords equal respect regardless of caste or calling (30). The authors raise the question why Gandhi conceived caste as a positive contribution to his ideal village rather than some wise realization of western ideas (32), and try to answer by holding that it was more practical for Gandhi to reform caste (to which people were accustomed) towards the better result than starting from the scratch (39).  Secondly the main thrust of Hind Swaraj was “that the ‘modern so called civilization’ was adharma” (46) and that material progress without moral progress does not create better society (48).

The 2^nd chapter presents Nehru’s critiques to Gandhi’s economical views (60), his enormous failure in bringing an end to India’s poverty (87), their misunderstanding of each other (61), and authors’ proof that Gandhi was more scientific and rational than Nehru (84). Nehru thought Gandhi was on the side of the rich though embraced poverty publically (70). While Nehru was worried about just economical progress, Gandhi concentrated on the moral progress, and economics was just one of the items of his constructive program (69). Besides that, Nehru also held that the destruction of traditional village, co-operative system and services and function by British people brought an enormous declaim in Indian economics (56-57). The following view of Gandhi is much explained is this chapter: “Humanity does not search for low prices in a spirit of bargain. The humane in people even in purchases seeks opportunities for service, and therefore wants to know first not the price of the article of purchase but the condition of its producers, and makes purchases in a manner that serves the most needy and the most deserving.”(81).

The 3^rd chapter mainly discusses the cause and consequence of overproduction in views of Jeyaprakash Narayan for whom it was lack of purchasing power of the workers and exploitation. This view of Narayan is criticized by the authors from John Maynard Keynes, Marx and Gandhian viewpoints (93-94).  But over the years, Narayan, who started as a socialist, firmly believed in Soviet Union (97), began to agree with Gandhi towards the end of his life and echoed him (111). For Gandhi, the primary task of work is not money but spirit of service to the community (112). Narayan’s proposed socialist Gandhian grassroots communities, where there would be very little overproduction (114). His famous slogan was “Total Revolution” which meant a constructive process improving upon every aspects of life not only economy (115) and “which proposed a communitarian nonviolent transformation of civil society” (206).

The 4^th chapter compares Tariq Ali’s (who is a contemporary intellectual born in India though his native later became a part of Pakistan) views of revolutionary socialism to Gandhian thinking (128), and presents two ways achieving a classless society through a class divided-society (129,133). Ali is a firm proponent of the first way which proposes two-class-society of upper and lower class (working class) as regarded by Marx (138). Ali argues that religious Gandhi made irreligious Nehru the president of the Congress because; Gandhi could have a “control over him and thus prevent him from leading revolutionary mass action” (141). The authors also depict Gandhi’s attempt to put into practice Tolstoy’s principal of Truth and Non-violence (145), and present the failures of the various other proposed theories and therefore, propose Gandhi’s untested feasibility of change of the society through ethical action (150).

The 5^rd chapter presents Vandana Shiva’s view that solution for the problem of exercise bureaucracy is not capitalism but a decentralized, ecological and ethical economy in Gandhian lines (157). It also pictures her condemnations of certain policies (158), and her alternative proposals for food security in line with Gandhi (159). There are four main characteristics of an authentic community, one of which is that the community cares for its members (166). This chapter gives an explanation of the failure of Gandhi’s projects due to incompatibility of cotton spinning and the other schemes (169). The inability of Khadi to compete in the market with mill cloth was due to consumer’s search for low prices of mill clothes rather than looking at the condition of the producers and make purchases in a manner that helps the needy (174). According to Gandhi, all lands belong to God (‘state’ in secular sense) and we are all trustees (185). He also gives different answers to the question: How should a community respond when these trustees put ‘self’ above the ‘service’. Firstly we need to patiently wait for nonviolent conversion of thief (trustee). Secondly they will be legally compelled to do their duty by laws. And “as a last resort their property should be taken over by the state” (186).

The 6^th chapter makes some points regarding the measurement of welfare, the causes of famine and a comparison of Amertya Sen’s “concept of Public action to increase welfare with Gandhi’s nonviolent constructive program” (191). The cause of famine is not the lack of availability but lack of legal entitlement to food (190). The authors criticize the ‘regularly accepted rights of ownership and exchange’ (204), and Sen criticizes Arrow’s use of ‘preference’ as an explanatory category in economics (205). The  dynamic principal of Gandhian ideal village was the spirit of ‘service’ (219), and one way to carry out such spirit is the use of Sen’s public action to transform the global economy which prerequisites the use of markets only as tools to serve humanity, and the constructive revision of the regularly accepted right of ownership and exchange (220).   

The 7^th chapter makes it clear “what is going on when Arundhati Roy talks of economic cause”, which would help the reader to understand “some relationship between the way she thinks and the way Gandhi thinks” (227). Roy proves that Gandhi’s nonviolence was real and not a political theatre (224). Roy is convinced that Gandhi’s ‘Khadi’ and ‘Salt march’ were powerful nonviolent weapons to chase British out of India (225).  The author proves Roy’s claim that militarism is a structural feature of the U.S. social and economic order (234, 237). Law of love is much emphasized in economical progress (242). The “adharma premises of modernity are unworkable, modernity unsustainable, destined to self-destruct”. Gandhi’s radical ideas can be reconsidered (250).

The 8^th chapter ‘’Manmohan Singh’ is, as Ivo Coelho would say in the ‘Foreword’, the crowning piece of the book for it answers the questions whether the advice currently being given to developing nations by neoliberals is a good advice or not, by holding “No”. Neoliberals’ views “that full employment will obtain when there is no ‘bias against employment’ is neither theoretically valid” nor empirical evident (290).  But India is compelled to follow their advice “as by la force des choses” (29-300). The authors also answer the question whether it is desirable to change the basic structures of the modern world, by holding ‘Yes’ (291). Because the ideas of Gandhi can become a rich path for progressive social transformation in this dark age where there is no any other possibility for progressive change. If Manmohan Singh had realized in 1962, when he was doing his doctoral theses, that the result of following a path which would make India very soon dependent on foreign markets for its basic necessities and which would make India subservient to the imperatives of markets, he might have concluded that Gandhi’s path of self-reliance had been the right path to be followed (301).

Some information about the authors can also help us for better understanding of the book. “Howard Richards is philosopher of social science” and “emeritus Research Professor of Philosophy” with thirty years of teaching experience at Earlham College, USA. At present, he lives in Chile teaching in the doctoral program in management sciences at the University of Santiago and has published many books and articles with social issues (302). “Joanna Swanger is an historian and Director of Peace and Global Studies Program and Assistant Professor of Peace and Global Studies” and “has produced so many articles and essays about the borderlands”. Ivo Coelho, SDB, the editor, is the present “Rector of the Studium Theologicum Salesianum in Jerusalem”, who “earned his PhD in philosophy at the Gregorian university, Rome, for his work on “the Development of the Notion of the Universal Viewpoint in Bernard Lonergan: From Insight to Method in Theology” (1994)”. He is a professor of philosophy with ____ years of teaching experience in Divyadaan: Salesian Institute of Philosophy, and has published many works as both writer and editor.

This book is an interesting and important work and guide in the field of economy which comes out with an enriching research of Gandhian economical view to be very practical and rich resource for progressive social transformation.  All the nine chapters including ‘Introduction’ have earlier been published in the successive issues of Divyadaan: Journal of Philosophy and Education from 2009 to 2012 (304).

What does it mean to educate..

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO EDUCATE…..

-Bro. Manoj, sdb

“When planning for a year, sow corn. When planning for a decade, plant trees. And when planning for life, educate a child.”

What do we mean by education? Is it filling up the mind of a child with humpty number of information? Is it just learning languages and subjects? Is it just memorizing the data and parroting the lessons? What is the goal of education? Is it to become a professional figure in the society? Is it a means to earn money and wealth?  These are the questions to be asked and understood. Recently I made a survey on education in St. Philomena Convent High School, Nasik. The teachers’ and the students’ understanding of education is really interesting. There is a goal and there are means or ways through which we achieve the goal. They see Overall development as goal of human being, and education as a powerful weapon to achieve this great goal. Education is not restricted just to the intellectual growth alone but be extended to all physical, intellectual, moral, spiritual, social and human development of human person. Education helps one to behave humanly and responsibly, and think powerfully. It teaches one to solve problems, and to face the difficulties courageously in a right manner. Learning does not mean learning just the subjects like science, mathematic and language only but learning from everything and everybody. It is an unending process. Education also becomes a means of successful future and growth in one’s professions.  More over education is a process of learning rather than a means of earning.

In 15^th century AD there was well known educationist namely Gargantuan.  The way he was educated, and the type of educational system which he insisted on really is shocking. Gargantuan, as a boy, was compelled to study. He was to get up in early morning at 4 a.m., to read the scripture, while brushing he was to study the stars and compare them with what he had seen the previous night. While dressing, he had to recall the lessons learnt on the previous day. Then he had to study for three hours and played some games during which he had to discuss his lessons with his companion. He had breakfast at ten o’clock during which a book will be read to him and he had discuss  about what was being read and make comments on the bread or butter or wine and other articles on the table. Then for another three hours he went over his morning lesson through the hearing of the book read to him and practiced writing. He had to learn arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, etc. In the afternoon when he went to school for some physical exercises and on the way back he was observe the trees, birds, mountains, animals, plants and recall what was written about them. On the rainy days he was made to learn carpentry, sculpture and other occupations. While waiting for the supper he had to recall that day’s lesson and while supper too a book will be read to him. And finally, before going to bed, he was taken to study the sky, and then made to recapitulate everything learned in the course of day.   That is how he learnt. He in turn wrote letter to his son Pantagruel: “You should learn Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Arabic perfectly. There should not be any tree, bird, mountain, sea, country, forest or flower about which you don’t know”. While reading of such funny part of his life we realize that this gigantic way of education is not meant for the ordinary persons like you and me. His education was entirely based on gathering information rather than teaching the students to live joyfully, peacefully, lovingly and socially. Is it what we mean by education?

On the other hand, Michel De Montaigne (1533-1592) is another great personality of the next century who became disgusted with this type of education and found no meaning in it. Therefore, he came up with another educational theory completely contradicting to that. He lacked scientific interest and was critical to the old method of learning. For him human joy, love and peace are more important than knowledge. Therefore education is not about knowledge which just collects information and does not solve human problems but all about wisdom which will lead us to love the humanity. Language is useless if it does not have concern for humanity. Knowledge is not acquired but a natural possession and a habit. We should teach children not just through words but by our very example and deeds for, action speaks louder than words. Education should aim at not just knowledge but wisdom, the over all development of the human person. He also said: 1. there is no just one method of teaching. According to each student’s capacity we should use different methods. 2. Teachers should never handle punishments, for punishments will ruin the interest of the children in studying. 3. The best method to teach the boy is not teaching him what has been already told but to help him to think independently and creatively. 4. The proper beginning of education should be made through intercourse with one’s fellowmen. Therefore, the students must be exposed to other cultures, languages and countries too so that they don’t become narrow minded. It also frees him from being self centered.

           

Montaigne’s view on education reminds me of another great personality for whom education was to aim at wisdom and love and not just pure knowledge, who wrote to the teacher of his son saying, “Educate my child such that he gladly accepts victory and defeat equally in life. He should understand that a dollar earned by hard work is more than five pounds. Tell him to be ashamed of the tears that fall on beings unsuccessful. Also tell him to have a strong faith in himself even if the whole world is against him. He should not become just another man in the crowd. If possible teach him how to laugh at the time of misery and rise above the feelings of happiness and sorrow. Give him courage to be patient and teach him patient for bravery. Teach him the lesson of taking pride in his own deeds; then only he will be able to believe in the greatness of humility.” These are the words of Abraham Lincoln.  And that is what a true education is all about.  

Literacy in India 2013

LITERACY IN INDIA 2013

Education is an instrument that enriches our thinking and empowers our living. No illiterate country is prosperous. No fully literate country is poor. Parts of India where literacy rate is higher, e.g., Kerala, have much better health indices than other states.

Literacy in India at the end of British rule was 12% and it became 74% in 2013. But this is still below the world average of 84%. The literacy rate in India is lower than its own three of the neighboring countries like China with 93% of literacy rate, Sri Lanka with 91% with literacy rate and Myanmar with 90% with literacy rate.

The reasons for the poor performance are poor infrastructure, lack of toilets, lack of drinking water, lack of sufficient number of teachers, the absence of teachers, poverty, caste discrimination and lack of other important facilities.

It is surprising that education increases our life span too. For instance, Kerala, with 95% literacy, has a life span of approximately 75 years, while Bihar, with 64% literacy, has life span of approximately 65 years. Education has got influence on infant mortality too. While in Kerala 10 infants die out of 1000 births, in Bihar 61 infants die out of 1000 births.

The top most State in literacy is Kerala with 95.5% literacy. The two outstanding states in India after Kerala which have come up well in the field of education are Tripura with 95.65% literacy and Mizoram with 93.4% literacy. The two most literate districts in India are Serchhip and Aizawl districts. Both are in Mizoram.

A government initiative that has helped millions of school children in the mid-day meal scheme, first launched in Tamil Nadu by the former chief minister Kamarajar. Right now, India has the largest meal scheme for school children in the world by reaching out to 120 million students.

For further detail, see: http://www.indiaonlinepages.com/population/literacy-rate-in-india.html