Alice C. Linsley
Joan Violet Robinson said, "Time is a device to prevent everything from happening at once." To this, someone has cleverly added, "Space is a device to prevent everything from happening in Cambridge."
The British historian
Arnold J. Toynbee (1889 – 1975) said, “History is just one damn thing after another.” He wrote a 12 volume analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations.
Karl Marx (1818–1883)wrote, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggle.” He also said, "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) wrote, "…the dialectical principle constitutes the life and soul of scientific progress.”
Herbert Spencer wrote, “…the genesis of the great man depends on the long series of complex influences which has produced the race in which he appears and the social state into which that race has slowly grown… Before he can remake his society, his society must make him.” He also said, "The wise man must remember that while he is a descendant of the past, he is a parent of the future." He coined the phrase "survival of the fittest."
We began our study of Metaphysics with the question of
eternity. You were asked to explain the difference between eternity and time and
recognized that the property of eternity is timelessness. Eternity pertains
to that which is outside of time and space. It is not bounded, and as such has been considered an attribute of the Unmoved Mover, or the First Cause, or the Uncreated Creator.
Aristotle's Unmoved Mover is a primary cause of all the motion in the universe. The entity moves other things, but is not itself moved by any prior action. In Book 12 of his
Metaphysics, Aristotle describes the Unmoved Mover as perfectly beautiful, indivisible, and contemplating only the perfect contemplation: itself contemplating. He equates this concept with the
Active Intellect.
Many ancients believed that there was an original substance at the beginning of time. They recognized that time, space, matter and motion are interconnected. There were a range of views, sometimes conflicting, on the questions of elements and their interactions, primal substances from which life emerges, and causes. The ancient Afro-Asiatics regarded blood and water as the substance of life and these became importance symbols in their philosophical theology.
Afro-Asiatic metaphysics is reflected in the book of
Genesis and throughout the whole Bible. In this view God created everything from
nothing (creatio ex nihilo). At the beginning of time chaotic waters
covered everything until God’s Word (logos in Greek) moved like a breath
or spirit (ruach in Hebrew) over the vast deep and established a
fundamental binary order in the world. There is no sense in the Biblical
accounts of creation of this earth or cosmos being the product of a previous
world that exploded. In other words, unlike the early Greek-speaking
metaphysicists, the Afro-Asiatics do not appear to have regarded the creation of
the world as the product of a cycle of events, but as the direct and special
creation of God. This is not to say that they took a linear approach to time, as
we shall see.
In his book The Myth of the Eternal Return, the
Romanian anthropologist Mircea Eliade writes that the myth of cyclical time was
“discernibly present in the earliest pre-Socratic speculations. Anaximander
knows that all things are born and return to the apeiron. Empodocles
conceives of the alternative supremacy of the two opposing principles
philia [love] and neikos [strife] as explaining the eternal
creations and destructions of the cosmos…The eternal conflagration is, as we
have seen, also accepted by Heraclitus. As to the eternal return – the periodic
resumption, by all beings, of their former lives – this is one of the few dogmas
of which we know with some certainty that they formed a part of the primitive
Pythagoreanism.”
In the mid-20th century the question of infinity was taken up but pioneers in the Logic. Most who contributed to this conversation were mathematicians. The English mathematician,
John Wallis, was the first to use the notation
for such a number. The German
Georg Cantor formalized ideas related to infinity and
infinite sets. In his theory, there are infinite sets of different sizes called
cardinalities. For example, the set of integers is
countably infinite, while the infinite set of real numbers is
uncountable. Students often equate eternity and infinity, but these are different concepts. They have in common the idea of extension, with infinity referring to space and numbers, while eternity is unbounded and timeless.
In this second part of our study of Metaphysics we take up the subject of time and consider various theories of history. Philosophy concerns itself with the nature of time and history. It
asks these questions:
- Where should philosophers look to understand the nature of
time? What is history? Is a linear account of events the only way to speak of
events in time?
- In thinking about time and history should we look at the
lives of individuals or the whole human species? Should we consider nations or
ethnicities?
- Can we discern patterns or cycles of progress and decline,
or is there no overall change in the condition and circumstances of
humanity?
- If history is progressing toward some end, what is the
driving force or the material engine moving the progress?
Most views of history fall into the following categories:
Cyclical, Static, Linear Progress, or Linear Decline.
Cyclical
There are different cyclical theories of history. The
atomistic view holds that this world came into existence through the
destruction or explosion of a previously existent world and that all matter is
of one substance and was at one time condensed. In this view there is an eternal
cycle of worlds giving birth to new worlds. This view is represented in the
classical Greek philosopher, Democritus. In this view there are a limited
number of souls and these souls are recycled (metempsychosis).
The mythical-religious view is concerned with ceremonial enactments that place the priest or shaman and his community in the eternal present (anamnesis). This often meant marking out sacred space within a circle or at the top of a mountain. It might also involve sacred time which was usually high noon, a time when there were no shadows. Among the ancient Habiru (Hebrew), the sacred center of space and time was the mountain top at high noon. Mircea Eliade explored the mythical-religious aspects of ancient peoples and their religious practices. He showed that archaic religious ceremonies were performed as reenactments of
divine action (energeia), cosmological archetypes, or celestial patterns. In this view, human actions and
rituals mirror what the universe tells us about God’s actions.
The political view holds that kingdoms and nations
rise and fall depending on economic fortune and geographic location. The nations
who have wealth must work to preserve it, but not at the expense of the average
worker. Revolutions occur when wealth is not well distributed among the social
classes, or when only a few control the means of production. Marx's dialectical
materialism is cyclical, which is why he said, "History repeats itself, first as
tragedy, second as farce."
The religious view, especially evident in Hinduism
and Buddhism holds that time and matter cannot be escaped except by the most
virtuous souls. All are caught in the cycle of reincarnation. Plato believed
that there are a finite number of souls and at birth the human receives one of
these eternal souls (metempsychosis), rather the way vital organs are harvested
and transplanted from the dead.
Criticism of cyclical view: There is no way to prove the
existence of previous worlds. More research is needed to establish the degree to
which human history is determined or influenced by conscious or unconscious
archetypes. A study of ancient civilizations suggests that kingdoms that achieve
prominence and then decline are changed, so that we cannot speak of recovering
former prominence or even of being the same society.
Static
A static view of history maintains that nothing really
changes as time moves because human nature is unchanging or immutable. A static
view of history is represented by the statement, “There is nothing new under the
sun.” Plato viewed all things as reflections of Forms (Ideas). Nothing changes
since the Forms are changeless. What we perceive as “change” is the Form in
flux; so rain changing to snow or hail is not change, but flux, since both are
reflections of the Form water, the essence of which is H2O and unchanging.
Criticism of static view: Human ingenuity has led to the
invention of new things, things unimagined by archaic peoples. There is hope
that human nature can be changed through religious conversion and
transformation, or through education and social conditioning, or through
biotechnology. Plato’s view speaks more about the function of Mind than Matter.
Linear Progress
Things improve with the passing of time. Modern technology
is proof of human progress. Given more time, humans will evolve into a higher
species and will invent even greater things. A variation on this idea is liberal
ideology that through co-operation the nations of the world can achieve unity.
The hope for human progress led to the establishment of the National Council of
Churches and the United Nations.
Many Americans in the 1940s were
hopeful that humans were becoming more humane and societies more just. World War
I was supposed to be the war to end all wars, but instead it was the prelude to
World War II. The atrocities committed by Hitler and Stalin, and the bombing of
Pearl Harbor were sobering reminders that evil is not easily dismissed, that sin
is not obsolete.
The 1950s was a time of optimisim in American. The
economy was booming and new devices such as dishwashers, televisions and modern
homes suggested that the future would be more comfortable, but with prosperity
came other problems.
Criticism of linear view: Modern technology has led to
more powerful weapons and more effective propaganda. These have been used to
exterminate millions of people in ethnic and religious wars in spite of
international co-operation.
Linear Decline
Things are gradually getting worse. Life used to be better
or humans were once more noble. Rousseau held a romantic notion that in the
state of nature humans are good but we have become corrupted by the influences
of civilization.
Dispensational writers such as Hal Linsay and Tim
LaHaye (Left Behind) believe that great tribulation is coming and great
wickedness, but God will intervene when things get bad
enough. Dispensationalists have even constructed a schedule of final world
events using selected passages from the Bible. In this view, Noah’s flood was
worldwide and represents one of many of God’s course corrections to human
history.
Criticism of Linear Decline: While there is no doubt that
civilizations decline, there is no evidence that humans are more evil today than
they were in ancient times. The idea that history is spiraling toward a final
universal destruction fits into this category, but when we add the element of a
glorious new kingdom rising from the ashes, this theory can be moved to the
cyclical category.
Hegel’s Dialectic
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831) argued that history is a constant process of dialectic clashes (between “thesis” and “antithesis”) that result in a conjunction of the two (“synthesis”) to form something new. Hegel believed that this dialectic process was directed by God, though his idea of God was not that of Christians or Jews. The end of this process was to bring humanity to a civilized state.
Hegel built on the pre-Scocratic idea of conflict between opposites. (Remember the conflict between Love and Strife?) His dialectic has as its cause the energy of negativity. He believed that the natural impulse of people and civilizations is to develop by "successive gradations" toward freedom and toward higher logic. Thus understood," Hegel writes, "the dialectical principle constitutes the life and soul of scientific progress."
 |
Hegel with his students in Berlin
Sketch by Franz
Kugler |
Hegel wrote, "Absolute
knowledge... must not remain in its immediacy as an inner feeling or as a vague
faith in an indefinite abstract being-in general, but must proceed to comprehend
the Absolute in the mythical term 'God.' To know God is not above comprehension,
but is above reason which is the knowledge of things finite and relative."
Hegel believed that the dialectical character of reality speaks of reaching beyond doubt to a vision of reconciliation of oppositions. He felt that his approach to understanding history makes for a more positive vision of the future.
Criticism of Hegel’s dialectic: The clashes of history are often multifaceted, involving factors that Hegel’s theory does not take into consideration. This view reflects 19th century optimism about human progress, an optimism that was greatly diminished by the events of WWI and WWII.
Marx’s Class Struggle
Karl
Marx (1818 – 1883) adapted Hegel’s dialectic to his political class struggle. For Marx, the continual struggle was between those who
controlled the means of production and wealth and those who struggled daily to
earn a living. Only as the workers of the world rose up and overthrew the
oppressive capitalists could there be a new order: Communism. Marx believed that
this dialectic process is a material mechanism that moves events in
history.
Marx's view of progress, called "dialectical materialism"
proposes that every
economic order grows
to a state of maximum efficiency, and at the same time develops internal
contradictions and weaknesses that contribute to its decay. Through conscious
acts those oppressed by the system can make history by rising up and
establishing a new economic order.
Marx’s view of the world is materialistic. is He is not
concerned about life after death, the soul, or questions concerning time,eternity and infinity. He sought a reform of western society through revolution, or the uprising of
the working class. In his view, the welfare of the working class depends upon the perpetual overthrow of social, religious, political and economic structures that make protect the rich and oppress the poor. The Communist state is responsible for collection of wealth and resources and their distribution.
Criticism of Marx’s Dialectic: The experiment of Communism
failed and the countries that comprised the former Soviet
Union are rebuilding along capitalistic lines. Capitalism remains
the best means of accumulating wealth and achieving a higher standard of
living. Capitalism as an economic system is morally neutral. However, because
humans are prone to greed, capitalism works best when restrained by just laws
that prevent oppression of workers. Marx's view of human nature is to pessimistic. Adam Smith has a more realistic view in recognizing that humans want to amass wealth but also can feel sympathy for those who are without basic needs and often share from their abundance.
Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific
Revolutions
Thomas Samuel Kuhn
(1922 – June 17, 1996) wrote a book titled
The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1962) that
introduced an influential theory about how science progresses. Kuhn presented
the idea that science does not progress gradually, but instead makes huge sudden
leaps through periodic revolutions which he called “paradigm shifts.” According
to Kuhn, science maintains stable growth until an individual who stands outside
the discipline introduces a revolutionary new vision or solution. John Newton
and Albert Einstein are examples of how discoveries and revolutions come about
as a consequence of anomalies.
According to Kuhn, scientific revolutions result
from
epistemological
shifts as scientists encounter anomalies that cannot be explained by the
universally accepted paradigm within the scientific community.
Criticism of Kuhn: Stephen Toulmin (1970) argued against
Kuhn’s theory, pointing out that not all breakthroughs in science are sudden
anomalous visions. Some breakthroughs are more common and less dramatic than
Kuhn proposes. The discovery of the structure of DNA came through prolonged
steady investigation and the double-helical structure was not unexpected, yet it
provided a mechanism for the duplication of genetic information that has
enormous consequences for medical and biological research. In other words,
steady scientific research can lead to quiet scientific revolutions without
there being a dramatic paradigm shift.
Philosophy through
time
We began our study of Metaphysics with a discussion
about the "philosophical project" and how it moves forward. We concluded that
the philosophical projects advances because humans are innately curious and ask
questions about the world in which we live. Curiosity and questions are the
basis for the natural sciences, mathematics and exploration.
Curiosity
and skepticism go hand-in-hand. The curious often learn not to rush in without
careful consideration. The archaic family seeking shelter would have been glad
to find a cave, but did not enter it without first exploring to determine
whether it was safe. It is likely that the cave was already inhabited by a bear
or a lion. The exercise of skepticism is necessary for human survival.
On
the most fundamental level, it is human curiosity that moves the philosophical
project forward. There is also an element of truth in the Hegel's view that
"…the dialectical principle constitutes the life and soul of scientific
progress.” The dialectic is an ideological tug-o-war which strengthens muscles
until one side wins. Galileo's observations caused him to reject the earlier
view that the earth was the center of the solar system. The Western Church was
forced to struggle with the new understanding and eventually accepted Galileo's
view,
changing
his status from heretic to in 2008.
Curiosity and skepticism, when cultivated by a logically reasoning mind, can produce innovative thinking and recasting of former ideas. Another factor that stimulates creativity in the philosophical project is the tension between seemingly opposite ideas. The tug-o-war between Plato and
Aristotle on the chief Good, or between essentialism and evolution on the question of change, drives the project. When the tension is lost, the project begins to lack vitality and can reach a dead end. Jacques Derrida claimed that this happened in
Western philosophy with the abandonment of Plato's focus on the larger metaphysical questions. The dominance of Aristotelian thought, as a vestige of medieval Scholasticism contributed to this, as did modern materialism. (See Magee, pages 29-30).
Kuhn's understanding of paradigm shifts also has bearing on the development of philosophy through time. The great philosophers
represent epistemological breakthroughs. Such is the case with Ludwig
Wittgenstein who argued that family resemblance is not based on essence, but on
function. We recognize all varieties of chairs because they have a common
function, not a common essence. Some have arms, others do not. Some have backs,
others do not. Some have legs, others do not. All have a flat surface upon
which we may sit. This is not their essence, but their function.
The Biblical View
In the Bible we read that there will be a new heaven
and earth (a new cosmos) and that Christ will rule over His eternal kingdom. St.
Paul writes that the whole of the creation eagerly awaits and groans in
anticipation of this day of the revealing of the sons of God (Romans 8:19-22).
This cosmos will give way to an eternal kingdom over which Christ will rule
forever. This is suggestive of a cyclical view or recapitulation; what the Early
Church Fathers understood as the restoration of Paradise
(recapitulation).
There is also the view that things were once better
(Paradise) and turned bad with sin and death. In this view, which is an
incomplete story, we have linear decline. However, the resurrection and second
coming of Jesus Christ, completes the story. From linear decline comes linear
progress. Imagine a vertical line pointing down and then turning
upward.
Did Abraham's ancestors hold a linear view of time?
It
is often repeated that the Jews were the first introduce the idea of linear
history, which may be true, but Abraham and his ancestors were not Jews.
Abraham's ancestors were Nilo-Saharans who held a cyclical view. This is evident
in the deep analysis of the story cycles and couplets of Genesis.
We
tend to read Genesis as a linear sequence, but upon closer examination we find a
very different structure. It is one that Abraham and his ancestors would have
recognized and they were not Jews. They were Nilotic peoples who tended toward
binary
tensions expressed in parallel accounts. The parallel stories highlight
similarities such as the moral lapses of Noah and Lot while drunk. Noah's
misbehavior led him to blame ("curse") his grandson. Lot's drunk state led to
incest with his daughters.
Sometimes the parallel stories contrast the
character of two figures, as in the accounts of Abraham and Isaac attempting to
pass off their wives as their sisters. Sarah was Abraham's half-sister whereas
Rebecca was Isaac's patrilineal cousin. In other words, Abraham did not lie and
Isaac did.
Other parallel accounts include the two creation stories.
Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3 are parallel accounts from different traditions. The
second story about the garden, the serpent, and the tree of life is older than
the first story about the six days of creation.
Likewise, there are two
flood accounts. In one we read that Noah was to save one pair of animals, a male
and female, and in the other we read that he was to save seven pairs of "clean"
animals.
This parallelism is not limited to the book of Genesis. It is
found in the Psalms and throughout the Old Testament. Adam and Enoch are
paralleled in Hebrew in Psalm 8:4. The story of Korah opposing Moses' authority
has a parallel in the story of Sheba who opposed David's authority. In the end,
both Korah and Sheba lost their lives.
The blood on the door posts in
Egypt has a parallel in the story of the passover of Rahab and her family by the
scarlet cord hung from the window.
The birth of twin boys to Rebekah has
a match in the story of Tamar's twin sons.
The story of Sarah's
miraculous conception of Isaac is paralleled by Hannah's conception of Samuel.
In the New Testament, we find a parallel between Elizabeth's miraculous
conception of John the Baptist and Mary's conception of the Son of God, to whom
John would bear witness.
There are also parallel stories about cousin
wives. Nahor, Abraham's older brother, married his cousin wife Milcah before
ascending to the throne of his father, Terah. This happened before Abraham made
his journey to the land of Canaan. However we are not told about Nahor's wife
and children until after Sarah's burial.
Likewise, Abraham married his
cousin wife before Sarah died, but Keturah is not mentioned until after Sarah's
burial. This has lead people to assume that Abraham married Keturah after Sarah
died. Instead we have parallel cousin-wife stories.
Abraham and all the
Horite rulers listed in the Genesis "begats" had two wives. This was their
custom. The first wife was a half-sister, as was Sarah to Abraham. The second
wife was a patrilineal cousin or niece, as was
Keturah
to Abraham. This pattern describes
Moses'
wives also. His first wife was his Kushite half-sister and his second wife
was his Midianite patrilineal cousin, Zipporah.
History is not told in a linear way in the Bible. Some events described took place around the same time. Between other events there are great gaps of time. This is not to say that Abraham's ancestors lacked a device for narrating events in a linear fashion. This was done through recounting the lists of rulers found in the Genesis “begats.” These are authentic king lists that establish that Noah lived before Nimrod and Nimrod before Abraham, etc. We can imagine a Nilotic story teller elaborating on the character of various rulers as is evident in Genesis 4:23, where we are told that Lamech bragged to his two wives. Another elaboration is found in Genesis 10:8-12 concerning the Kushite kingdom-builder Nimrod who was said to be a “mighty hunter.”
This is not to say that Abraham's ancestors lacked a device
for narrating events in a linear fashion. This was done through recounting the lists of
rulers found in the Genesis "begats." These are authentic king lists that
establish that Noah lived before Nimrod and Nimrod before Abraham, etc. We can
imagine a Nilotic story teller elaborating on the character of various rulers as
is evident in Genesis 4:23, where we are told that Lamech bragged to his two
wives. Another elaboration is found in Genesis 10:8-12 concerning
the
Kushite kingdom-builder Nimrod.
Related reading:
Early Metaphysics: Primal Substance and Cause;
Theories of Change and Constancy;
The Experience and Perception of Time;
Levi-Strauss and Jacques Derrida on Binary Oppositions;
The Story of Ontology
