.
.
In a book of 1960, entitled Critical historical existence, Karl Löwith devotes the central chapter ( Men and history ) analysis of the modern sense of human historicity, proceeding, by contrast, from the greek world. Löwith highlights the absence or rather the impossibility of a philosophy of history in greek thought in general and in particular Aristotle, 'the Greeks - he wrote - were deeply impressed by the order ever, from the greatness and beauty of the visible world, but no classical thinker ever happened to think of this joint in a universal history harmoniously ordered cosmos, eternal and transient πράγματα of human history. " Weakness of a temporally fleeting and inconsistency made it the ideal res gestae unattractive to look at the scientific discourse Greeks and Romans. The history of Herodotus was only narrative of transience of human affairs, and the narrative itself was seen as useful answer to subtract those "things" to the inexorable fate of oblivion. In greek thought the story was bound and limited by the order of the cosmos λόγος physical, while in the Christian theological order, "only with the dissolution of both of these beliefs appeared pre-modern belief in history as such, historicism ' . In this case Löwith does not use a technical sense of the concept of historicism, but rather refers to the attribution of value and legal affairs, featuring a cultural process domestic modern times, "faith in the story is a result of our alienation from the cosmos-natural theology and theology of ancient supernatural Christianity." While focusing on the important philosophical figure of Giambattista Vico, Hegel Löwith choose to report directly to the outlet of its reasoning, where locates in the "teleological" a historic building in anticipation of the transposition of secular Jewish and Christian, the "promise of fulfillment" , and is certainly right in pointing, as Hegel himself emphasizes, however, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe Hegelian philosophy of history as simply a theodicy.
A similar reconstruction is to be found in some of the most famous pages of world literature, written by the great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy. In the second part of the epilogue of War and Peace , he draws the relationship between history and modernity targeting, as Löwith, the ancient world. Modern man has harshly criticized the archaic solution to recognize a divine transcendent capable of subjecting the people to be elected from among the many individuals, and to direct the action of the latter towards unknown destinations. However, says Tolstoy, the modern historian has failed to fulfill its criticism of the intrinsic structure of the old answer to the problem of historical explanation. Instead of transcendent power of God was identified genius, as a peculiar feature of the great men, the possession of exceptional energy, or any kind of charisma. The metaphysical teleology was instead replaced by a progressive teleology, in which the good of humanity - not by chance coincides with the good people of the ruler - was erected at the end of the story. Tolstoy writes: "Modern history has rejected the old beliefs without replacing them with new concepts and the logic of their position has forced historians, who had apparently denied the divine power of kings and the fate of the ancients, to reach any other way to same point, namely the admission that: 1) people are headed by single men, and 2) there is a specific goal towards which move people and mankind. "In his reading of Hegelian thought Löwith mean the same assumptions of a philosophy of history the equivalent of a theology, as derived by a process of secularization that has replaced faith in Providence with the belief in historical progress. It should definitely stay on the figure of Hegel diriment to fully understand the terms in which the story becomes interesting for philosophical reflection, and how much of this attempt at clarification and systematization Hegel returns to reflect current elements worthy of attention.
A similar reconstruction is to be found in some of the most famous pages of world literature, written by the great Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy. In the second part of the epilogue of War and Peace , he draws the relationship between history and modernity targeting, as Löwith, the ancient world. Modern man has harshly criticized the archaic solution to recognize a divine transcendent capable of subjecting the people to be elected from among the many individuals, and to direct the action of the latter towards unknown destinations. However, says Tolstoy, the modern historian has failed to fulfill its criticism of the intrinsic structure of the old answer to the problem of historical explanation. Instead of transcendent power of God was identified genius, as a peculiar feature of the great men, the possession of exceptional energy, or any kind of charisma. The metaphysical teleology was instead replaced by a progressive teleology, in which the good of humanity - not by chance coincides with the good people of the ruler - was erected at the end of the story. Tolstoy writes: "Modern history has rejected the old beliefs without replacing them with new concepts and the logic of their position has forced historians, who had apparently denied the divine power of kings and the fate of the ancients, to reach any other way to same point, namely the admission that: 1) people are headed by single men, and 2) there is a specific goal towards which move people and mankind. "In his reading of Hegelian thought Löwith mean the same assumptions of a philosophy of history the equivalent of a theology, as derived by a process of secularization that has replaced faith in Providence with the belief in historical progress. It should definitely stay on the figure of Hegel diriment to fully understand the terms in which the story becomes interesting for philosophical reflection, and how much of this attempt at clarification and systematization Hegel returns to reflect current elements worthy of attention.
The striking thesis Löwith exhibits itself the terms of the problem. Describing the place, historically gained, an otherworldly metaphysics and theology, with an immanent metaphysics of the spirit, Löwith draws a historical movement, which moves from the past and continues up to a target, modernity. In addition to being an argument about history, it is a historical reason, or - as say - a story of history. But this reconstruction is made possible by a pre-modern conception, an attitude or philosophy of history? Clearly, without questioning beyond thought Löwith on this ground, there is implied as a law of history, that a process of secularization "implies" or "meant" the development of a historical teleology.
.
.
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment