Change is the defining feature of history. By history, I mean human history; specifically, the history of the human world, which exists over and above–yet never entirely independent from–the physical and biological world.1 As time unfolds the present is influenced by the past; what is, has been conditioned by what once was; the human world of today is a synthesis of the human world of yesterday. Just as any given moment holds the necessary conditions for what is possible in the future, the necessary conditions of the world we inhabit today existed in the past in some way. Today has developed and emerged from new combinations and novel instantiations of a multiplicity of conditions existing in the past. A given moment may be said to comprise a “whole”, out of which emerges a synthesis constituting a larger, more complex, whole. Thus, there is a directedness to the unfolding of history. Like the expansion of the universe or the arrow of time, it would appear history moves in a single direction.2 This phenomenon–in which the totality of circumstances constituted within the human world influences and affects itself over time–I will call historical conditioning.3
I am ignorant of whether or not this theory, or something like it, has been stated before. Certainly those familiar with historical thinking will find much of this essay old hat; though the approach may offer a unique perspective for some, while others may be shocked at some of the conclusions I draw. As far as my influences go, there are obvious affinities with Hegel, and to some extent, Marx, Ibn Khaldun, Giambattista Vico, and more recently, the work of Thomas Kuhn and Francis Fukuyama; evolution by natural selection, and the second law of thermodynamics should also be mentioned. Original or otherwise, a number of clarifications and qualifications must be added. And not the least because what was stated above is almost incomprehensibly general and abstract.
To begin with, I deliberately refrain from using the word “determined”, as in “the present is determined by the past”. I do not think there is a direct causal connection between “what is” and “what has been” if this is taken to mean historical events or changes could not have been otherwise. Rather, I use the words “influenced” or “conditioned” to connote that, while there is a necessary connection between what is and what has been, it is not deterministic.4 At any given time throughout history, the present provides the necessary conditions–but not the determining form–of the future.5 The most obvious explanation of this is the observation that change cannot occur ex nihilo, that is, out of nothing or without explanation.6 In the natural world, many examples may be given. Species or offspring do not develop without a progenitor. Gravity cannot exist without matter. Evolution cannot occur without genetics.7 And so on. In these examples, genetics, matter, and progenitor species constitute the necessary conditions of specific forms of future change in the natural world.
Yet I am not offering a possible theory about the history of the natural, but of the human, world. Although I have said the human world exists over and above the natural world, it is nonetheless limited by it.8 Homo sapiens cannot transcend the laws of nature; the limits placed on us by our genes or by gravity are well known. But the human world also includes the rational, social, and political, conditions which open up new spaces of possibility and potential. Thus, within the sphere of the human, some of the possibilities inherent in a given epoch that provide the basis for historical conditioning are actualized by human beings. Such actualizations constitute change, over time yielding new epochs–themselves characterized by new possibilities–which are, again and in turn, actualized by other human beings. Ex nihilo nihil fit.
This process of historical conditioning unique to the human world becomes possible when Homo sapiens acquire language and hence the ability to transmit information. Without a common stock of ideas and concepts, and the ability to communicate them, the basis for knowledge and therefore historical conditioning would not be possible. The content of the sphere of developing knowledge forms the basis of the necessary conditions that determine the possibilities inherent in a given epoch–possibilities that influence or condition the future. Whether or not these possibilities are actualized depends on the human beings of that time and place–it is only through their actions that the process of historical conditioning will occur.9 Thus, the transmission of information (that forms the basis of human action) is the mechanism through which the historical conditioning of the human world becomes possible.10 But this barely gets things off the ground, as it were. It is the phenomenon of writing–transmission of information that is durable and persists in time, able to be interpreted after long ages–that greatly accelerates the process of historical conditioning. Printing, in turn, exponentially increases the acceleration of this process.11 To illustrate, I will discuss four spheres of historical conditioning occurring in the history of the human world.
The first is what I will call theoretical history. This sphere encompasses the history of thought, philosophy, mathematics, natural philosophy (the precursor of natural science), et al. Consider the influence of the pre-Socratics upon the intellectual world of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle–that unique tripartite of brilliance, standing like pillars of white marble in the gleaming sunshine beside the wine-dark sea–who each have, in some way, single-handedly influenced nearly every subsequent thinker the West has produced. To be more specific yet somewhat clumsy, Socrates influenced Plato, Socrates and Plato influenced Aristotle; each had followers throughout classical antiquity, older generations influencing younger. The Stoics, Plotinus, the tradition of Neoplatonism; Jewish and Muslim Aristotelians–such as Maimonides, Avicenna, and Averroes–began influencing Christian scholars when Aristotle was rediscovered in Europe during the 12th and 13th centuries; St. Thomas Aquinas, whose writings and disputations take account of almost every thinker throughout the then known world; the Scholasticism of the High Middle Ages–a veritable lineage can be traced right up through the rise of modernity to this very moment. And this fails to consider other thinkers, like Euclid, Pathagoras, Hippocrates and so many others in the West. In the East, consider the influence of Laozi (老子) and Zhuangzi (莊子), of Confucius (孔子), Mencius (孟子), and Xunzi (荀子), of Han Feizi (韓非), of Sima Qian (司马迁)–again, to name a few out of very, very many–each influencing generations upon generations of thinkers and commentators, dynasties and culture.
The second example is religious history. Foundational to every major religion is the sacred text, which is in turn copied, propagated, contemplated, analyzed, commented upon; generation after generation adding to and building upon those who came before. Traditions of interpretation and the development of doctrine emerge. It is difficult to imagine Christianity or Islam developing without Judaism, which predates them. Hebrew scripture forms the basis of the Christian Old Testament, as well as parts of the Qur’an. The Vedas constitute the basis of Brahmanism, from which the Upanishads and Hinduism developed, in turn spurring a long history of commentary, debate, and proliferation of texts, such as the Mahābhārata–the most famous part of which is the Bhagavad Gita–itself the subject of further interpretation and great debate. Though largely seen as heterodox in its native India, Buddhism contains a rich history of practice, commentary, and debate, especially in southeast Asia and in countries like China and Japan, and over the centuries has in some ways overlapped with Daoism. Mani–the successor to Zarathustra–attempted to synthesize the faith of his teacher with, among others, the teachings of Buddha and Jesus. The result was Manichaeism, which St. Augustine professed for a time in his early years. Zarathustra’s teachings are also said to have affected the development of Greek, Jewish, Christian, and Islamic thought, to say nothing of his inspiration to the 19th-century philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche. The Christian New Testament is ubiquitous throughout the Common Era history of the West. Religious history also inevitably overlaps with other spheres of history, as time passes both actively influencing and being influenced.
Political history is my third example, which includes but is not limited to the history of government systems, law, diplomacy, and armed conflict. Among the best examples is the influence of classical Greek civilization upon its Roman successor, which, taken together, influenced thinkers of the late medieval, Renaissance, and American epochs.12 The practice of law arising in the High and Late Middle Ages offers a further instance. Joseph Strayer’s little book, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State, shows how the modern political state did not emerge ex nihilo, but rather steadily evolved from a set of changing circumstances and influences throughout the Middle Ages. It’s hard to imagine Napoleon Bonapart without the French Revolution, just as it is World War II and Adolf Hitler without World War I and the Treaty of Versailles.
Lastly, consider what I will call material history, which includes things like economics, technology, architecture, the development of cities, et al. The rise of modern society from that of primitive hunter-gatherers can be seen in the slow but gradual development of technological understanding cumulating over time. The use of rocks or the intense rubbing of sticks together to create fire provides an example of combining preexisting conditions in the natural world in order to develop a novel effect. Animal domestication, farming, housing, urban development, roads, the use of money, trade–slowly emerged from man’s use of rational thought upon his environment and circumstances. The far subsequent scientific, industrial, and technological revolutions–again–did not emerge ex nihilo, but rather from new combinations and novel instantiations of a multiplicity of factors. In his theory of entrepreneurship, The Theory of Economic Development, Joseph Schumpeter argues that economic development arises from new combinations of already existing conditions in a given economy. The primary methods of development, according to Schumpeter, are (1) the opening of new markets, the (2) introduction of new products and services, the (3) invention of a new method of production, the (4) restructuring of an organization, and/or (5) obtaining less expensive or alternative raw materials or goods. Consider also the evolution of military tactics on the basis of changing technology, such as the Greek phalanx being replaced by the Roman legion, or heavily armored French knights being conquered by the English longbow.13
These examples should not be understood as exhaustive, but simply preliminary sketches attempting to outline some of the ways historical conditioning has occurred in various spheres of influence. In future essays I hope to expand on this theory, as it seems to explain a great deal about the world in its current state. If it is true that the totality of circumstances constituted within the human world influences and affects itself over time, it would follow that the history of the human world moves toward ever-increasing complexity.14 It may be tempting to call this progress. But progress is a metaphysically loaded word, and begs the question, “progress for what?” Even though the mechanism of historical conditioning is as old as the human world itself, the unique circumstances of the modern world have created an environment characterized by an unprecedented level of change. What is unprecedented about the modern instantiation of historical conditioning is its speed and exponential increases of acceleration; what Zygmunt Bauman has called “liquid modernity”.15 The printing press has given way to electronic media and instantaneous communication, in turn yielding a world of virtual reality in which what is and isn’t real becomes more and more difficult to distinguish. As the scope of what is possible expands–as it has; at first slowly, now very quickly–so too does the possibility for confusion and disarray. The dark side of complexity, it would seem, is entropy–disorder, disorganization; the chaos and pandemonium of a fraying and unraveling humanity–like the ends of the branches of a great tree, ultimately ending in sheer nothingness.16 Heraclitus, it would seem, may have his revenge after all.
Notes:
1. In this theory I am taking for granted the existence of the human world; moreover, I am using its existence as a starting point. In many ways, this essay is an attempt to pin down and vocalize my ideas on this subject, and to help test whether or not they are tenable. See also my essay, The Individual and the Human World.
2. To be clear, this is an analogy. One which can hold perhaps only up to a point. I do not wish, nor am I sufficiently informed, to engage in debates about physics or cosmology.
3. “Historical evolution” was a close contender. Although there are obvious affinities to evolution that capture a great deal of what I am trying to explain, I have deliberately avoided the term in order to reduce the potential for confusion.
4. The necessary connection between what is and what has been can be explained in this way: The totality of circumstances existing at a given moment sets the limits for what is possible in the immediate future, i.e., What actually occurs in the immediate future is “made possible” by conditions existing in the immediate past–yet is not wholly determined by them.
5. Thus, if it was possible to “restart” the history of the human world, I do not think it would unfold in exactly the same way. This is reminiscent of Stephen Jay Gould’s comment about replaying the tape of life. See Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life.
6. Hence, at least metaphysically, this theory has to be grounded in some form of the principle of sufficient reason. My own proclivities incline me to an Aristotelean interpretation of the principle, but many forms could be used. Although the principle of sufficient reason seems to have been stated in some way by almost every philosopher throughout history, the most famous example is that of Leibniz. Lawrence Krauss’ book, A Universe from Nothing may be thought to prove a counter-example. But the scientism adopted by Krauss commits him to use the word “nothing” in ways that, strictly speaking, are not at all what a philosopher means by the word.
7. For an introduction to the theory of evolution by natural selection see Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True, or Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker.
8. Again, see my essay, The Individual and the Human World.
9. Notice, to rebel against the conditions of a given time and place is no less to be influenced or conditioned by them. Potentially hostile relationships or influences to extant circumstances are also common and influential. Consider the rebellion of the Enlightenment against tradition and authority or the Luddites against machinery in England. See also my essay, Human Action.
10. Thus, by analogy, the transmission of information is to historical conditioning what genes are to evolution by natural selection.
11. Notice that the phenomenon of language provides a necessary condition for the possibility of the written word; the written word, in turn, provides a necessary condition for the possibility of printing; printing for electronic media, and so forth.
12. The American experiment itself has influenced many countries around the world.
13. This would be an example of the sphere of material history overlapping with political history.
14. This would appear to be true as long as the human world lasts. At some point, should humanity suffer the fate of the dinosaurs this ever-moving trajectory would cease. It could also suffer serious setbacks or regressions, as some have argued. The creation of the Dark Ages by Italian humanists is an example of this view.
15. See Zygmunt Bauman, Liquid Modernity.
16. To again push the analogy with the second law of thermodynamics: If this situation were to eventually terminate in a state of equilibrium, it would seem we would have reached the state of Nietzsche’s last man.