18th Century (Eighteenth century) Philosophy of History
In the early years of the 18th century, also known as the “Age of Enlightenment,” there is a certain level of skepticism towards history that continues from previous centuries, but at the same time, this skepticism gradually diminishes and a special importance and interest in history emerges.
While the 18th century was trying to overcome the skepticism of the 17th century with a deep faith in progress and an emphasis on empirical science, it also started to give special importance to efforts to develop national consciousness and national historiography. Certainly, when viewed from the perspective of the ancient and partly the modern division between theory and history, philosophy and history, it is clear that the 18th century did not arrive at a general judgment of progress in history with a theoretical foundation of knowledge.
But the 18th century, similar to how it tried to overcome the medieval division between theory and history through theological belief, In a way, he tried to overcome the same opposition through a secular belief in progress. Indeed, the 18th century became the first century to bring together and oppose the concepts of philosophy and history, which were previously kept separate, by using the term “philosophy of history”.
It is clear that Rousseau is a philosopher of history in two aspects: 1. In history, he sees an inevitable process from nature to cultural existence. 2. While stating that individuals can guide history with their free will, he especially influenced all the major philosophies of history in the 19th century.
Before Rousseau, Giambattista Vico also pointed out the existence of cyclical ages in history, similar to the ancient conception of history that we will later see in Spengler and Toynbee. He argued that these ages follow each other in a circular motion. Many consider Vico to be the first philosopher of history in the new era because of his views. The person who first used the term “philosophy of history” states that there is nothing to be expected from church historiography. Instead, there is a need for a “rationalistic historiography” that provides a “natural explanation” of historical events.
Historical events do not carry causality like natural events.
Above all else, historical events should be seen as “unique and non-repetitive events”, “one-time realities”.
The main task of the philosophy of history is to recognize the unique integrities of eras and periods, as moments when humanity is realized in the history of mankind.
In his most famous work, “Thoughts on the Philosophy of Human History” (1785-1792), he declares that the first condition for seeking “objectivity” in history is to overcome the illusion of seeing historical events as regular and recurring phenomena under the laws of nature. There are no laws of nature that will enable us to conceive history as a “whole”. In this regard, he thinks like Wegelin. According to him, in history, there are no laws like those of nature. When we say “uniformity,” what should be understood is not something that can be explained through “theoretical” means under laws or categories that are considered universally valid for all of “world history.” It is futile to try to find such laws and categories in history. We cannot approach history with laws and categories created by considering continuity and repetition in natural phenomena.
On the other hand, there are no fixed “ideas” that can bring continuity and repetition to historical events. Because the “ideas” to which people and societies are bound also change in every era and period. It can be said that Herder also partially embraced the traditional theoria-historia opposition to a certain extent up to this point.
However, according to Herder, this does not mean that history is just “chaos.” At this point, the pantheistic Herder considers history as the field of vision of a “divine understanding that guides the earth.” Later, we will also encounter this view in Hegel, where there is a “plan,” an “order,” and a “unity” in history. However, it should be noted that this unity is not It can never be comprehended by human beings. Because an individual himself is merely an actor who plays a role in a certain episode of the divine plan set on the stage, and therefore, he cannot see the entirety of the play, its beginning and its end. Thus, “history as a whole” appears to him as a “complex labyrinth” where he is stuck in a corner. If one seeks a “general” in this “limitless variety of history,” they can only find it in the idea of “harmony”. They can believe that it is a “harmony” imposed by God in this “wholeness” that can never be clear to them. Because according to Herder, “the limitations of my point of existence on earth, the blindness in my perspective, the errors in my goals… all of these show that I am nothing but everything to the whole.”