HY4101

Hi guys, not sure if i have interpreted these materials well enough, do comment if you have anything to add on.

Vico’s main contribution was towards the development the beginnings of a modern historical consciousness through his proposition of the ideas of recourse and providence, which allowed one to see history via a linear notion of time, and the crucial role of human agency in determining the course of history. Human agency drove history from one age to another, in the direction of greater rationality and greater knowledge of the truth; and also prevented man from spiraling back into primitiveness. This was a departure from previous thinkers regarding their notion of time and the role of god.

It was in his master key that lay his main contribution to historical methods, by unlocking the true meaning to the study of history. This was in response to the inadequacy of the Cartesian method which constructed knowledge on the logic of Math and ignored the role of historical knowledge for the rationalizing of events. It was also in response to men misinterpreting ancient culture by using himself as the measure of things. The construction of historical knowledge was thus facts( philology) connected with reasoning (philosophy). As such, Vico proposed the contextualization of history, and the use of self-perception in the writing of history. This shift away from Cartesian philosophy and a new method to the study of history was thus Vico’s main contribution.

Hegel’s main contribution to historical methods was his dialectical method. His dialectical method was a crucial contribution to historical methods because it put forth a notion of historicism where there is an organic succession of historical developments, in contrast to historical developments being explained by fundamental principles such as economic determinism. The dialectic method was a system of logical contradictions, such that a thesis gave rise to an anti-thesis which disagrees with the former. The tension between two are resolved by a synthesis. To him, this was the explanation for historical developments. The progress in history was one force overcoming another. Each stage of the historical process is the product of contradictions inherent or implicit in the preceding stage. The whole of history is one dialectic, major stages of which chart a progression from self-alienation to self-unification and realization; from slavery to the end point of the modern state (some kind of constitutional monarchy), where the self-development of the freedom of the will is actualized. His dialectic method later influenced thinkers such as Marx.

His contribution to historical consciousness was to establish a principle underlying world history, where this principle determines its course and displays its meaning. This principle was his analytical framework to approach the historical world. It was in the form of a metaphysical concept – that of the Spirit expressed as human self-consciousness. History is the unfolding of how the mind objectifies its ideas in the world, and history is the journey of this Spirit actualizing the Idea of freedom. Fundamentally, the understanding of history has to include a prior understanding of “Spirit”, without which history is merely fact-recording .The metaphysical concept of Spirit used to explain the nature of reality, and the study of ‘being’ and ‘existence’, were not his lasting contributions to historical consciousness. It was his establishment of a larger principle behind the understanding of the past. Hegel contextualized the principle of “Spirit” as underlying world history by establishing stages of the development of history through distinct political structures (Oriental realm àGreek Realm à Roman Realm à Germanic Realm), and demonstrating how each stage developed as a result of contradictions in the previous.

Marx’s contribution to historical consciousness was of the total grounding of history in observable material reality. His doubts about the efficacy of idealist philosophy such as those of Hegel led to a departure from principles which were immaterial. His principle underlying the development of history was that of historical materialism, where the progress of human history was based on economic impetus and historical occurrences took place based on the weight of human experiences. It is this very notion of the overall meaning of human history as a process of changing man’s external environment to accommodate human nature that was a major contribution to historical consciousness. Marx turned away from ’philosophy’ towards ‘real’ knowledge in his attempt to understand the grand scope of history.

It was historical materialism that made a contribution to historical methods. It was “scientific” such that one now made verifiable claims derived from facts of practical reality, rather than from fixed or a priori concepts. Marx put forth the notion than history must be understood materialistically. This historical materialism underlined Marx’s theory of historical change, such that historical epochs are determined by the contradiction between productive forces and means of production. It was based on economic basis to actual material life. He established his principal periods of history: tribal property, classical antiquity as exemplified by Rome and Greece, and finally communal private property.

We see a shift in historical consciousness between Vico, Hegel and Marx in the aspect of the notion of reality and the role of ideas. For Marx, the historical reality is no more than how humans to one another. For Hegel, the Spirit explained for the immaterial aspect of history. For Vico, god was above his philosophy of history, though he does not have any deterministic impact on the course of history simply because Vico limited his SPH to the civil world to exclude god. All three thinkers impacted on our historical consciousness, in terms of the need to periodize history, and the notion of progressive linearity. This is seen in their commonality in establishing human history through historical epochs that are not limited by a cyclical notion of history, each stage being more advanced than the previous. Most importantly, all three thinkers conceived of human agency as the main force driving the course of history.