Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Visit Ovi bookshop - Free eBooks  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Join Ovi in Facebook
Ovi Language
Ovi on Facebook
WordsPlease - Inspiring the young to learn
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
A Revolutionary New View of History and Humanity: 1/3 A Revolutionary New View of History and Humanity: 1/3
by Dr. Emanuel Paparella
2007-11-05 10:53:09
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

Vico’s New Science (1725) is a watershed to modern historicism. He was however too far ahead of his contemporaries to have any direct impact on them. They had already embarked on a Cartesian paradigm of reality which now pervades modern culture. We modern men can hear Vico’s wake up bell much more clearly in the wake of what rampant rationalism has wrought on us.

For all the modernity of his philosophy, Descartes shared with the ancient Greeks a bias against history which held that history is not the proper subject of science; that it represents a dimension of being in which the question of truth has neither purpose nor answer. Within this historical tradition searching for absolute certainty there is no place for any knowledge based on the particularity of sensory experience and contingent historical events. Tradition and the senses are seen as sources of permanent deception and truth is not found in them. Descartes was convinced that he had found the final basis of certainty in his thinking “I” (the famous “cogito ergo sum”) which is beyond history and all its contingencies and delusions. The only way this “I” and its related ideas can get back to the physical world is with the help of mathematical ideas that determine it. There the true language of nature is to be discovered. In other words, truth is to be found in nature, not in history.

This ancient Greek tradition was now living under the cover of the Christian West. Descartes was trapped within it. The Greek world could not and, in fact, never produced any kind of philosophy of history. It could not since it held that the contingency of historical events did not yield truth and could not therefore be the content of authentic philosophical reflection. When truth was sought in the empirical world, it was derived from the calculability and rationality of nature. Moreover, this drive to see truth only in what is uniform and not in what is contingent and changing (well symbolized by Plato’s world of timeless unchanging ideas, the transcendent forms) led Greek historians to look for laws and continuities in history and to treat them as analogies to the uniformities of nature.

Herodotus finds in history the “law” that human hubris brings down divine punishment. This is analogous to the idea that there are limits within nature beyond which no man dare venture beyond. Thucydides, on the other hand, is even more radical in his pursuit of uniformity. He finds the historical process dominated not only by objective factors in politics and economics but also by impulses and passions driven by subjective psychological emotions. Thus the movement of history is subsumed to the movement of cosmic occurrences. The driving force for both is the same. Here Plato’s remarks in Georgias are relevant. There he proclaims that a mathematical relation (based on timeless laws) governs the relation between gods and humans. Thus Thucydides also believed that regard for the timeless laws of historical movement gives a better view of what happens and what will happen, for it will always be in accord with human nature. In other words, to see the timeless in time makes prognosis possible and enables us humans to plan for our future.

The above, broadly outlined, was the classical view of history that greatly influenced Descartes. On one hand it holds that history is contingent, that it cannot be part of the orderly course of the cosmos and thus it is ultimately irrelevant to the question of truth. On the other hand, it also holds that history may be integrated into the cosmos but has to be seen in mere analogy to processes that are controlled by natural laws. Either way history per se is robbed of its driving force and is discredited scientifically.

The geniality of Vico’s conception of history is that he turns the above upside-down. He calls his philosophy of history a science since for him history is not only a possible, but also a privileged object of science. In fact, for a noetic standpoint, he sees the natural sciences as burdened by a lack of truth. At least in the West, this is indeed a reversal of the usual movement in the search for truth. It has taken us modern and post-modern men some three centuries to realize that it is truly revolutionary.

Not that Vico rejects everything that preceded him. He accepts much that is normative in tradition, borrows from what is universally acknowledged and then makes new unexpected inferences. His beginning point is an idea for which he can formally appeal to Aristotle. Simply put, the ideas are that real knowledge of something is present only when that something is understood to be caused and its causes and origins are known. From this idea Vico draws a revolutionary conclusion and it is this: if knowledge is knowledge of causes and we can speak of truth only in as much as we can establish those causes, then properly speaking we may know fully only what we ourselves have made. That is to say, we can only do justice to the Aristotelian equation of truth and knowledge of causes when we ourselves are the cause of something. Therefore, since history is the sphere of human achievements wherein we function as causes, we can attain there to true knowledge as in no other sphere.

What Vico is forcefully asserting is that there can be no greater certainty than where we ourselves do things and narrate them. History is conceived as the extended autobiography of the human race. Against this certainty that can be attained in history, the certainty attainable by the natural sciences is suddenly seen as defective. For indeed we have not brought the physical cosmos into being; we are not its cause and therefore it remains largely hidden from us; at the very least it is more hidden than our own history which is revealed to us hermeneutically as “spirit of our spirit.” From this vantage point, even mythically veiled prehistory is accessible to us. As Vico elegantly renders it in his New Science: “Remotest antiquity may be wrapped in a night of complete shadow, yet still the eternal light of truth shines there as well, leaving us in no doubt that this historical and civilized world was caused by human beings. As such its principles can and may be found in the modifications of our own human spirit.”

In this concern of Vico, to demonstrate that even the shadows of the most distant past may prove to have more truth than the exact sciences, we begin to sense the far reaching implications of his speculation. Let us explore briefly the most important of these implications. In the first place it is worth noticing that after Vico the very facticity despised by the Greek world is worth knowing and can in fact be accorded the privilege of truth.

PART ONE
PART TWO (Coming Wed)
PART THREE (Coming Fri)


   
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(6)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2007-10-30 18:15:19
Footnote by the author: these ideas on Vico's contribution to modern culture have also appeared in the on-line publication of the Think Tank "Metanexus Institute" (The Global Spiral) where I contribute a weekly column on Vico.


Emanuel Paparella2007-10-31 01:33:49
http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/Columns/EmanuelLPaparella/tabid/157/Default.aspx

Any reader interested in a more thorough treatement of these ideas briefly introduced in Ovi may link to the above site of Global Spiral, columns' section "A Journey into the mind of Giambattista Vico."


Sand2007-11-05 16:39:56
Since even the most recent of events with living eyewitnesses supplemented by written accounts and photographs and scores of expert analyses such as the death of President Kennedy and the bases for the US invasion of Iraq and precisely what happened in Vietnam remain extremely unclear the concept that truth is available through ancient accounts of unreliable and surely misinterpreted accounts of events that occurred thousands of years ago must be, at minimum, clouded in severe doubts and certainly no place to assume pure truths.


Jack2007-11-06 03:48:52
Well put indeed Emanuel. History gives meaning to the present and can be predictive of where we are going. It is like beginning at the 15th chapter of the History of Humanity. We miss much. It is like a movie fails at what the novel says. The book is almost always truer to form.


Emanuel Paparella2007-11-06 04:16:35
Thanks for dialoguing, Jack. What you say applies to Vico as long as you remember that what he is saying on history, based on the Aristotelian principle of causation, is that the same Man (imderstood as Humanity)who creates history then narrates it to himself while natural science is a narration of something not created by Man. It is this insight which allows Vico to say that Man can derive more certain truth from history than in natural science and that indeed History is a Science in its own right not as a parody of science as most rationalists locked in the box of rationalism believe.
It took Vico a good thirty years of his professional life to elaborate this insight which he then presented as The New Science nowadays taught and studied at the best universities. Alas, it takes a charlatan thirty seconds to refute it with some banality or other parading as positivistic logic. C.P. Snow had it on target in his The Two Worlds: we are dealing with two worlds and only the most perceptive among us are able to bridge the two, and yet it has to be done given that the fate of our civilization hangs in the balance (see The Metanexus Institute as mentioned above). To begin to do that operation worthy of a Leonardo one has to first disabuse oneself of the rationalistic "either-or" and consider the possibility, or better the paradox, of "both-and." Stay tuned for the next two parts of this contribution; we may have more to dialogue about.


Emanuel Paparella2007-11-06 04:21:33
http://www.metanexus.net/Institute/

P.S. The above link will take you and other interested readers to the site of the Metanexus Institute.


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi