Writing a Universal History, ie a history with meaning and a goal, an endpoint, was treated most seriously in the German idealist tradition. Immanuel Kant wrote in 1784 an essay where he suggested as much. This was pre-Darwin one should note. Still Francis Fukuyama based his book The End of History and the Last Man on Kant and Hegel. I simply do not understand this.
Fukuyama writes that Bernard Le Bovier de Fontenelle wrote in 1688 that "there will be no end to the growth and development of human wisdom". Fontenelle's progress was just in natural science though but it would be important to ask if not social and political progress also would be influenced by science?
Claiming that there would be an end to progress in political science would be to demonstrate the naïveté that Albert Einstein talked about having a personal God concept. Einstein's God concept included the obvious expansion of knowledge and pointed out that what we see now is rather limited. We don't know what God looks like. Putting a face on God or claiming that no more advances would be made in organizing people here on Earth is similar.
However, Immanuel Kant wrote in his 1784 essay: "A philosophical attempt to work out a universal history according to a natural plan directed to achieving the civic union of the human race must be regarded as possible and, indeed, as contributing to this end of Nature." If the 'natural plan' is to be read 'evolution' it is not entirely sure what Kant means. Did Kant have an idea of an evolution of society? Also, 'end of Nature' does not have to mean that an endpoint has occurred in time and its development. It could be just a step on the way.
Ung och gammal till riksdagen i Östergötland (C)?
20 timmar sedan