Our view of history guides our view of the future

One of the main reasons given for not studying the future is that it is inherently difficult and inaccurate. After all, we don’t have any FACTS to rely upon, no hard data collected that can show us what’s next, only fuzzy forecasts, unrelated statistics, and cultural bias. Therefore, it’s easy to understand why we have a history class, one that helps us understand our place in time, and not a future class, which could ostensibly do the same thing. History has facts, data, and minimal bias – we’re not guessing…right?

Actually, there are probably as many potential scenarios in history as there are the present, and the data is no more compelling. My favorite quote on history comes from the Irish: “Historical facts are like cows. When you try to look them in the eye, they walk away.” (This makes total sense if you grew up in Vermont around cows, incidentally.)

An argument can be made that we need to re-examine what we think of history, since the data presented on it seems to be weighted heavily toward empires, their leaders, and the wars they got themselves into. Instead, we might also focus on the history of economics, philosophy, religion, science, and ecology, which arguably had a much larger impact on how our ancestors actually lived their lives.

Some wonderful people are doing this right now. I’d like to point you at a class to be taught in Delaware by my mentor, colleague, and friend, the economic-philospher-spiritual-historian-awesome-guy Chris Largent, author of such books as The Soul of Economies and The Paradigm Conspiracy.

Chris argues that in the midst of the hysterical blaring of our terrorize-for-profit media we ought to ask if perhaps human history isn’t a non-stop orgy of violence, power-mad dictators, and child abductions, and maybe instead involves a constant progress toward enlightenment, justice, cuisine, art, and getting along. OR, maybe it’s a mix of the two – but if we want to know our future, we should ask these questions about our past.

Why Bother With History?  The Reason for the Seventh Academy’s ‘Big Picture

Many historians point out that the way we look at history is the way we look at ourselves.

History presents the human drama to us, and the way historians present that drama determines whether we see it as a comedy or a tragedy, as meaningful or meaningless, as a development or a descent.  And that is how we see our own lives.

How we see things is, of course, a philosophical matter, and each of us is a philosopher of sorts.  So we as philosophers want to know just what history is up to.

History itself hasn’t always fared well among philosophers, even among historians.  While Voltaire called history “no more than the portrayal of crimes and misfortunes” and Carlyle referred to it as “a distillation of rumor,” even the brilliant historian Will Durant commented in the first volume of his masterwork, ‘The Story of Civilization,’ that “most history is guessing, and the rest is prejudice” (‘Our Oriental Heritage,’ p. 12).

But history won’t go away.  And philosophers — whether we’re professional or forming our own philosophies — need to be clear about how it impacts our worldviews and our world.  And we need to be clear for three reasons:

First, history suggests what humanity is like.

• A history full of wars and cruelty gives us a picture of ourselves as brutal and destructive, scarcely fit to live, much less occupy such a nice planet.
• A history that excludes meaning determines that we’ll be nihilists about ourselves as well: we’ll think there’s no point to our lives.
• A history that doesn’t put art, music, literature, or philosophy on its “front page” diminishes our sense of ourselves as creative, artistic, or contemplative.
• A history that takes the opposite stance of all of these presents us with a humanity that seeks meaning, expresses itself creatively, and contemplates higher ideas.

In short, the way history is reported shapes what we think about human nature — and thus about our own nature.

Second, history suggests the factors that shape our world, the forces with which we have to deal.

• Are we the result of some plan, or are we here by chance?
• Do we deal with mindless forces (of history, economics, or politics), or are there designs behind how history has unfolded?
• Is “nature” for us or against us?
• Is “human nature” for us or against us?
• Are there other natures involved here that we don’t know about?
• Are we among friends or enemies?

Third and finally, history proposes images that form our impression what’s going on here.  Does history present life as a game?  a battle?  an invasion?  a schoolroom?  a joke?  an experiment (good or bad)?

The popular “liberal” position is that history is a struggle of humans to rise above their Freudian drives and to progress toward some higher state of society, mostly defined by humane values — resisted by “reactionaries” who aren’t intelligent enough to grasp progressive values and who aren’t humane enough to be humanitarian.

The popular “conservative” position is that history is a struggle to retain traditional values despite the “barbarians,” those less civilized in some way (those “others,” who are of a lesser religion, a lesser political system or party, a lesser culture, or even — in its most obnoxious form, a lesser race or sex).

But it’s possible, even desirable, to take a different look at history’s events.  And this is what a careful study of history does: it invites us to rethink what the world is about – and thus, what our lives are about.

So, in autumn of 2009, historical explorers joining the  ‘Big Picture’ study will venture into a deeper history.  We will take a more profound look at the world we inhabit and ourselves.

And we will discover that history is full of surprises.

Please join us!  Thanks!

Chris