Customer Reviews

The Meaning of History

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Professor Ronald Nash has written an enjoyable overview of the philosophy of history. He starts out with a discussion of "world views" from a Christian perspective. He then contrasts the Christian view of history (linear) to the typical non-Christian view, which tends to be cyclical. He then provides concise discussions of some of the principal philosophers of history: Augustine, Vico, Herder, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Spengler and Toynbee. He critiques their thought from a Christian perspective, in his case a Calvinist philosophy drawning on the thought of Gordon Clark (although, curiously, he doesn't refer the reader to Clark's principal work on the subject, Historiography: Secular and Religious).

This is an enjoyable book, meant primarily for those with minimal knowledge of philosophy and the philosophy of history. There's nothing wrong with that, but at times the discussions of various writers can be rather slim. On the other hand, many people well-read in philosophy aren't familiar with Vico and Herder, and they should be.

Readers who are interested in the topic might wish to start with Prof. Nash's work on then read Brander's Staring Into Chaos and Bebbington's Patterns of History. Also relevant is Passmore's The Perfectability of Man, which deals with similar issues from a somewhat different perspective.

This is probably the clearest Introduction to what is sometimes called the Philosophy of History. The book examines most of the important theories about the meaning of history, including Augustine, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Spengler and Toynbee. It pays special attention to the powerful influence of the linear view of history first proposed by Jewish and Christian contributors to the Bible.

I have an aversion to verse-itis.
I hate the seduction of reductionism
I am apologetic about any use of apologetics.

But I unapologetically love the book...even though I didn't want to.
I don't necessarily see Nash selling out to any of those paths.
Mostly, he is limited by the very medium (which becomes, and here becomes {see dictionary definition #2}, the message)
a short introduction (!) to the meaning of history.
Facing an impossible job, he has done wonderfully well.


The basic idea is to introduce us to the speculative history of speculative history, via a comparison of the cyclical view with a linear view (specifically, a Christian view and worldview), and then through a succinct summary of representative figures of the philosophy of history: Augustine, Vico, Kant, Herder, Marx and Spengler/Toynbee..
and all with an apologetic edge; offering the Christian worldview, which Nash defines as linear as opposed to cyclical.

Thoughts:

1)For all the risk of reductionism, it may be the best place for the general (Christian) reader to start on the topic. Nash also offers that it also "a good place...for slightly advanced students of the subject to check their previously acquired opinions" (p. x). I also appreciated his ability to avoid a cheesy "we must train our young people to recapture a Christian worldview" as he discusses how important worldview ("conceptual system") is; and reminds us that everyone inevitably operates from one, and that worldviews are inherently religious. It was somewhat surprising (and refreshing) to read an evangelical saying in print that "Paul Tillich was right." Though Nash is quick to nuance:
"Paul Tillich is right when he defined religion as a matter of 'ultimate concern'...Religion is more than this, but it cannot be less." (27). His chapter on worldview reminded me of VanderLaan's quote that "every story has a pricetag."

2)The chapter on Hegel is hugely helpful. Nash makes the case that Hegel is widely misunderstood
as the thesis>antithesis>synthesis triad. Nash notes that Hegel himself never directly used those three words together, and when he did encounter what would today be popularly considered the basic Hegelian view of the triad, he explicitly rejects it (see Hegel's preface to Phenomenology of Mind)!
Hegel is not very Hegelian at some points! (and don't blame Calvin for all things branded Calvinism...ditto for
SK et al). The issues raised in the process of deconstructing and reconstructing Hegel are also key in grasping
a) what Hegel intends to connote by aufhebehn (synthesis) and Geist (Spirit/World Spirit/Mind/God)
b)the centrality of self-consciousness and freedom to Hegelian thought.

2)I certainly was not expect a proposed solution to the authorship mystery of The Book of Hebrews to show up in the book at all, let alone to be so pivotal to the flow that a whole chapter (4) is dedicated to the suggested writer...Apollos..being "the first Christian philosopher). Nash makes the case that the argument of Hebrews assumes an author familiar with (from experience), and arguing against, a Philo -tainted, and Alexandrian-infected (read circular/cyclical) view of history. Check it out in Chapter 4 (though, maddeningly, a huge teaser for "the first Christian philosopher" in the book's introduction [page 4] mistakenly suggests this unveiling happens in Chapter 5....... the only typo/editing mistake I found in the whole book, pretty rare)

3) A format criticism: The book has no concluding chapter. It ends with a chapter on the New Marxism.
That seems bizarre, even impossible for an apologetics kind of book...until you realize there indeed is a brief concluding section, but it will never be found by the causal reader, as it is part of the final chapter on the New Marxism.

In all, an excellent...maybe the best...place to start. Nash would be the first to be sure you branch out from there.
But what a gift to have this unprecedented starting place.

A more detailed version of this review is on my blog, Holy Heteroclite.

This book looks at history from a christian worlddview and makes a solid case for trust and faith in the God of creation

Well, this book is all about that, so I won't tell you why. But, if you are interested, you should read it. Unfortunately, Nash seems to waste some of his time discussing the authorship of the book of Hebrews. One wishes that he could have expounded a little more on the Christian philosophy of history. But, I think that Nash did a great job in introducing the main philosophies of history of the Western world. Note: the "cyclical," "linear," "spiral" stuff, in my opinion, is all about the "One" and the "Many" (i.e., the Trinity). You see, we need just as much of a Trinitarian philosophy of history as we do a Trinitarian epistemology, metaphysics, etc.