The idea of history as an arc traces back to Hegelian thought although there are roots in Christianity seeking an eternal truth in God and bringing man closer to God. But Hegel really outlined the concept of history as an inevitable arc towards an ideal outcome, although Hegel himself certainly wouldn't be a woke radical (I like to think…
The idea of history as an arc traces back to Hegelian thought although there are roots in Christianity seeking an eternal truth in God and bringing man closer to God. But Hegel really outlined the concept of history as an inevitable arc towards an ideal outcome, although Hegel himself certainly wouldn't be a woke radical (I like to think). But this thinking heavily influenced the Marxists and the modern progressive mindset, that we're getting closer to a purer, best form of existence of man, ideally in a state freed from all the shackles of oppression in all forms (and this includes biology these days - see transgenderism). It explains why they are so ideologically rigid and opposed to compromise for they see it as reactionary and opposite the clear trajectory.
But is history as an arc only a foolish belief? Does history really march in a neat arc? Perhaps the arc is a byproduct of the explosive growth of the West following the Renaissance? When, for the first time in history, each subsequent generation had it "better" than the previous generation and the amount of science and knowledge exploded from generation to generation. One can see why you'd think there was an arc to history.
But the rest of the world, other cultures, including today, certainly don't march upwards in an arc. Nor did most of history. The singular thing about the Roman empire, for example, was despite approximately 500 years of Roman imperium, the quality of life at the beginning was remarkably the same as at the end. Very little new scientific discovery, little pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Roman building techniques improved in that aqueducts could be bigger and the arch vaulted bigger spaces and grandiose building projects were more commonplace, but the framework remained largely the same. There was no "arc of history" for the Romans.
But I like your comment that we're looking for godly answers without god. There's truth to it. The progressives seek an answer that could only be provided by God (such as what is justice?) yet man is distinctly not god. We are not and cannot be perfect and to implement a godly perfection on an imperfect species has only been catastrophic.
The idea of history as an arc traces back to Hegelian thought although there are roots in Christianity seeking an eternal truth in God and bringing man closer to God. But Hegel really outlined the concept of history as an inevitable arc towards an ideal outcome, although Hegel himself certainly wouldn't be a woke radical (I like to think). But this thinking heavily influenced the Marxists and the modern progressive mindset, that we're getting closer to a purer, best form of existence of man, ideally in a state freed from all the shackles of oppression in all forms (and this includes biology these days - see transgenderism). It explains why they are so ideologically rigid and opposed to compromise for they see it as reactionary and opposite the clear trajectory.
But is history as an arc only a foolish belief? Does history really march in a neat arc? Perhaps the arc is a byproduct of the explosive growth of the West following the Renaissance? When, for the first time in history, each subsequent generation had it "better" than the previous generation and the amount of science and knowledge exploded from generation to generation. One can see why you'd think there was an arc to history.
But the rest of the world, other cultures, including today, certainly don't march upwards in an arc. Nor did most of history. The singular thing about the Roman empire, for example, was despite approximately 500 years of Roman imperium, the quality of life at the beginning was remarkably the same as at the end. Very little new scientific discovery, little pushing the boundaries of knowledge. Roman building techniques improved in that aqueducts could be bigger and the arch vaulted bigger spaces and grandiose building projects were more commonplace, but the framework remained largely the same. There was no "arc of history" for the Romans.
But I like your comment that we're looking for godly answers without god. There's truth to it. The progressives seek an answer that could only be provided by God (such as what is justice?) yet man is distinctly not god. We are not and cannot be perfect and to implement a godly perfection on an imperfect species has only been catastrophic.