"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."
-Jefferson, "Letter to Roger C. Weightman" (June 24, 1826)
In terms of our global society trending towards more freedom, I don't think that there's much doubt that that's the case. Once people are given a glimpse of the life that democracy can bring them, then tend to crave it (ex. Cuba, Hong Kong, Ukraine, etc.). In terms of a "recent retreat of democracy," I don't feel like that's the case. Yes, a lot of people in the United States are upset about economic conditions, recent SCOTUS rulings, etc., but that seems to be people (either a majority or minority) complaining that things aren't going exactly the way that they want them to, which is always how it is. In general (at least from my perspective in the United States), the quality of life continues to improve. Yes, there are unfavorable SCOTUS rulings, and economic conditions could be better, but life is better (generally) than it has been in the past. In 1927 (when 3/4 of my grandparents were alive), the Court ruled in favor of Virginia's eugenics laws in Buck v. Bell, and then Black Tuesday occurred in 1929, signaling the start of the Great Depression (even though it wasn't the cause). While we deal with challenges in our day, they aren't as bad as what our grandparents dealt with in the past. Overall, life (standard of living, life expectancy, medical care, etc.) is improving, and globally, it's trending toward freedom. But as you described with Hegel, for us to appreciate it more fully, maybe we need to look more at the grand scale: focus more on the forest as a whole than on the individual trees.
Thoughtful observations, Jake. On democracy's condition around the world, the Economist Intelligence Unit has a pretty good measure. Here's a synopsis that doesn't require subscription: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Recent_changes
Patterns in history are always interesting to look at in the abstract. I especially enjoyed Jacques Barzun's idea of the flow from decadence back to primitivism. While I think he oversimplified some aspects of the Reformation transition, his book is a wonderful read to cram in 500 years of history and why/how things happened from an intellectual standpoint.
Hegel's ideas, like many Enlightenment thinkers, twist themselves into an intellectual pretzel to find some other pattern of life other than our history of God's salvation. It is such an interesting rebellion from the Church thinking into something of their creation. "Man at the center of the drama," as one theologian criticized it. The main players of the Enlightenment like Hegel still are quite influential, but your "also rans" produced some very absurd works that continually age worse every decade.
Hegel's freedom theory is interesting, as it reflects the inevitability of the West's revulsion of slavery and ultimate abolition. Whether reading Somerset or the Jay Treaty, it is clear (in retrospect, of course) that slavery and Western thought would conflict in the long run. That being said, as others have mentioned, what is this measurement of amorphous "freedom." When it is defined by whatever we like, or even worse, whatever our elected leaders give us, then creating some sort of "Hegel-o-meter of freedom" measures nothing particular of substance.
Possibly what Hegel saw was simply the expansion of Western European values, starting with Greece and Rome. And maybe that expansion has reached its limit. Are Chinese any freer than they were a thousand years ago? They are certainly wealthier, and that affords freedom from poverty, which is no small thing. But Xi Jinping rules very much like a traditional Chinese emperor (as did Mao Zedong). And Vladimir Putin might as well be another czar.
It seems to me that the idea there is "progress" in history might be true, but it is conflated with at least two other phenomenon. First, there absolutely are technological improvements and, for the last several hundred years, meaningful improvements in material comfort which have accelerated and globalized since World War II. So far, technological improvements have *tended* to increase freedom. See, e.g., the printing press, telephony, the internet, individual motorized transportation, and the liberating effects of cheap calories (we don't have to spend all our time groveling for food). To what degree is the march of technology creating an illusion of moral progress? Second, we assess moral (as opposed to material) "progress" against our own morality, which runs the risk of confirmation bias. Some matters would seem to be clear. The huge reduction in involuntary servitude around the world (another gain for which technological progress should get a lot of credit) is unlikely to be thought of as anything other than moral progress. But not everything is so clear. The debate over abortion is an example -- is the right to abortions moral progress, or moral reversion? Are easy divorce, and the widespread acceptance of out-of-wedlock births progress because they are liberating, or markers of social decline because of their impact on the next generation? Tough questions, if considered fairly.
Your comments, Jack, suggest why Hegel was very cautious in defining what he meant by freedom. Aside from technology, we often confuse "freedom from" and "freedom to." The former (freedom from slavery or arbitrary power, for example) simply requires powerful people or institutions to cease doing the obnoxious thing they were doing to me. The latter (freedom to start a business, to get an education) requires me to do something positive, and thereby to risk failure. The former almost always advances equality; the latter often has the opposite effect. Hegel stressed freedom; Marx, who was Hegel's intellectual heir in many ways, stressed equality. In this imperfect world we all inhabit, we have to choose between freedom and equality. We don't get both. And therein lies one of the great divides in political thought and practice.
"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."
-Jefferson, "Letter to Roger C. Weightman" (June 24, 1826)
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-roger-c-weightman/
"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice."
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
Another thought-provoking, Bill. After reading this, I reviewed a couple of your related past posts:
-The golden age https://hwbrands.substack.com/p/the-golden-age
-What did Hegel know? https://hwbrands.substack.com/p/what-did-hegel-know
In terms of our global society trending towards more freedom, I don't think that there's much doubt that that's the case. Once people are given a glimpse of the life that democracy can bring them, then tend to crave it (ex. Cuba, Hong Kong, Ukraine, etc.). In terms of a "recent retreat of democracy," I don't feel like that's the case. Yes, a lot of people in the United States are upset about economic conditions, recent SCOTUS rulings, etc., but that seems to be people (either a majority or minority) complaining that things aren't going exactly the way that they want them to, which is always how it is. In general (at least from my perspective in the United States), the quality of life continues to improve. Yes, there are unfavorable SCOTUS rulings, and economic conditions could be better, but life is better (generally) than it has been in the past. In 1927 (when 3/4 of my grandparents were alive), the Court ruled in favor of Virginia's eugenics laws in Buck v. Bell, and then Black Tuesday occurred in 1929, signaling the start of the Great Depression (even though it wasn't the cause). While we deal with challenges in our day, they aren't as bad as what our grandparents dealt with in the past. Overall, life (standard of living, life expectancy, medical care, etc.) is improving, and globally, it's trending toward freedom. But as you described with Hegel, for us to appreciate it more fully, maybe we need to look more at the grand scale: focus more on the forest as a whole than on the individual trees.
Thoughtful observations, Jake. On democracy's condition around the world, the Economist Intelligence Unit has a pretty good measure. Here's a synopsis that doesn't require subscription: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Recent_changes
Patterns in history are always interesting to look at in the abstract. I especially enjoyed Jacques Barzun's idea of the flow from decadence back to primitivism. While I think he oversimplified some aspects of the Reformation transition, his book is a wonderful read to cram in 500 years of history and why/how things happened from an intellectual standpoint.
Hegel's ideas, like many Enlightenment thinkers, twist themselves into an intellectual pretzel to find some other pattern of life other than our history of God's salvation. It is such an interesting rebellion from the Church thinking into something of their creation. "Man at the center of the drama," as one theologian criticized it. The main players of the Enlightenment like Hegel still are quite influential, but your "also rans" produced some very absurd works that continually age worse every decade.
Hegel's freedom theory is interesting, as it reflects the inevitability of the West's revulsion of slavery and ultimate abolition. Whether reading Somerset or the Jay Treaty, it is clear (in retrospect, of course) that slavery and Western thought would conflict in the long run. That being said, as others have mentioned, what is this measurement of amorphous "freedom." When it is defined by whatever we like, or even worse, whatever our elected leaders give us, then creating some sort of "Hegel-o-meter of freedom" measures nothing particular of substance.
Possibly what Hegel saw was simply the expansion of Western European values, starting with Greece and Rome. And maybe that expansion has reached its limit. Are Chinese any freer than they were a thousand years ago? They are certainly wealthier, and that affords freedom from poverty, which is no small thing. But Xi Jinping rules very much like a traditional Chinese emperor (as did Mao Zedong). And Vladimir Putin might as well be another czar.
It seems to me that the idea there is "progress" in history might be true, but it is conflated with at least two other phenomenon. First, there absolutely are technological improvements and, for the last several hundred years, meaningful improvements in material comfort which have accelerated and globalized since World War II. So far, technological improvements have *tended* to increase freedom. See, e.g., the printing press, telephony, the internet, individual motorized transportation, and the liberating effects of cheap calories (we don't have to spend all our time groveling for food). To what degree is the march of technology creating an illusion of moral progress? Second, we assess moral (as opposed to material) "progress" against our own morality, which runs the risk of confirmation bias. Some matters would seem to be clear. The huge reduction in involuntary servitude around the world (another gain for which technological progress should get a lot of credit) is unlikely to be thought of as anything other than moral progress. But not everything is so clear. The debate over abortion is an example -- is the right to abortions moral progress, or moral reversion? Are easy divorce, and the widespread acceptance of out-of-wedlock births progress because they are liberating, or markers of social decline because of their impact on the next generation? Tough questions, if considered fairly.
Your comments, Jack, suggest why Hegel was very cautious in defining what he meant by freedom. Aside from technology, we often confuse "freedom from" and "freedom to." The former (freedom from slavery or arbitrary power, for example) simply requires powerful people or institutions to cease doing the obnoxious thing they were doing to me. The latter (freedom to start a business, to get an education) requires me to do something positive, and thereby to risk failure. The former almost always advances equality; the latter often has the opposite effect. Hegel stressed freedom; Marx, who was Hegel's intellectual heir in many ways, stressed equality. In this imperfect world we all inhabit, we have to choose between freedom and equality. We don't get both. And therein lies one of the great divides in political thought and practice.
Wrote something up...
https://thehistoryoftheamericans.com/is-there-an-arc-of-history/