Philosophy of History: Meaning, Progress, and the Critique of Historicism

Does history have a meaning? A thread, a direction, perhaps even a law governing the succession of empires, revolutions, and ideas — or is history merely, as Macbeth put it, “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”? This apparently simple question actually conceals two very different questions, and confusing them accounts for much of the muddle surrounding “philosophy of history.” The first question is speculative: what is the meaning, the motor, or the law of the historical process as a whole? The second is critical or epistemological: how do we know the past, what kind of science (if any) history is, and what it means to “understand” a human event. This article traces the most influential answers to the first question — from Augustine to Fukuyama — and shows how, in the twentieth century, the second question turned against the first, in a movement of suspicion running from Dilthey to Popper and Lyotard.

1. Two philosophies of history

The phrase “philosophy of history” is relatively recent — it was Voltaire who, in the second half of the eighteenth century, coined the term (in a work aptly titled La Philosophie de l’histoire, 1765) to designate a rational, critical examination of the human past, freed from theological tutelage. But the question the phrase names is far older, and it splits, as much twentieth-century scholarship has noted, into two distinct projects.

Speculative philosophy of history asks about the overall meaning of the process: is there a plan, a progress, a law of development running through the civilizations? That is the project of Augustine, Hegel, Marx, Comte, Spengler. Critical (or analytical) philosophy of history, by contrast, does not ask about the meaning of history but about the nature of historical knowledge: what counts as a historical explanation, what distinguishes the historian’s method from the physicist’s, how judgments about the past are justified. That is the project of Dilthey and, in a different key, of analytic philosophers investigating narrative and historical causation. The two projects constantly intersect — and it is that intersection, with its tensions and ruptures, that this survey tries to retrace.

2. The providential matrix: Augustine and Bossuet

The West’s first great speculative philosophy of history is Christian. In The City of God, written after the Visigothic sack of Rome in 410, Saint Augustine answers the pagan charge that Christianity had weakened the empire by rejecting both the Greeks’ eternal cycle (the endless return of civilizations) and any naive faith in earthly progress. For Augustine history is the drama of salvation: time runs in a straight line, from original sin to the Last Judgment, and along that line two mystical “cities” — the earthly city, founded on self-love, and the City of God, founded on love of God — intertwine without ever merging. No earthly empire, not even Rome, is the ultimate meaning of history; only Providence steers time toward its close. This linear, teleological conception, radically unlike ancient cyclical time, is the cradle of the entire Western philosophy of history — including, as we will see, the secular versions that would later replace it.

More than a thousand years later, the French bishop Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet explicitly revives the Augustinian model in his Discourse on Universal History (1681), written as tutor to the Dauphin of France. Bossuet reads the whole succession of empires — Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Roman — as chapters of a single divine plan culminating in Christianity and, more particularly, in the French monarchy. It is the last great providentialist synthesis before the Enlightenment proposed its secular alternative.

3. Vico: the New Science and the courses and recourses

A late contemporary of Bossuet, the Neapolitan Giambattista Vico occupies a singular, isolated place in this story. In his New Science (Scienza Nuova, 1725, with revised editions in 1730 and 1744), Vico proposes an epistemological principle that would become fundamental to all later critical philosophy of history: the verum-factum principle — we truly know only what we ourselves have made. God, who made nature, has perfect knowledge of it; but human beings, who made history — laws, languages, institutions, myths — can have of it a knowledge just as certain, indeed more certain than our knowledge of the physical nature we did not fabricate.

From this principle Vico describes the development of nations according to a pattern of corsi e ricorsi (“courses and recourses”): every civilization passes through an age of gods, an age of heroes, and an age of men, before degenerating into a “barbarism of reflection” and beginning the cycle anew (the ricorso). It is neither an identical eternal return nor a linear, irreversible progress: it is a spiral pattern, in which each recourse repeats the earlier structure under new historical conditions. Largely ignored in his own time, Vico’s work would be rediscovered and celebrated by Michelet, Croce, and twentieth-century historiography as a remarkable anticipation of both historicism and hermeneutics.

4. Voltaire, the Enlightenment, and the idea of progress: Condorcet

If Voltaire named the discipline, it was another Enlightenment thinker, the Marquis de Condorcet, who gave it its most optimistic formulation. Written clandestinely in 1793–94 while Condorcet hid from the Jacobin persecution that would cause his death, the Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind (published posthumously in 1795) tells human history as a succession of ten epochs, each marking an advance of reason over superstition, servitude, and prejudice — and foretells a future tenth epoch of almost unlimited human perfectibility. It is the high-water mark of Enlightenment optimism about historical progress: history ceases to be the drama of divine salvation and becomes instead the secular saga of reason liberating itself.

5. Herder: the plurality of cultures against abstract universalism

To this linear, uniform confidence in progress, the German Johann Gottfried Herder raises a decisive objection in his Ideas for a Philosophy of the History of Humanity (1784–1791). Against the Enlightenment notion of a single standard of reason and civilization to which all peoples should conform — with Enlightenment Europe at the top of the scale — Herder argues that every people (Volk) possesses its own spirit, a Volksgeist, expressed in its language, customs, and culture, which cannot be measured by another people’s yardstick. Each culture has its own center of gravity and its own criterion of value; there is no single scale of civilization on which “backward” peoples are merely imperfect versions of modern Europeans. This critique of Enlightenment abstract universalism — and of the eurocentrism that often accompanied it — makes Herder a forerunner of cultural relativism, of German historicism, and, later, of cultural anthropology.

6. Kant: unsociable sociability and the cosmopolitan guiding thread

Between Condorcet’s optimism and Herder’s pluralism, Immanuel Kant proposes a third way in his short essay Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (1784). Kant acknowledges that, seen up close, human history looks like a web of folly, childish vanity, and often childish malice: wars, ambitions, cruelties with no apparent aim. But he suggests that the philosopher, like the naturalist confronting apparently chaotic phenomena, might seek in it a hidden guiding thread — not as if history had a conscious purpose, but as a regulative hypothesis that makes it intelligible.

The motor of that guiding thread is what Kant calls unsociable sociability (ungesellige Geselligkeit): human beings have a tendency to associate, but also an antagonistic tendency to isolate themselves, compete, and dominate one another. It is precisely this antagonism — the desire for honor, power, and possession that breeds conflict — that forces the development of human capacities, of the arts, and of legal institutions capable of disciplining unsociability itself. Nature, on this view, uses vice and conflict as means to produce, at the end of a long historical process, a cosmopolitan legal condition of peace among peoples. Kant’s essay anticipates, in broad outline, themes Hegel would develop on a far larger scale.

7. Hegel: reason in history and the cunning of reason

It is in Hegel, above all in the Lectures on the Philosophy of History (reconstructed by his students from the courses he gave in Berlin between 1822 and 1830, and published posthumously), that speculative philosophy of history reaches its most systematic and influential formulation. For Hegel, universal history is neither a chaos of contingent events nor merely the moral drama of individual virtues and vices: it is the process by which Spirit (Geist) progressively becomes conscious of itself as freedom. “World history is progress in the consciousness of freedom,” Hegel writes — a progress he famously describes in three great stages: the peoples of the East know that one man (the despot) is free; the Greco-Roman world knows that some are free; the Germanic-Christian world, heir to the Reformation and the French Revolution, knows that man as such, every man, is free.

The mechanism driving this realization is what Hegel calls the cunning of reason (List der Vernunft): great historical individuals — Caesar, Napoleon — pursue entirely particular passions and ambitions (power, glory, conquest), without knowing that in doing so they serve a universal purpose that surpasses them and of which they remain unaware. Reason, Hegel says, “lets the passions work for it,” while itself remaining in the background, steering the overall outcome of the process. It is worth noting that this historical dialectic does not follow the formula “thesis-antithesis-synthesis” — a later label, tied to simplified readings of German idealism (closer to Fichte and to commentators such as Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus than to Hegel’s own vocabulary, which speaks instead of moments of affirmation, negation, and negation of the negation, or Aufhebung). Recognizing the retrospective character of all philosophical understanding, Hegel closes the preface to the Philosophy of Right (1820) with the image of the owl of Minerva, which “spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk”: philosophy grasps a form of life only after it has already grown old.

8. Marx: setting the dialectic on its feet

Karl Marx inherits from Hegel the idea that history has a rational, progressive structure, but he flatly rejects its idealist explanation. Where for Hegel it is Spirit — the Idea unfolding — that is the real subject of history, for Marx the motor of the process is the material conditions under which human beings produce their means of life: how men produce their subsistence determines the shape of their social, political, and intellectual relations, not the other way around. This is historical materialism: the economic base (the forces and relations of production) conditions the superstructure (state, law, religion, philosophy).

Marx describes this famous move as an inversion: turning the Hegelian dialectic, which “was standing on its head,” right side up. History is now read as a succession of modes of production — primitive communism, the Asiatic mode, ancient slavery, feudalism, capitalism — each generated by the internal contradictions of the one before, and each transition driven by class struggle. His critique of Hegel’s idealist teleology is twofold: on one hand, he accuses Hegel of mysticism, of making the abstract Idea the active subject of history, when in fact it is real human beings, in their material relations, who make history (though, as Marx writes, they do not make it “just as they please,” but under conditions inherited from the past); on the other hand, he retains from Hegel the conviction that history has a necessary, knowable direction, which for Marx would culminate in communism as the final overcoming of class contradictions. That teleological inheritance — the idea of a history with a law and a necessary outcome — would become precisely the target of the harshest critique Marxism received in the twentieth century: Karl Popper’s.

9. Comte: the law of three stages

A contemporary of Marx’s intellectual formation, Auguste Comte proposes, in his Course of Positive Philosophy (1830–1842), another great speculative law of history: the law of three stages. According to Comte, both individual thought and humanity as a whole necessarily pass through three successive intellectual stages — the theological stage, in which phenomena are explained by supernatural wills (from fetishism to monotheism); the metaphysical stage, in which abstract entities and hidden forces replace gods as explanatory principles; and the positive stage, in which the human mind gives up seeking ultimate causes and settles for describing the constant laws governing observable phenomena. Every particular science, Comte holds, passes through this itinerary at its own pace, culminating in the founding of a “social physics” — sociology — that would finally apply the positive method to the study of society itself. Like Hegel and Marx, Comte conceives of history as a necessary, knowable process of laws, though his law is epistemological (stages of knowledge) rather than dialectical.

10. German historicism and Dilthey: understanding rather than explaining

At the end of the nineteenth century, a reaction against the grand speculative philosophies of history began to take shape in Germany — not in the name of another law of history, but in the name of the methodological autonomy of the human sciences. Wilhelm Dilthey, heir to the German historicist tradition of Ranke and Humboldt (which insisted on the irreducible singularity of each age, against any universal scheme of progress), sought to give the Geisteswissenschaften — the human sciences (history, philology, law, psychology) — a philosophical foundation as legitimate as that of the natural sciences, yet irreducible to them.

Dilthey’s central distinction is between Erklären (explaining) and Verstehen (understanding): the natural sciences explain phenomena by subsuming them under general causal laws; the human sciences understand expressions of human life — texts, actions, institutions — by reconstructing the lived meaning that generated them, in their historical singularity. One does not explain a work of art or a political constitution the way one explains a falling body. By shifting the axis of philosophy of history from the speculative question (“what is the meaning of the process?”) to the critical question (“how do we know a historically situated human expression?”), Dilthey opens the direct path to the hermeneutics of Heidegger and Gadamer in the following century.

11. Spengler and Toynbee: the morphology of cultures and challenge-and-response

Between the two world wars, two grand attempts to revive speculative philosophy of history in a non-linear, non-progressive key gained enormous public resonance. The German Oswald Spengler, in The Decline of the West (Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918–1922), proposes a morphology of cultures: each great culture — Egyptian, Classical, Arabian, Western — is a living organism, with a birth, a youth, a maturity, and an inevitable death, analogous to a biological being, rather than a stage in a single, universal progress of humanity. For Spengler there is no “history of humanity” in the singular, only the cyclical, comparable fate of isolated cultures, each closed within its own “style” and incapable of truly understanding the others.

The British historian Toynbee, in his monumental A Study of History (12 volumes, 1934–1961), takes up the comparative project on an even larger scale, but proposes a different mechanism from Spengler’s to explain the birth and growth of civilizations: the scheme of challenge-and-response. Civilizations arise and develop when a human group responds creatively to a challenge — environmental, military, social — and decline when their “creative minorities” lose the capacity to respond to new challenges and resort to ruling by force rather than by prestige. Both projects, despite their enormous popularity, drew sharp academic criticism for their schematism and for the difficulty of subjecting their sweeping generalizations to rigorous historical verification.

12. Popper: the poverty of historicism

It is against exactly this kind of claim — to find necessary laws that would allow us to predict history’s future course — that Karl Popper directs his most influential critique. It is essential to note that Popper uses the term “historicism” in a technical, peculiar sense that he himself defines, and which does not coincide with the more common meaning of the German term Historismus associated with Dilthey and Ranke (which denotes rather an emphasis on singularity and on understanding the past, not a belief in predictive laws). For Popper, historicism is the doctrine that there exist inexorable laws of historical development, knowable through reason or social science, that would allow us to predict the future of humanity — whether it be the unfolding of Spirit in Hegel, the succession of modes of production in Marx, or the organic morphology of cultures in Spengler.

In The Poverty of Historicism (1957) and in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945) — the latter written during Popper’s New Zealand exile, under the direct impact of the rise of Nazism and Stalinism — the argument is both logical and political. Logically, Popper holds that a rigorous scientific prediction of the future course of human knowledge is impossible, because that future knowledge (which does not yet exist) would itself determine the course of history, and one cannot today predict the content of a knowledge not yet produced. Politically, Popper sees in historicism the common soil of the great totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century: by claiming to be the custodian of a necessary law of history, the historicist feels authorized to impose, in the name of an inevitable future, any present sacrifice — thereby justifying authoritarianism. Against the grand historical prophecies, Popper defends the open society, which advances through gradual, testable, reversible reforms (piecemeal social engineering), and insists that humanity’s future remains radically open: no law determines it.

13. Walter Benjamin: the angel of history against progress

A few years before Popper, but from a completely different philosophical and political place, Walter Benjamin had formulated his own, radical suspicion of the idea of historical progress. In the Theses on the Concept of History, written in 1940 shortly before his suicide at the Franco-Spanish border while fleeing Nazi persecution, and published only posthumously, Benjamin attacks both traditional academic historicism — which claims to relive the past “as it really was,” in empathy with the victors — and the faith in automatic progress held by the social democracy and vulgar Marxism of his time.

Drawing on a watercolor by Paul Klee, Angelus Novus, which he owned, Benjamin describes the angel of history: a figure with wide-open eyes and outstretched wings, facing the past, who sees there not a succession of progress but a single, uninterrupted catastrophe, piling wreckage upon wreckage at its feet. A storm blowing from Paradise — what we call progress — is caught in the angel’s wings with such force that it cannot close them; the angel is driven, backward, into the future, while the pile of debris before it grows skyward. The image is a direct refusal of the Hegelian and Marxist confidence (though Benjamin remained, in his own heterodox way, a Marxist) in a homogeneous, empty time that would progress steadily forward. In its place, Benjamin proposes to brush history “against the grain,” rescuing the silenced suffering of the defeated, and recognizes in every present moment (the Jetztzeit, the “now-time”) a narrow gate through which the messiah might enter.

14. Fukuyama: the end of history?

In 1989, in the aftermath of the Soviet bloc’s collapse, the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama published the essay “The End of History?” in The National Interest, later expanded into the book The End of History and the Last Man (1992). Fukuyama’s thesis explicitly revives Hegel — but a Hegel read through the celebrated Paris lectures of the Russian-French philosopher Alexandre Kojève in the 1930s, which interpreted the Phenomenology of Spirit as a philosophy of history culminating in the “end of history” with the post-revolutionary universal and homogeneous state. Fukuyama argues that, with the triumph of liberal democracy and the market economy over their twentieth-century ideological rivals (fascism, communism), humanity had reached not the end of events but the end of humanity’s ideological evolution: there would no longer be, at the level of principle, a superior systemic alternative left to seek, even as conflicts, wars, and crises continued to occur.

The thesis provoked intense and lasting controversy. Critics pointed out that it underestimated the persistence of ideological alternatives (nationalisms, religious fundamentalisms, market authoritarianisms such as the Chinese model), and that the events of the following decades — from September 11 to the rise of illiberal regimes in the twenty-first century — seemed to disprove, or at least seriously complicate, the prognosis. Fukuyama himself revisited and qualified parts of his thesis in later writings. But the controversy surrounding “the end of history” illustrates, in exemplary fashion, the problem Popper had flagged decades earlier: every grand historical prophecy risks being disproved by the very future it claimed to anticipate.

15. The postmodern critique: Lyotard and the end of metanarratives

The most recent blow against speculative philosophies of history comes from the so-called postmodern critique. In The Postmodern Condition (1979), Jean-François Lyotard defines the postmodern precisely as “incredulity toward metanarratives” — and the metanarratives he has in mind are, first and foremost, exactly the grand speculative philosophies of history examined in this article: the Enlightenment narrative of reason’s progressive emancipation, the Hegelian narrative of Spirit’s self-realization, the Marxist narrative of the proletariat’s universal liberation. For Lyotard, these metanarratives have lost their power to legitimate knowledge and collective action; what remains is a plurality of heterogeneous, incommensurable “language games,” with no master narrative capable of gathering them under a single meaning or a single law.

Lyotard’s critique thus closes a long arc: from Augustine’s Providence to Hegel’s Spirit, from Comte’s law of three stages to Marx’s historical materialism, each speculative philosophy of history promised to decipher the hidden meaning of human time. Dilthey’s epistemological critique, Popper’s logical-political refutation, and Lyotard’s postmodern suspicion converge, by very different paths, on the same warning: perhaps history has no meaning to be discovered, only meanings to be constructed, always provisional, always revisable — and it is this very uncertainty, more than any law, that marks the human condition in time.

References

• Saint Augustine, The City of God (c. 413–426).
• Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Discourse on Universal History (1681).
• Giambattista Vico, The New Science (1725; 3rd ed. 1744).
• Voltaire, La Philosophie de l’histoire (1765).
• Johann Gottfried Herder, Ideas for a Philosophy of the History of Humanity (1784–1791).
• Immanuel Kant, Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose (1784).
• Nicolas de Condorcet, Sketch for a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind (1795).
• G. W. F. Hegel, Lectures on the Philosophy of History (course of 1822–1830; publ. posthumously); Philosophy of Right (1820).
• Auguste Comte, Course of Positive Philosophy (1830–1842).
• Karl Marx, The German Ideology (1845–46, with Engels); Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859).
• Wilhelm Dilthey, Introduction to the Human Sciences (1883).
• Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West (1918–1922).
• Arnold J. Toynbee, A Study of History (12 vols., 1934–1961).
• Walter Benjamin, Theses on the Concept of History (written 1940; publ. posthumously).
• Karl Popper, The Poverty of Historicism (1957); The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945).
• Alexandre Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (course 1933–1939; publ. 1947).
• Francis Fukuyama, “The End of History?” (1989); The End of History and the Last Man (1992).
• Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition (1979).

← Articles