Note that the term ‘evolution of freedom’ is really a metaphysical concept and that standard science will simply exclude the term/concept. A true theory of evolution might also dispense with the term but the net equivalent in practice is essential (as Hegel seems to have understood, to say nothing of Kant)
Kant has a better starting point for analyzing history: the left is in a muddle between marx and (unspoken) hegel, but both are attempting to resolve the questions of kant.
With two centuries of research: archaeology, we are in a much better position to answer to kant, viz. the eonic effect…
The free will debate lurks in the background of leftist politics, in part because of the deterministic confusions of marxist ‘mode of production’ theory. It is difficult to arrive at stable views here, for reasons that a study of Kant and his studies of the ‘antinomies of reason’ make clear. Although the debate is perhaps endless and intractably insoluble we can at least not attempt to inflict marxist dogmatism on socialism. Our various models speak of free agency instead of free will, which leaves the issue open yet has all the advantages on the free will issue.
There is no automatic path to postcapitalism: unless we act freely as free agents to create it we will drift into barbarism, mode of production theory blowing in the wind…
The strangest part of the ‘end of history’ confusion is that it points to something real but in a form that has suffered hopeless confusion of terms. From garbled hegel to leftist then rightist meme juggling the crypto-teleological term that came into being has courted pseudo-science, ideological tug of war, and neo-liberal apotheosis. Continue reading “Kant, origins of ‘end of history’ meme, and the place of free agency”
The ‘end of history’ meme has little to do with hegel at this point: to see the original point in that philosopher is better understood using the eonic model of the eonic effect: hegel is talking about freedom in history and that in the context of a (causal) ‘science’ of history…
Humanity has put a man on the moon but so far human culture is apparently too primitive to deal with the question of evolution…it must be said. The whole issue is stuck between two ideas that don’t work: the idea of chance evolution by natural selection is simply idiocy, not science, and the ideas of creationist action have been vitiated by the poor quality theologies of monotheism.
We cited Kant and it is important to recall his warnings about metaphysics: the evolution debates impinge on the metaphysical and the result is the permanent ambiguity of the whole range of questions.