philosophy can hold on to is history itself.”
“I’m afraid you’ll have to explain that. History is in a constant state of
change, so how can it be a fixed point?”
“A river is also in a constant state of change. That doesn’t mean you
can’t talk about it. But you cannot say at which place in the valley the river is
the ‘truest’ river.”
“No, because it’s just as much river all the way through.”
“So to Hegel, history was like a running river. Every tiny movement in the
water at a given spot in the river is determined by the falls and eddies in the
water higher upstream. But these movements are determined, too, by the
rocks and bends in the river at the point where you are observing it.”
“I get it... I think.”
“And the history of thought—or of reason—is like this river. The thoughts
that are washed along with the current of past tradition, as well as the material
conditions prevailing at the time, help to determine how you think. You can
therefore never claim that any particular thought is correct for ever and ever.
But the thought can be correct from where you stand.”
“That’s not the same as saying that everything is equally right or equally
wrong, is it?”
“Certainly not, but some things can be right or wrong in relation to a
certain historical context. If you advocated slavery today, you would at best be
thought foolish. But you wouldn’t have been considered foolish 2,500 years
ago, even though there were already progressive voices in favor of slavery’s
abolition. But we can take a more local example. Not more than 100 years
ago it was not considered unreasonable to burn off large areas of forest in
order to cultivate the land. But it is extremely unreasonable today. We have a
completely different—and better—basis for such judgments.”
“Now I see.”
“Hegel pointed out that as regards philosophical reflection, also, reason
is dynamic; it’s a process, in fact. And the ‘truth’ is this same process, since
there are no criteria beyond the historical process itself that can determine
what is the most true or the most reasonable.”
“Examples, please.”
“You cannot single out particular thoughts from antiquity, the Middle
Ages, the Renaissance, or the Enlightenment and say they were right or
wrong. By the same token, you cannot say that Plato was wrong and that Ar-
istotle was right. Neither can you say that Hume was wrong but Kant and
Schelling were right. That would be an antihistorical way of thinking.”
“No, it doesn’t sound right.”
“In fact, you cannot detach any philosopher, or any thought at all, from
that philosopher’s or that thought’s historical context. But—and here I come to
another point—because something new is always being added, reason is
‘progressive.’ In other words, human knowledge is constantly expanding and
progressing.”
“Does that mean that Kant’s philosophy is nevertheless more right than
Plato’s?”
“Yes. The world spirit has developed—and progressed—from Plato to
Kant. And it’s a good thing! If we return to the example of the river, we could
say that there is now more water in it. It has been running for over a thousand
years. Only Kant shouldn’t think that his ‘truths’ will remain on the banks of the