Gods and Monsters: The Scientific Method Applied to the Human Condition - Book II

by Giano Rocca

  Chapter 10:

  Adumbrations of conception of the cyclical nature of the universe structural statual

  Saint-Simon had defined the philosophy as the sum of the knowledge of the historical reality, namely, of what is the structural reality: of what is and what will become (1). He had defined, therefore, the philosophy as the source and the schoolmistress of the sciences. In reality, the philosophy, up to now, has proved to be only the mother and teacher of every ideology irrational, and for this reason has earned contempt and the public insult of many. However, it can regain credit, proving to be the source of the sciences of society and of the human beings.

  Saint - Simon had speak of what we define as the merchant phase, as of “criticism epoch”, which alternates with a “organic era” that is, as we have defined, a feudal phase. He saw this latter as a reality, inevitably, in approaching and, therefore, had considered it necessary prepare his advent, with the spread of ideology “socialist”, because he identified the inevitable with desirable. Marx can, therefore, be considered good disciple of Saint - Simon (2).

  The adopted base theory of some German philosophers distinguishes between: “sciences nomothetic", or that are tending to regard reality as unitary essence (and, therefore, with the conception of the statual structural reality as a unitary reality), and the “sciences ideographic” or that tend to regard the events and the phenomena as random or not connected to the causes and at the purposes (and, therefore, that consider the historical events as a unique phenomena, unrepeatable and, therefore, not associated with other historical events, if not coincidentally), putting in the latter type the “science” of structural reality. In this way you create a category of fake scientificity for the disciplines, pervaded with ideologies, that you want to cultivate, keeping them away from the criteria of true scientificity. The Neo-Kantians they suggest of distinguish, precisely between ideographic approach and the nomothetic method, where only the latter is “strictly scientific”, while the first method is the unscientific, used in the historical field and, in general, in the field of social sciences, namely structural (3).

  Also Radcliffe – Brown had distinguished between ideographic searches or concerning events or special statements: and nomothetic searches or concerning the enunciation of propositions of a general nature (4). He proposed that the historiography of nomothetic type, such as for example that of Fustel de Coulanges was, also, defined: sociological history or sociology of history.

  Dray stated that there are three models of historical evolution, proposed by the various philosophies of history:

  - linear,

  - cyclic,

  - chaotic (5).

  Then, there are forms of combination between these models, such as that of Giambattista Vico, which unites the linear model to that cyclic, to form a spiral pattern (6). The first two models involve historical laws and the tendency “invariable of the historical series, as a totality” (7) (namely, the consideration of structural reality, at least that of statual type, as a unitary fact) and, moreover, it is considered the story as a “self-transformation in the limits of a single closed system” (8). This form of categorization is not an exclusive of the “speculative philosophers of history”, but, in general, by all historians who, however, are concerned about the problem of the “purpose” or “value” or “justification” of history (9). E. Cassin, J. Bottéro and J. Vercoutter have affirmed that the cyclical conception of history it has already seen, even, in the Bible, albeit wrapped in mythological elements (10).

  The philosophies of history of ideographic type, namely, tending to consider as random events, or lacking a unitary logic; they induce attitudes of fatalism towards the events or, conversely, attitudes of obsession anxious, at because of the concept according to which every historical event would occur in a completely random way and unpredictable. The philosophy of contemporary history, generally, tends to deny any sense of history, as had stated explicitly Korkeimer and, then, to deny any meaning to life itself in human beings. In this way: it denies any possibility of responsibility for the life and action of individuals. Lyotard theorized “modernity”, as the prevalence of holistic theory or nomothetic of Marxism, while defined the “post-modernity”, as the renunciation of nomothetic theory (that is identified, unjustifiably, with Marxism), and return to a conception ideographic, due to the uncertainty arising from the disappointment for the inadequacy demonstrated from the object of faith unlimited placed in the conception nomothetic of the Marxism. He stated, however, that it is the very nature of the human being at to require a conception “strong” and able to clearly indicate the human purposes and the ways to achieve them, and thus explaining: the life and the world (11). The “post-modernity” is, therefore, theorized in correspondence of the overcoming of the feudal phase, that she occurred from the end of the first decade of the twentieth century and it was outdated by the result of revolutions (social, before policies) anti-communist '80s - 90s of the same twentieth century. If Marxism has been guilty of a great illusion and delusion, not for this you have to think that humanity can not solve the problem of historical reality, already referred to as the “social problem”. In fact, if the defeatist attitude that takes place, in this historic moment, in the field of social and human sciences, not only not it would never have made any breakthrough in any form of scientific knowledge, but not he would never solved any problem or reality unknown, engaging the human species.

  The Greek philosophers had knowledge of the progress that had occurred with the passage from the structures pre-statual to the universe structural statual.

  Kroeber recognized that there are recurring phenomena, such as the feudalism, the castes and so forth, but stated that are not phenomena sufficiently uniform for necessarily constituting a theory scientifically valid. While considering valid the concepts of “functional connections recurring with internal relations" (12): namely, the “Links between feudalism, devotion and economy of medieval type” that characterize the systems of the feudal phases, and noting that the various “civilization” they exhibit “phases of development” (13) applicants, stated that it is an unexplained phenomenon, of which there is the problem of clarification. Had stated, then, that there is “a growing recognition of the real probability” that there exists a historical segmentation according to a “model applicant”. Had quoted, finally, Oswald Spengler, that spoke of predestination immanent and Pitirim Alexandroviç Sorokin, who spoke of a pendular movement between the “inclinations relating to the senses” and “ideazional”. Substantially, Kroeber had understood well the mode of the evolution of the structures statual, but avoided to formalize the theory, of fact, from he himself well foreshadowed, perhaps fearing of unnecessarily undermine the structural reality statual, having failed to designed a model alternate of organization social.

  The classics Greek have interpreted history as “subjection to natural cyclicity” (14). They, therefore, have saw the cyclicality of the universe structural statual, as a consequence of natural cosmic cyclicity. The conception of the universe of pre-Socratics, had made referencing to an unwinding, of every cosmic reality, within a given cycle. Consider, for example, Anaximander and Anaximenes. Anaximander had considered the infinite as a fact overlooking all reality contingent, considering it then “divine”. The infinity of Anaximander is identifiable with the structural reality historic (15). In fact he, had attributed to the aforesaid infinite, the law or the justice. Therefore, he had considered universal what he termed: the infinite; identifying it to what we call the universe structural statual (16). Empedocle stated that the “four roots of being” (17) are animated by two opposing forces: “Love and contention”, the whose action alternate, causing those which he defined as “phases of cosmic cycle”. The nature of the statual evolution was, therefore, clearly perceived. Empedocle had considered that these two “forces” are: the “conditions of human knowledge”. He believed, namely implicitly, that the evolution of the statual reality is the condition of the overcomi
ng of historical structures. Plato believed that humanity has a becoming and, then, it is divided into different classifications (18), whilst constituting, ultimately, a unit. He, then, foresaw the partitions that we enucleated and defined, of the universe structural statual: the phases statual and social systems.

  Aristotle, like Plato and other philosophers, not have solved (with appropriate definitions and adequate at describe the reality) the real consistence of the being or the substance, that they have theorized vaguely or obscurely, but that they left clearly understand, by their arguments, of identify them with the structural reality historic (19). Aristotle had intuited the static aspects of the universes structural and the mutability of social systems or specific joints of the “being”. In fact, had stated that: as “species” the substance is incorruptible, while as “composed” would be generated and corruptible (20). The Greek philosophers were conscious of the deterioration who they were facing with the crisis of the merchant phase of the cycle the historic "Ancient", at their contemporary. In order to be consistent with this view, they had created legends, such as that of last “golden age”. Aristotle has come to theorising a cognitive progress, “countless times” forgotten and rediscovered, as a result of to cyclical nature of the historical evolution, as fact inevitable and considered characteristic of the nature of the universe. Plato had established, even, a duration of the historical cycles ((in seventy-two millennia: for the first 36,000 years there would be a perfect order, to which would follow a period of decadence, until the end of the cycle of seventy-two millennia). Plato said that the tragedy consists in not know what is the point of the cycle that we are living (21). Pythagoras had intuited, or used, the concept of the historical cyclicity, and this intuition apparently it had been communicated to him by the Egyptians, who considered that every single cyclic period has the duration three thousand years. The Egyptians, in their turn, had borrowed this intuition from the conceptualization of reincarnation (22). Hegel, he adopted, from Heraclitus, the concept of “dialectic” (Heraclitus had stated that the absolute both the unity, or the union, of the being and of not being) (23). Hegel had referred to as: Heraclitus, Anaximander and Anaximenes conceive history as a succession of cyclic periods, defined as: “Year of the world”, which constitute an infinite succession of cyclic alternation between “status of division” and the “status of union” (24). The theory of historical cycles was, generally, widespread among the Greek philosophers, to the point that the Pythagoreans brought to the extreme to consider identical to each other the various historical cycles, under every aspect. The stoics (as Seneca and others), had considered the historical cycles as historical realities that take place over the average duration of human life. Seneca, while seeing clearly the possibility of scientific progress, was well aware of the imminent forfeiture of society, while he saw a possibility of continuation of scientific progress, also in social decadence (Seneca, moreover, had hoped in a scientific progress able of ensure at the newly formed of the dominant caste a domain effectively and total). Hegel recognized that “the negation of negation”, essential pillar of own dialectic, is equals the statement affirmative from which he started, with an specific cycle of propositions (25). William James defined the Hegelian dialectic “an integral part of the Vision or intuition Hegelian” (26), and he believed him, based on empiricism and on the common sense. He stressed that Hegel has changed the logic, moving from the concept of identity (by means of which would have formed the concepts), to the concept of “negation of the previous statement” or contradiction, namely, report in the diversity. This conception is only valid in the structural field, where every thing, as had said James, does not exist in itself but in relation to the ratio in which it is located with the different (27). This is the logic of the alternation of the two phases of the cycles of the universe structural statual.

  Various philosophical conceptions speak of cyclicity of historical reality. This cyclicality is, actually, found not in the whole of the evolution of the structural reality historic, but only in the historical structures statual. Polybius is considered the founder of the “pragmatism in history” (28), intended as exposition of the facts in their causal relations. Polybius based its epistemological theory of the cyclic return of events: anacyclosis (29), where the cyclicity is intended as an analogy with the biological cycle: generation, maturity and decay, but was referring to the political regimes, identified, however, with the social systems.

  The cosmic time, of they talk about the Indian philosophies is, in some way, to be considered as allegorical of the cycles of the universe structural statual, identified, perhaps unconsciously, even with the geological eras (of which the last one is considered the most short), which would are repeated a thousand times. This, in analogy with the diuturni cycles, and therefore: it distinguishes a part corresponding to the "Day" and a part corresponding to the "Night". This demonstrates the intuition of the alternation of a positive phase or bright to a negative or dark. All this is in continuous repeatition, to infinity, in the “days” of the centenary life of Brahma (30). The philosophy “Hindu” guesses the real historical evolution, albeit in a pessimistic vision and defeatist. The “Buddhism”, as we read, also, in the biography of the Buddha, it is based on teaching to the “renunciation of the world”, which is common, too, at the “Hinduism” or “Brahmanism” (31). The “Hinduism” recognizes the uniqueness of structural reality historical and the existence of a right universal structural, (defined: “Sanàtana-dharma”) (32). The “Hindu” philosophy recognizes that there is a distinction between time “astronomical” and time “out of time”, with which reiterates the distinction between nature, made of instants unrepeatable, and cyclical evolution, feature to the reality structural statual (33). The “Buddhism” has a cyclical view of history, divided into four “epochs”, where, with the last one it is realized the beginning of the decadency, from a previous apex, to a condition of “misery and hunger”. Also the “Jainism” has a cyclic conception, with two alternating phases of ascent and descent (34) where, with the first, it is realized a progress towards the good, with the second to evil. The “Jainism” clearly identifies the essence of the historical period, in which it was at act at the moment of its rising: beginning of decadence, with the following “nefarious age”, which will culminate in a epoch “extremely nefarious”, from which restart the rebirth (35). Also the “Buddhism” outlines, with precision, the two phases statual and the various systems which constitute the same phases.

  The concept “Christian” of the devil and angels, introduced in large measure by Origen, is none other than the idealization, or mythologization, of the concept of historical evolution and of the alternation of the two phases, that Origen had sensed clearly (36). In the twelfth century there was the spread an optimism on human fate, based on the conviction of the next overcoming of feudal institutions, during that time still partially present. Ideologically, such conception had defined the new era as an epoch of the “Holy Spirit”, in contrast to the previous: Era of the “Son”. Joachim of Fiore had proposed a conception of history, in which the first part of history or age of the “Father”, it can be assumed that corresponds to the mercantile phase of the cycle “ancient”, the second or the “Son”, corresponding to the feudal phase of the historical cycle “Medieval - Modern - Post-modern”, at that time, recently exceeded, and the third or the “Holy Spirit”, corresponding to the new phase mercantile, which itself was consolidating in the XIII century (37), with the transition to the bourgeois system.

  Gian Battista Vico aimed to establish the study of society, on a scientific basis, as was done for the nature. He believed that the explanation of the society should be sought in the constitution of the human mind. Therefore, had considered that the human brain go through three distinct phases: intuitive perception, the imaginative knowledge or sentimental and conceptual knowledge or of the reasoning. These stages constitute a progressive succession of the thought. Since it took the view that such moments g
ive rise to similar moments in human society, identified the "phase" of intuitive perception in the societies pre-statual, the “phase” of knowledge imaginative or affective, in societies "barbarian" or feudal (they regarded as proprietary of the “Middle Ages”) and, finally, the “phase” of conceptual knowledge, or rational, in society, considered, of the “civilization” (namely the mercantile society, to him contemporary). He had identified the three “phases” conceived by him, as already seen in the history of ancient Rome: aristocracy (or kingdoms of Rome), democracy and, finally, monarchy (or "Empire", which would constitute, according to him, the highest form of “civilization”). Had thought, then, that, finished the cycle, it falls into a state of anarchy, typical of the condition of the societies most primitive, with the restarting, thus, of a new cycle.

  Roger Bacon he theorised about the advent of the "Antichrist", which he saw as the destroyer of the feudal society, that he warned as nearby to occur (38). Machiavelli had theorized a uniformity of the characteristics of the various societies, even in the presence of a certain variability. She realized, namely, of the uniqueness (or, as we would say today: the globality) of the structures statual. He was aware of how, while some societies are in the progression toward prosperity, others are in decline: he resurrected, thus, the cyclic theory (39), recognizing the main characteristic of each phase of the universe structural statual.

  The abbot Morellet conceived the history as a series of cycles with “epochs bright”, followed by “dark ages”. In carrying out the above cycles, he stated that there would be a constant and slow progress (referred ignored, however, nature) (40).

  Boutruche had recognized, implicitly, as the ancient Egypt had lived those that we define phases of feudal type, alternated with of type mercantile phases (41). He told how the Pirenne theorized various feudal phases, in the history of the “ancient” Egypt (42). Told, then, as many historians individualize various stages feudal defined, generically, “feudalism” (43), in the ancients: Mesopotamia, the Asia Minor and Persia.

  Marx spoke of unnaturalness: of the societies “capitalist” and of the organization of work in factories. He saw, namely, the bureaucracy of the factories as distortion with respect to the specific freedom of the societies “capitalist” and, then, spoke of 'contradiction', capable of bringing to the overcoming of the societies "capitalist". This analysis, although vitiated by ideology, has acceptable elements. The bureaucracy of the factory is, actually, the expression of the tendency to the overshoot of the capitalist system competitive, trend already well present in the second half of the nineteenth century. Fustel de Coulanges had realized an analysis “to be able to try the genesis of economic, social and political structures” of the “dark ages”, that he had well distinguished from the “Roman world” (44). The “Annales” by Bloch tended to unify the conception of Coulanges to German kulturgeschichte (45). The “Annales” they confronted the various “feudalisms”, of different geographical areas and historical periods (46), demonstrating that you understand, at least cryptically, the real nature of the evolution of the universe structural statual. John Tabacco had recognized that exist a “analogy” between “the state apparatus that we are living today” and the society established by Rome (47), being the contemporary society based on that “model”, based in turn, “on contraposition between the public and private sectors, on the distinction between the initiatives individual and social and the activity of the organs constituting the state”.

  Saint-Simon had recognized that the analysis of history, namely the historiography that was at him contemporary, was still at a stage infant and, at this stage it was, practically, useless (48). Saint-Amand Bazard, on the basis of Saint-Simon, he hoped in the transformation of religion, from spiritualistic in materialist (49). Marx has fact, evidently, treasure of these suggestions. From the conception of Engels, materialist-dialectics, of the negation of negation, appears as the story is conceived as a spiral evolution, with progressive cycles: from “A”, at “-A” and then to “A2” and so on (50). Although this concept contrasts, in some points, with the vision of the history of Marx, at least in some forms and explicit statements (51), in reality the of Engels theory reflects, in its entirety and in substance, that of Marx.

  Saint-Simon had theorized the alternation of “critical epochs and eras organic”: that is a theory at odds with the theory of progress. Johann Gottfried Herder had intuited what we consider to be the real nature of the evolution of the structures statual, and stated that a determined “species of men” (that we would call: rare) is able to perceive the “barbarism” of feudalism and its consequences disastrous (52). The historians of eighteenth-century, Johannes Jakob Brucker and Gilbert Burnet, have defined the feudal age as decadence or the “barbarism”, the next after to the splendour of the “classicism” (53). With the “romanticism”, it went into crisis the conception of history according to which the feudalism it is the essential characteristic of a “dark age”. The aforesaid conception disappeared almost completely in the twentieth century (54). The “dark ages” according to official historians, would vary from one millennium to a century, demonstrating how for the “dark ages” the historians intend to many things and little in keeping with the actual periodization of structures statual (55). Some historians, such as, for example, Domenico di Bandino, identify the “dark ages” with the period that goes from the 13th to the 14th century (56). Between the end of 1200s and the end of the 1300s there was indeed, a partial regression (perhaps due to the plague that spread, repeatedly, in Europe). Pirenne, on the contrary, showed, implicitly, of accept the cyclical conception of history, when he stated that Europe "reborn" (or of the “Renaissance”) is more similar to that “ancient” than to that “Carolingian age” (57). The historic Lewis Mumford had shared, substantially, the thesis of Pirenne, of the death and rebirth of the “civilization”, identified with the regression and the rebirth of the cities (58). Pirenne had believed that the decline of the cities has been parallel to the reflowering of the campaigns. On the contrary, Mumford had recognized as the decadence of the cities is parallel to a similar decline of the campaigns. Mumford had identified, clearly, the cyclical nature of the evolution of the universe structural statual, although, he had exalted, simultaneously and ideologically, the feudalism, that he defined as “protected economy”. He had scorned the capitalism as if it were, simply, the result of the greed hedonistic (59). Pirenne had conceived, in a given period of his life, the “factors” of becoming historical as a reality that determines the cyclicity (60).

  The theory of progress, in addition to the many perverse effects (such as the forcings, in feudal sense, which has justified) has, nevertheless, produced the awareness of a possible progress toward the happiness.

  The historians of the twentieth century were, essentially, thesis to prove how: through the centuries IX and X there has not been an actual interruption of trade; in order to remove the validity to the theses of Pirenne and of Mumford on cyclical evolution (61).