According to the state of nature theories, man used to roam alone after which he started making associations and communities. A basic understanding of history then tells us that we would have most likely have had small villages and tribes. After those came regional associations or small cities and eventually this led to the formation of countries and the concept of the nation state. Similarly, we see a kind of progress in our ideological thinking too, that is moving from kings, dictators, feudalists to democracy etc. Overall, you look back at history and see a kind of turbulent yet steady and linear direction of history.
At the same time, we also have what we can call a cyclical nature that exists within certain systems. One such example is the cyclical nature of empires as proposed by Ibne Khaldun. According to this theory empires have a beginning then they progress till they reach a climax after which the empire starts crumbling. We can look back at virtually all of the empires and conclude in favor of this theory. There are then similarly other cyclic systems existing as well. For example the cycle of seasons, days, celestial orbits or the cycle of life etc.
What perplexes me is the question of whether the human nature is linear or cyclical in nature. Could it be one in which we have evolved and will keep on evolving till all of us die out or are either liberated somehow. Or is it a kind of history where mankind starts off like an empire and then crumbles and this then keeps on going in cycles.
Great title! Creative way of grabbing the attention of readers!
ReplyDeleteA linear versus circular direction in history debate. Interesting!
ReplyDeletePersonally, I disagree with the linear approach and view history - both of states and individuals - as circular. On the state level, empires rise and then they fall. On the individual level, we go from being babies to adults and back to a form of infancy in our old age. Life is cyclical, as is history. And this too shall pass. Good post!