Corpus-Paul

["John Brand" <jbrand AT gvsd.mb.ca>]

From:                   "David Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
To:                     "'Corpus-Paul'" <corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject:                RE: [Corpus-Paul] Romans 1-2:  Logos/Christos as Soter
Date sent:              Wed, 26 Jan 2005 02:35:40 -0700
 
> Toynbee's approach is the paramount example of what is now called
> "historicism," usually said with a sneer. It is the idea that
> universal laws about the rise and fall of civilizations can be deduced
> from the mass of historical data, and these laws can be used for the
> purpose of social engineering or at least to make predictions about
> the direction a nation is taking given certain historical
> circumstances (war, famine, disease, environment, governmental
> structure, etc). However, historicism has been severely challenged by
> the likes of Karl Popper. 

John responds:
I am not sure how to address the ad populum fallacy "historicism' 
usually said with a sneer" except to recall Wittgenstein's analogy of 
the chess game i.e do we have any empirical basis for sneering at 
other 'games' when the one that we have set up to play is merely a 
construct developed apart from any outside benchmark?

Toward the end of the 19th Century we see a growing consensus among 
some of the disciplinesin agreement with Hegel that the traditional 
hope for a unified field of knowledge be abandoned. This is 
articulated well by Herbert Spencer:

"Then behind all these mysteries lies the all-embracing mystery -- 
whence this universal transformation which has gone on throughout a 
past eternity, and will go on unceasingly throughout a future 
eternity! And along with this rises the paralyzing thought --what if, 
of all that is thus incomprehensible to us, there exists no 
comprehension anywhere?"

The Hegelian assumption moves most of the disciplines to become 
skeptical of any attempt to find a universal comprehension. Thus, the 
old 'chess game' is changed with no empirical reason for doing so 
other than the apparent failure to find a comprehensive or unified 
field of knowledge. The new 'chess game' of modernity will only allow 
those players who will play by the rules built upon the newly 
embraced despair. However, as Wittgenstein endeavors to show: there 
is no benchmark outside the system upon which to reject other 
systems. The best that can be done is to use ad populum appeals in 
hope that the other attempts will just go away or build an army and 
wipe them out :0)

Perhaps you could provide details of Karl Popper's criticism on more 
empirical grounds.

As to Toynbee I am well aware that his approach in some respects is 
dated. However, his view that the unit of historical study is not 
'the state' but 'the civilization' appears to have a great deal of 
merit particularly as I am proposing in studies of Paul's Epistle to 
the Romans. And this is integral to my thesis. We tend to see the 
Roman 'state' as a fragmented collection of elite and non-elite 
rather than considering what is typically the development of a 
civilization around a core of elite. I included World Systems Theory 
in my proposal as a supplement to Toynbee as well as the work of Karl 
Jaspers who would assume Spencer but go on to look at patterns 
nonetheless. His concept of an axis age is astounding in its insight.

Back to Toynbee: there is a great deal of merit in the stages that a 
civilization moves through: a stage of genesis, growth, 
efflorescence, achieving an apogee, followed by a "time of troubles", 
decay and decline and eventual extinction.  But Toynbee's list of 
civilizations has been likened to a "grab bag." The Dutch philosopher 
Johann Huzinga is a classic critic of Toynbee.

Thanks for the response.

Regards,

John Brand
B.A. (Providence College, 1980)
M.Min. (Providence Seminary, 1990)