Karl Lowith on the Meaning of History
Description
H. Stuart Hughes:
"Karl Lowith, the author of a recent work entitled Meaning in History, has written of the Greeks that they were never “concerned with man’s distant future. All their myths, genealogies, and histories re-presented to them their past as an ever present foundation.” The ancients, to the extent that they philosophized about history at all, thought of it as a series of cycles. The subject of history, whether individual man or city state, forever ran through the familiar course of small beginnings, prosperity, overweening pride, and ruin. Christian writers, in contrast, have thought of history as an eschatology — in the sense of knowledge directed toward the final goals of mankind. These two attitudes, Lowith finds, represent a kind of ultimate in historical understanding. “It seems as if the two great conceptions of antiquity and Christianity, cyclic motion and eschatological direction, have exhausted the basic approaches to the understanding of history. Even the most recent attempts at an interpretation of history are nothing else but variations of these two principles or a mixture of both of them.”
(https://archive.org/details/oswaldspenglercr0000hugh/page/54/mode/2up)
Discussion
From the Wikipedia:
"Löwith's argument in Meaning in History is that the western view of history is confused by the relationship between Christian faith and the modern view, which is neither Christian nor pagan. He writes," The modern mind has not made up its mind whether it should be Christian or pagan, it sees with one eye of faith and one of reason. Hence its vision is necessarily dim in comparison with either Greek or biblical thinking." The modern view is progressive, which is to say that it believes that the trajectory of history is moving towards a fulfillment in the bettering of the world by rational and technological means. Löwith believes that the modern view is a sort of Christian "heresy" insofar that this depends on the theology that history has a linear movement, in contrast to Greek pagan cyclical view of history. In this critique Löwith is prophetic in the sense that he anticipates the way post-secular theologians will pick up a similar critique of modernity in the 1990s (such is the case in the Radical Orthodox movement). The modern historical consciousness is, according to Löwith, derived from Christianity. But, this is mistaken because Christians are not a historical people, as their view of the world is based on faith. This explains the tendency in history (and philosophy) to see an eschatological view of human progress. Löwith traces the "regression" of history as opposed to a progression through famous western philosophers and historians. Whereas most genealogies begin from the most antique to the modern, Löwith begins with the most current. He moves from Burckhardt, to Marx, to Hegel, Voltaire, Vico, Bossuet, Augustine, Orosius, and others. He argues that the closer we get to the Biblical vision of history, " I cannot discover the slightest hint of a "philosophy of history". By this he means that a truly theological view of history is not movement to an immanent end, but a transcendent eschatological hope in the consummation of the world. It is not a "philosophy" or attempt to systematize the movement of history. This point is clear in the epilogue of Meaning in History where he says, "The attempt at elucidation of the dependence of the philosophy of history on the eschatological history of fulfillment and salvation does not solve the problem of historical thinking." Here he seems to argue that like the progressive view any theological view that tries to equate the happenings of history with God's action is inadequate, which reveals his true argument: We cannot understand the happening of history by reason.
Returning to the idea that Löwith, like Barth, and others was trying to rethink Christian faith in light of the crisis of world war, Lowith's real concern is the relationship between faith and reason or more specifically faith and history. He writes, "The Christian hope is not a worldly desire and expectation that something will probably happen but a cast of mind based on an unconditional faith in God's redemptive purpose. Genuine hope is, therefore, as free and absolute as the act of faith itself. Both hope and faith are Christian virtues of Grace. The reasons for such an unconditional hope and faith cannot rest on rational calculation of their reasonableness. Hence hope can never be refuted by so-called facts; it can neither be assured nor discredited by an established experience." His analysis of the relationship between faith and the observable events of history is one of absolute disconnect, which is an idea he seems to adopt from Kierkegaard's similar argument in Practice in Christianity. Lowith's answer to the change of modernity is to say that Christianity has nothing at all to do with history or reason, rather it is about being given faith, which becomes hope in the God-man. He writes, "The question is therefore not the justification of absolute hope and faith by their relative reasonableness, but whether such an unconditional hope and faith can be put into man instead of God and the God-man. Hope is justified only by faith which justifies itself."
So, whereas the "liberal" Christianity of his contemporaries tried to accommodate or assimilate faith with reason, Löwith maintains that faith justifies itself."