What do you think?
Rate this book
Meaning in History: The Theological Implications of the Philosophy of History
Modern man sees with one eye of faith and one eye of reason. Consequently, his view of history is confused. For centuries, the history of the Western world has been viewed from the Christian or classical standpoint—from a deep faith in the Kingdom of God or a belief in recurrent and eternal life-cycles. The modern mind, however, is neither Christian nor pagan—and its interpretations of history are Christian in derivation and anti-Christian in result. To develop this theory, Karl Löwith—beginning with the more accessible philosophies of history in the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries and working back to the Bible—analyzes the writings of outstanding historians both in antiquity and in Christian times. "A book of distinction and great importance. . . . The author is a master of philosophical interpretation, and each of his terse and substantial chapters has the balance of a work of art."—Helmut Kuhn, Journal of Philosophy
266 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1949
41 people are currently reading
861 people want to read
About the author
Karl Löwith
65 books49 followersKarl Löwith was a German philosopher, a student of Heidegger. Löwith was one of the most prolific German philosophers of the twentieth century; the bibliography of his works comprising more than 300 titles.
Löwith was born in Munich. Though he was himself Protestant, his family was of Jewish descent and he therefore had to emigrate Germany in 1934 because of the National Socialist regime. He went to Italy and in 1936 he went to Japan. But because of the alliance between the Third Reich and Japan he had to leave Japan in 1941 and went to the USA. From 1941 to 1952, he taught at the Hartford Theological Seminary and the New School for Social Research. In 1952 he returned to Germany to teach as Professor of Philosophy at Heidelberg, where he died.
He is probably most known for his two books From Hegel to Nietzsche, which describes the decline of German classical philosophy, and Meaning in History, which discusses the problematic relationship between theology and history. 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. Löwith describes this relationship through famous western philosophers and historians, including Burckhardt, Marx, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Voltaire, Vico, Bossuet, Augustine and Orosius. The modern historical consciousness is, according to Löwith, derived from Christianity. But, 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 an eschatological view of human progress.
Löwith was born in Munich. Though he was himself Protestant, his family was of Jewish descent and he therefore had to emigrate Germany in 1934 because of the National Socialist regime. He went to Italy and in 1936 he went to Japan. But because of the alliance between the Third Reich and Japan he had to leave Japan in 1941 and went to the USA. From 1941 to 1952, he taught at the Hartford Theological Seminary and the New School for Social Research. In 1952 he returned to Germany to teach as Professor of Philosophy at Heidelberg, where he died.
He is probably most known for his two books From Hegel to Nietzsche, which describes the decline of German classical philosophy, and Meaning in History, which discusses the problematic relationship between theology and history. 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. Löwith describes this relationship through famous western philosophers and historians, including Burckhardt, Marx, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Voltaire, Vico, Bossuet, Augustine and Orosius. The modern historical consciousness is, according to Löwith, derived from Christianity. But, 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 an eschatological view of human progress.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
May 31, 2024
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 26, 2020
Lowith defends the spirit of the early Christians' insistence on the novelty of the Incarnation as the event that immediately suspends the profane order characterized by sinfulness and death, drawing terrestrial history into a zero point of imminent eschatological consummation.
Therefore, to attempt a "Christian history" or "Christian philosophy of history" is a contradiction in terms. There can only be Christian history insofar as Christianity heralds the beginning of the end of secular history--a beginning which assumes the form of an accomplish fact (the appearance of Christ). To settle for the sort of progressive, theodical realization of the Kingdom of God on earth can only be a betrayal of the original content of the Christ's message. Modernity in this respect is only Christian in form and not in substance, for it retains the radical Christian belief in progress--alien and alienating to the pagan world--while discarding the belief in the imminent arrival of the eschaton and the determinate negation of worldly history.
In the appendix on Nietzsche, Lowith senses (correctly in my opinion) in Nietzsche's glorification of the will as creative a heterodoxical Christian inheritance. The Greeks would have balked at Nietzsche's ontologization of will into a vehicle and an inexhaustible reservoir of creativity.
My only real complaint about this otherwise fine study is that Lowith downplays Marx's mature analysis of political economy in order to make the case that content of Communism can be reduced to Jewish Messianism. In fact, Marx is keenly aware of history's cunningness in frustrating the expectations of historical actors and thwarting the harmony between intentions and consequences--the lesson Lowith himself appeals to in substle defence of Christianity's complicity in worldly asctism of capitalism and nihilism.
Therefore, to attempt a "Christian history" or "Christian philosophy of history" is a contradiction in terms. There can only be Christian history insofar as Christianity heralds the beginning of the end of secular history--a beginning which assumes the form of an accomplish fact (the appearance of Christ). To settle for the sort of progressive, theodical realization of the Kingdom of God on earth can only be a betrayal of the original content of the Christ's message. Modernity in this respect is only Christian in form and not in substance, for it retains the radical Christian belief in progress--alien and alienating to the pagan world--while discarding the belief in the imminent arrival of the eschaton and the determinate negation of worldly history.
In the appendix on Nietzsche, Lowith senses (correctly in my opinion) in Nietzsche's glorification of the will as creative a heterodoxical Christian inheritance. The Greeks would have balked at Nietzsche's ontologization of will into a vehicle and an inexhaustible reservoir of creativity.
My only real complaint about this otherwise fine study is that Lowith downplays Marx's mature analysis of political economy in order to make the case that content of Communism can be reduced to Jewish Messianism. In fact, Marx is keenly aware of history's cunningness in frustrating the expectations of historical actors and thwarting the harmony between intentions and consequences--the lesson Lowith himself appeals to in substle defence of Christianity's complicity in worldly asctism of capitalism and nihilism.
May 23, 2020
In this book, Löwith studies how the Judeo-Christian teleological tradition influenced shaping modern consciousness of history. In Ancient Greeks historical trajectory was cyclical and it always recurrented. In the mediveal ages under the influence of Christianity its direction was towards salvation both corporal and spiritual. For the Medieval thinkers there was a meaning in history and it evolved towards salvation. In modern ages, the history was towards progress under both the Newtonian Laws of Motion and Christian theology. Progress was both inevitable and constant besides causality.
While for Hegel the political agent of this progress was Spirit, for Marx it was social classes. According to Nietzche, history was cyclical and recurrent. Both for Hegel and Marx the final aim of the historical change was to reach freedom and perfection as just it was salvation for the Christian thinkers.
While for Hegel the political agent of this progress was Spirit, for Marx it was social classes. According to Nietzche, history was cyclical and recurrent. Both for Hegel and Marx the final aim of the historical change was to reach freedom and perfection as just it was salvation for the Christian thinkers.
November 29, 2018
Review of Karl Löwith’s, Meaning in History, 1949, Chicago: U of Chicago Press.
I read only the introduction and the first three chapters on Burckhardt, Marx, and Hegel.
Löwith shows that modern theories of history are based on the Christian tradition. His application of this principle to Marx leads to some rather stunning claims. For example:
- The “secret” history of Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto is its “religious spirit of prophetism” (43) despite their assertions of materialism.
- Marx’s use of “exploitation” is an ethical judgement despite Marx’s efforts to dress it up scientifically. (43)
- Exploitation is the Biblical equivalent of “original sin” in Marx. Consider this quote: “The exploiting class cannot comprehend its own system of living except through a deceptive consciousness, while the proletariat, free from the sin of exploitation, understands the sin of exploitation, understands the capitalist illusion together with its own truth. As a supreme and all-pervading evil, exploitation is far more than an economic fact” (43)
- One cannot go from the claim that all history is a history of class struggle to the claim that “class struggle is the essential factor that 'determines' all the rest” (43, see also 46).
- The dyad “oppressors and oppressed” cannot capture the complex relations within any historical period. (43-44)
- Hegel is the superior realist relative to Marx since Hegel tried to reconcile himself to the actual. (51)
Löwith concludes that the problem of history, namely that one can never find meaning within it and that such meaning always has to be externally imposed, “has no outcome.” He ends with this claim, “There never has been and never will be an immanent solution of the problem of history, for man’s historical experience is one of steady failure” (191).
Two results follow for me in reading all this. First, Löwith writes with a mastery and confidence which requires me to take him seriously. I hope to read the rest of the book at some point. Second, all these claims about Marx’s approach were my starting points during graduate school days. However, the reading of the last seven months has put my earlier positions into question. What I find in Löwith is a weighty authority on the Hegel side of the Marx ledger; one who put pressure on Marx’s claims about “exploitation,” as well as Marx’s claims about the superiority of historical materialism. Fun times ahead, no doubt.
I read only the introduction and the first three chapters on Burckhardt, Marx, and Hegel.
Löwith shows that modern theories of history are based on the Christian tradition. His application of this principle to Marx leads to some rather stunning claims. For example:
- The “secret” history of Marx and Engels Communist Manifesto is its “religious spirit of prophetism” (43) despite their assertions of materialism.
- Marx’s use of “exploitation” is an ethical judgement despite Marx’s efforts to dress it up scientifically. (43)
- Exploitation is the Biblical equivalent of “original sin” in Marx. Consider this quote: “The exploiting class cannot comprehend its own system of living except through a deceptive consciousness, while the proletariat, free from the sin of exploitation, understands the sin of exploitation, understands the capitalist illusion together with its own truth. As a supreme and all-pervading evil, exploitation is far more than an economic fact” (43)
- One cannot go from the claim that all history is a history of class struggle to the claim that “class struggle is the essential factor that 'determines' all the rest” (43, see also 46).
- The dyad “oppressors and oppressed” cannot capture the complex relations within any historical period. (43-44)
- Hegel is the superior realist relative to Marx since Hegel tried to reconcile himself to the actual. (51)
Löwith concludes that the problem of history, namely that one can never find meaning within it and that such meaning always has to be externally imposed, “has no outcome.” He ends with this claim, “There never has been and never will be an immanent solution of the problem of history, for man’s historical experience is one of steady failure” (191).
Two results follow for me in reading all this. First, Löwith writes with a mastery and confidence which requires me to take him seriously. I hope to read the rest of the book at some point. Second, all these claims about Marx’s approach were my starting points during graduate school days. However, the reading of the last seven months has put my earlier positions into question. What I find in Löwith is a weighty authority on the Hegel side of the Marx ledger; one who put pressure on Marx’s claims about “exploitation,” as well as Marx’s claims about the superiority of historical materialism. Fun times ahead, no doubt.
October 1, 2018
Ενδιαφέρον έργο για όποιον ενδιαφέρεται για τις θέσεις για τη φιλοσοφία της ιστορίας της δυτικής παράδοσης μέχρι και το 19ο αιώνα σε μια Ευρώπη που άνθιζε και ορθοτομούσε τον κόσμο με την πρωτοκαθεδρία των θεωρητικών της οικοδομημάτων. Αν με ρωτάτε, ο Λόγος στην Ιστορία, ο θετικισμός του Comte ως εργαλείο-ωδή στη λευκή φυλή και όλες οι φιλοσοφικοθεολογικές αξιώσεις των "νεοπλατωνιστών" μάλλον θα ήθελαν πολύ να μας διδάξουν ότι το νόημα της Ιστορίας είναι μια θεολογία.
*Σημείωση για ιστορικό γέλιο: Αν η Ιστορία μας είναι το σύνολο αυτών των εναλλασσόμενων μεταβολών τότε οι Ανατολίτες έχουν δίκιο, Χέγκελ!!
Το βιβλίο κυκλοφορεί στα ελληνικά από τις εκδόσεις "Γνώση" με τίτλο "Το νόημα της Ιστορίας" και σε μετάφραση Μάριου Μαρκίδη και Γεράσιμου Λυκιαρδόπουλου.
*Σημείωση για ιστορικό γέλιο: Αν η Ιστορία μας είναι το σύνολο αυτών των εναλλασσόμενων μεταβολών τότε οι Ανατολίτες έχουν δίκιο, Χέγκελ!!
Το βιβλίο κυκλοφορεί στα ελληνικά από τις εκδόσεις "Γνώση" με τίτλο "Το νόημα της Ιστορίας" και σε μετάφραση Μάριου Μαρκίδη και Γεράσιμου Λυκιαρδόπουλου.
August 9, 2025
In Meaning in History, Löwith argues that Christianity is not historical in the modern sense because its fundamental basis does not appeal to anything outside itself for validation. For the Christian believer, Löwith maintains, God’s truth is both the starting point and the end point of reasoning. This circularity is not a flaw but the very form of faith: it begins with belief in God and interprets all reality from that standpoint.
He observes that the doctrine of Christianity contains no proof that the empirical history of the world after Christ is qualitatively different from the history before Christ, whether judged from a strictly empirical or a strictly Christian perspective:
“History is, through all the ages, a story of action and suffering, of power and pride, of sin and death. In its profane appearance, it is a continuous repetition of painful miscarriages and costly achievements which end in ordinary failures — from Hannibal to Napoleon and the contemporary leaders.”
For Löwith, the meaning of history is grounded in divine promises and their fulfillment, not in human progress or nature’s cycles. He argues that while the Bible provides a linear and purposeful narrative of human destiny, Christian faith itself is not “historical” in the modern sense. The decisive events of Christianity are matters of divine revelation, not simply verifiable historical facts. They are “once-for-all” events, unique and unrepeatable, which cannot be placed on the same level as ordinary historical occurrences.
This makes Christianity trans-historical. It uses history as a stage, but its meaning is not derived from the flow of history. Christianity, Löwith insists, “is not a philosophy of history” because it interprets history from the standpoint of divine revelation, which transcends historical understanding. Its fulfillment lies not in the course of events, but in the consummation of all things beyond history.
Löwith himself was not a Christian, but he respected its internal logic. He rejected the idea that Christian faith can be justified on either historical or rationalist grounds. He defended the self-circularity of faith not because he believed, but because he valued intellectual honesty: if one is to be a Christian, he thought, one must embrace the whole structure — its starting point in revelation and its refusal to seek external proof — rather than dilute it to fit modern rationalism.
Löwith may be right that Christianity is trans-historical in its origin, but he neglects the tension between its trans-historical and historical dimensions. Christianity is concerned with humanity; it teaches man how to live in the world and fulfill God’s plan in creation. The tension between its worldly engagement and its trans-historical core makes it difficult to confine to a static, closed system: a structure of faith that, if kept pure, remains unhistorical in the modern sense and resistant to rationalist corrosion.
Moreover, the historical Christianity that entered the Greco-Roman world was not sealed — it interacted with law, philosophy, politics, and education. Over centuries, Christian moral imperatives and the inner demand for truthfulness before God produced what Gauchet calls “the religion of the exit from religion”: it taught man Truth before God, which anticipates disciplined conscience. This disciplined conscience leads to intellectual integrity, rational inquiry, and ultimately the capacity to interrogate faith itself. This is precisely what Nietzsche recognized in his Genealogy of Morals: Christian truthfulness “turns against itself” and erodes belief in the supernatural.
Not only this, Christianity’s elevation of man laid the groundwork for proto-rationalism. It teaches that man lives in a universal moral order, stable and independent of the whims of nature and the arbitrary decrees of ancient gods. The God of Abraham is not arbitrary; His elevated and consistent moral nature makes Him intelligible to man. Moreover, Christianity introduced a linear, purposeful conception of time rather than the cyclical time of paganism, enabling historical consciousness. Most importantly, it presented the mission to transform the world in accordance with God’s plan: a task demanding organization, administration, and education. Over time, these rationalizing practices generated a secular habitus capable of detaching from the original faith and continuing to operate. The result: a secularized philosophy of history, precisely what Löwith critiques, but one made possible by Christianity itself.
Since this form of faith generates a rational spirit that ultimately leads to questioning its own foundation, the self-circularity Löwith praises is historically precarious. It may be internally consistent as a theological structure, but historically it is porous and susceptible to being historicized, humanized, and transformed into the very secular worldviews he saw as Christian derivatives.
It is true that Christianity begins as a faith-based, “unhistorical” religion. But this does not negate the fact that its moral and spiritual imperatives generate proto-rational structures. These structures, in turn, lead to historicization, secularization, and the eventual overcoming of faith.
Some may argue that the Western experience is not necessarily what defines Christian faith. I would argue, however, that in every historical context in which Christianity’s fundamental tension came to fruition, the results were, in many ways, similar in their tendency toward development, completion, and self-overcoming. Its humanistic tendencies are not exclusively Western.
He observes that the doctrine of Christianity contains no proof that the empirical history of the world after Christ is qualitatively different from the history before Christ, whether judged from a strictly empirical or a strictly Christian perspective:
“History is, through all the ages, a story of action and suffering, of power and pride, of sin and death. In its profane appearance, it is a continuous repetition of painful miscarriages and costly achievements which end in ordinary failures — from Hannibal to Napoleon and the contemporary leaders.”
For Löwith, the meaning of history is grounded in divine promises and their fulfillment, not in human progress or nature’s cycles. He argues that while the Bible provides a linear and purposeful narrative of human destiny, Christian faith itself is not “historical” in the modern sense. The decisive events of Christianity are matters of divine revelation, not simply verifiable historical facts. They are “once-for-all” events, unique and unrepeatable, which cannot be placed on the same level as ordinary historical occurrences.
This makes Christianity trans-historical. It uses history as a stage, but its meaning is not derived from the flow of history. Christianity, Löwith insists, “is not a philosophy of history” because it interprets history from the standpoint of divine revelation, which transcends historical understanding. Its fulfillment lies not in the course of events, but in the consummation of all things beyond history.
Löwith himself was not a Christian, but he respected its internal logic. He rejected the idea that Christian faith can be justified on either historical or rationalist grounds. He defended the self-circularity of faith not because he believed, but because he valued intellectual honesty: if one is to be a Christian, he thought, one must embrace the whole structure — its starting point in revelation and its refusal to seek external proof — rather than dilute it to fit modern rationalism.
Löwith may be right that Christianity is trans-historical in its origin, but he neglects the tension between its trans-historical and historical dimensions. Christianity is concerned with humanity; it teaches man how to live in the world and fulfill God’s plan in creation. The tension between its worldly engagement and its trans-historical core makes it difficult to confine to a static, closed system: a structure of faith that, if kept pure, remains unhistorical in the modern sense and resistant to rationalist corrosion.
Moreover, the historical Christianity that entered the Greco-Roman world was not sealed — it interacted with law, philosophy, politics, and education. Over centuries, Christian moral imperatives and the inner demand for truthfulness before God produced what Gauchet calls “the religion of the exit from religion”: it taught man Truth before God, which anticipates disciplined conscience. This disciplined conscience leads to intellectual integrity, rational inquiry, and ultimately the capacity to interrogate faith itself. This is precisely what Nietzsche recognized in his Genealogy of Morals: Christian truthfulness “turns against itself” and erodes belief in the supernatural.
Not only this, Christianity’s elevation of man laid the groundwork for proto-rationalism. It teaches that man lives in a universal moral order, stable and independent of the whims of nature and the arbitrary decrees of ancient gods. The God of Abraham is not arbitrary; His elevated and consistent moral nature makes Him intelligible to man. Moreover, Christianity introduced a linear, purposeful conception of time rather than the cyclical time of paganism, enabling historical consciousness. Most importantly, it presented the mission to transform the world in accordance with God’s plan: a task demanding organization, administration, and education. Over time, these rationalizing practices generated a secular habitus capable of detaching from the original faith and continuing to operate. The result: a secularized philosophy of history, precisely what Löwith critiques, but one made possible by Christianity itself.
Since this form of faith generates a rational spirit that ultimately leads to questioning its own foundation, the self-circularity Löwith praises is historically precarious. It may be internally consistent as a theological structure, but historically it is porous and susceptible to being historicized, humanized, and transformed into the very secular worldviews he saw as Christian derivatives.
It is true that Christianity begins as a faith-based, “unhistorical” religion. But this does not negate the fact that its moral and spiritual imperatives generate proto-rational structures. These structures, in turn, lead to historicization, secularization, and the eventual overcoming of faith.
Some may argue that the Western experience is not necessarily what defines Christian faith. I would argue, however, that in every historical context in which Christianity’s fundamental tension came to fruition, the results were, in many ways, similar in their tendency toward development, completion, and self-overcoming. Its humanistic tendencies are not exclusively Western.
July 19, 2025
I believe that all mankind can be divided by their view of history. Whether you think history is fundamentally linear or cyclical determines almost everything about you. How one views history shapes how they see not only the future, but also the actions they take in the present.
As Lowith lays out, for most of human history (until about 33AD), humans believed in a cyclical view of history. This was intuited based on their assessment of the natural world. The sun comes and goes on a daily cadence, seasons come and go cyclically, and even the cosmos seem to operate on a predictable cycle.
As such, it shouldn't be a surprise that early thinkers applied this cyclical understanding of the world to history itself. They must have seen empires rise and fall, dynasties come and go, just like the seasons and tides had.
For Lowith, the arrival of Jesus Christ marks the fundamental break of human history. History goes from being a lowly, cyclical affair, towards a linear history. One with a definitive end that culminates with the Second Coming.
Merely introducing the idea that history does not have to be cyclical, and that there is a great positive end for all of humanity, is and was a radical notion.
Lowith's view is that modern thinkers carry the Christian assumption that history remains linear, but without the religious aspects or connotations of WHY this is the case.
In Peter Thiel's formulation, these people are "Indeterminate Optimists," meaning they expect the world to get better in a vague way, but aren't sure why or how.
For a Christian, the reasoning is obvious. For the secular, it's not.
Lowith believes this is the proximate cause of many social ills and confusion. We believe in a society that will gradually get better and is advancing towards something, but are not quite sure what that is. Increasingly complex models of the world have to be created in order to justify this vague notion. Lowith identifies Hegel and Marx as the two most obvious examples, but certainly not the only ones.
The book itself is wonderfully written. Lowith cleverly starts the book from his present day (1948) and works backwards in time, to uncover the onion layer of how this modern confusion came to compound in on itself.
He ends with the Biblical View of history, showing how even the Old Testament carries a strong cyclical sense of history. The Hebrews go from slaves to kings to slaves and back again several times with no obvious lessons learned.
The arrival of Jesus Christ in the New Testament definitively puts an end to this aimless wandering, setting humanity on a new course... but only for those with ears to listen.
As Lowith lays out, for most of human history (until about 33AD), humans believed in a cyclical view of history. This was intuited based on their assessment of the natural world. The sun comes and goes on a daily cadence, seasons come and go cyclically, and even the cosmos seem to operate on a predictable cycle.
As such, it shouldn't be a surprise that early thinkers applied this cyclical understanding of the world to history itself. They must have seen empires rise and fall, dynasties come and go, just like the seasons and tides had.
For Lowith, the arrival of Jesus Christ marks the fundamental break of human history. History goes from being a lowly, cyclical affair, towards a linear history. One with a definitive end that culminates with the Second Coming.
Merely introducing the idea that history does not have to be cyclical, and that there is a great positive end for all of humanity, is and was a radical notion.
Lowith's view is that modern thinkers carry the Christian assumption that history remains linear, but without the religious aspects or connotations of WHY this is the case.
In Peter Thiel's formulation, these people are "Indeterminate Optimists," meaning they expect the world to get better in a vague way, but aren't sure why or how.
For a Christian, the reasoning is obvious. For the secular, it's not.
Lowith believes this is the proximate cause of many social ills and confusion. We believe in a society that will gradually get better and is advancing towards something, but are not quite sure what that is. Increasingly complex models of the world have to be created in order to justify this vague notion. Lowith identifies Hegel and Marx as the two most obvious examples, but certainly not the only ones.
The book itself is wonderfully written. Lowith cleverly starts the book from his present day (1948) and works backwards in time, to uncover the onion layer of how this modern confusion came to compound in on itself.
He ends with the Biblical View of history, showing how even the Old Testament carries a strong cyclical sense of history. The Hebrews go from slaves to kings to slaves and back again several times with no obvious lessons learned.
The arrival of Jesus Christ in the New Testament definitively puts an end to this aimless wandering, setting humanity on a new course... but only for those with ears to listen.
November 19, 2024
My conclusions are nearly opposite to his (I find his understanding of Christianity to be extremely gnostic in character) but the book is very worthwhile as an historical overview of the theology and philosophy of History.
February 26, 2023
Read for class on Political Theology.
April 27, 2023
Monumentale.
August 22, 2023
Written in 1948 by a student of Heidegger, "Meaning in History" is now an established classic, to be read (in various ways) as an important precursor to twenty-first century theological encounters with secularity, atheism, and modernity (such as those by Taylor and Milbank). Löwith was a Christian who, unlike his eminent teacher, did not join the Nazis but left Germany to teach in the U.S. before returning to his beloved homeland. This wide-ranging, learned book with its bold arguments was timely in the post-war years when the West was attempting to make sense of its recent history. It is timely now, as well, when the West is struggling to find its identity, purpose, and calling.
Löwith's thesis is that the distinctly modern, Western view of history is a product of Christendom but with Christ left out. Progressive, industrial modernity is a product of de-theologized Christian theology, with certain fundamental ethical assumptions and eschatological patterns remaining. From the French philosophes to Hegel, Comte, and Marx, there is this faith in the progress of history, that all (of the West) is moving, striving toward something. There is 'salvation' at the end, in some way, whether it be through exploration, technology, or war. To the Greeks, such a teleological view of history would have been nonsensical; to them, human experience was cyclical and filled with repeatable patterns. The past was valuable because of its heroes and lessons, not because it was somehow a prophetic indicator of what was to come. Yet the Hebrew/Christian notion of history is teleological and eschatological; the end determines the present which determines the past. The past prophecies the present which participates in the future. The biblical picture of history is salvific and spiritual; all the world's empires crumble before God who uses them as He will for His own purposes. Christ came and was crucified in the fulness of time. After His resurrection, His people await His second coming. History up until the incarnation points to Christ; history after the incarnation flows from Christ.
Löwith argues that, beginning with apocalyptic Franciscan strains stemming from Joachim of Fiore in the thirteenth century, world history began to get re-interpreted as sacred history. Joachim did not see world history and sacred history as a separate duality, as Augustine and Luther, with the kingdom of man being separate from the Kingdom of God. In the age of the Spirit, they were one and the same, and the Spirit would use precisely the 'secular' means of medieval Europe to usher in a new epoch. Though the direct influence from Joachim to Hegel, Schelling, and Marx is somewhat difficult to prove, there is plenty of indirect influence, particularly through the various and complex strands of thought from the Reformation period. Joachim basically blended Augustine's cities, or demonstrated that the City of Man has, in the thirteenth century, now become the City of God, and so its military and political endeavors directly relate to and hasten the coming salvation.
Löwith points out throughout the book that the many modern assumptions Westerners hold about history and progress are Christian in origin but secular in content. Now the West is at a crisis point because it can't explain its present, it has rejected most of its past, and it has very little hope for its future. There is a vague notion that we are moving toward something, striving toward 'improvement' or 'betterment,' but without a solid, theological foundation to stand on, the world moves in circles of war and peace, destruction and reconstruction, and it all seems aimless. The world is living in the day to day reality of Greek cyclical time while often unconsciously believing in a Christian view of teleological history. Löwith predicted all of this immediately after World War II, and it remains to be seen how the Christian Church will actually disentangle herself from both secularity and Joachism, re-discovering the truth of Augustine's City of God and living in this knowledge and simplicity today.
Löwith's thesis is that the distinctly modern, Western view of history is a product of Christendom but with Christ left out. Progressive, industrial modernity is a product of de-theologized Christian theology, with certain fundamental ethical assumptions and eschatological patterns remaining. From the French philosophes to Hegel, Comte, and Marx, there is this faith in the progress of history, that all (of the West) is moving, striving toward something. There is 'salvation' at the end, in some way, whether it be through exploration, technology, or war. To the Greeks, such a teleological view of history would have been nonsensical; to them, human experience was cyclical and filled with repeatable patterns. The past was valuable because of its heroes and lessons, not because it was somehow a prophetic indicator of what was to come. Yet the Hebrew/Christian notion of history is teleological and eschatological; the end determines the present which determines the past. The past prophecies the present which participates in the future. The biblical picture of history is salvific and spiritual; all the world's empires crumble before God who uses them as He will for His own purposes. Christ came and was crucified in the fulness of time. After His resurrection, His people await His second coming. History up until the incarnation points to Christ; history after the incarnation flows from Christ.
Löwith argues that, beginning with apocalyptic Franciscan strains stemming from Joachim of Fiore in the thirteenth century, world history began to get re-interpreted as sacred history. Joachim did not see world history and sacred history as a separate duality, as Augustine and Luther, with the kingdom of man being separate from the Kingdom of God. In the age of the Spirit, they were one and the same, and the Spirit would use precisely the 'secular' means of medieval Europe to usher in a new epoch. Though the direct influence from Joachim to Hegel, Schelling, and Marx is somewhat difficult to prove, there is plenty of indirect influence, particularly through the various and complex strands of thought from the Reformation period. Joachim basically blended Augustine's cities, or demonstrated that the City of Man has, in the thirteenth century, now become the City of God, and so its military and political endeavors directly relate to and hasten the coming salvation.
Löwith points out throughout the book that the many modern assumptions Westerners hold about history and progress are Christian in origin but secular in content. Now the West is at a crisis point because it can't explain its present, it has rejected most of its past, and it has very little hope for its future. There is a vague notion that we are moving toward something, striving toward 'improvement' or 'betterment,' but without a solid, theological foundation to stand on, the world moves in circles of war and peace, destruction and reconstruction, and it all seems aimless. The world is living in the day to day reality of Greek cyclical time while often unconsciously believing in a Christian view of teleological history. Löwith predicted all of this immediately after World War II, and it remains to be seen how the Christian Church will actually disentangle herself from both secularity and Joachism, re-discovering the truth of Augustine's City of God and living in this knowledge and simplicity today.
May 13, 2019
This was kind of a crazy read. I'm not sure what to make of it. The point Löwith seems to make is that modern man's concept of history exists in a liminal space, assimilating bits of Christian, pagan, and atheistic teleologies in contradictory ways. The book is made up of a series of reverse-chronological summaries of various thinkers' philosophies of history. As best as I can, I've compiled a few selected quotes from the Conclusion and Epilogue of the book that best summarize the book.
“History, instead of being governed by reason and providence, seems to be governed by chance and by fate.”
“The whole moral and intellectual, social and political, history of the West is to some extent Christian, and yet it dissolves Christianity by the very application of Christian principles to secular matters.”
“The modern mind is not single-minded: it eliminates from its progressive outlook the Christian implication of creation and consummation, while it assimilates from the ancient worldview the idea of an endless and continuous movement, discarding its circular structure. 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 perplexing situation is that the attempt at a philosophy of history depends on the Hebrew-Christian tradition, while this very tradition obstructs the attempt to 'work out' the working of God.”
“In consequence of the Christian consciousness we have a historical consciousness which is as Christian by derivation as it is non-Christian by consequence, because it lacks the belief that Christ is the beginning of an end and his life and death the final answer to an otherwise insoluble question.
“Augustine developed the Christian theology of history on the two opposite levels of sacred and profane history; they meet sometimes, but they are separated by principle. Bossuet restated Augustine's theology of history with a greater emphasis on the relative independence of profane history and on its correlation with sacred history. He knew much more than St. Paul about the divine economy of secular history, and therefore falls short of him. Voltaire, and unintentionally, Vico emancipated secular history from sacred history, subjecting the history of religion to that of civilization. Hegel translated and elaborated the Christian theology of history into a speculative system, thus preserving, and at the same time, destroying the belief in providence as the leading principle. Comte, Proudhon, and Marx rejected divine providence categorically, replacing it by a belief in progress and perverting religious belief into the antireligious attempt to establish predictable laws of secular history. Finally, Burckhardt dismissed the theological, philosophical, and socialistic interpretations of history and thereby reduced the meaning of history to mere continuity, without beginning, progress, or end. He had to overemphasize mere continuity because it is the poor remainder of a fuller notion of meaning. And, yet, the faith in history was to him... 'a last religion.' It was the futile hope of modern historism that historical relativism will cure itself.”
“History, instead of being governed by reason and providence, seems to be governed by chance and by fate.”
“The whole moral and intellectual, social and political, history of the West is to some extent Christian, and yet it dissolves Christianity by the very application of Christian principles to secular matters.”
“The modern mind is not single-minded: it eliminates from its progressive outlook the Christian implication of creation and consummation, while it assimilates from the ancient worldview the idea of an endless and continuous movement, discarding its circular structure. 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 perplexing situation is that the attempt at a philosophy of history depends on the Hebrew-Christian tradition, while this very tradition obstructs the attempt to 'work out' the working of God.”
“In consequence of the Christian consciousness we have a historical consciousness which is as Christian by derivation as it is non-Christian by consequence, because it lacks the belief that Christ is the beginning of an end and his life and death the final answer to an otherwise insoluble question.
“Augustine developed the Christian theology of history on the two opposite levels of sacred and profane history; they meet sometimes, but they are separated by principle. Bossuet restated Augustine's theology of history with a greater emphasis on the relative independence of profane history and on its correlation with sacred history. He knew much more than St. Paul about the divine economy of secular history, and therefore falls short of him. Voltaire, and unintentionally, Vico emancipated secular history from sacred history, subjecting the history of religion to that of civilization. Hegel translated and elaborated the Christian theology of history into a speculative system, thus preserving, and at the same time, destroying the belief in providence as the leading principle. Comte, Proudhon, and Marx rejected divine providence categorically, replacing it by a belief in progress and perverting religious belief into the antireligious attempt to establish predictable laws of secular history. Finally, Burckhardt dismissed the theological, philosophical, and socialistic interpretations of history and thereby reduced the meaning of history to mere continuity, without beginning, progress, or end. He had to overemphasize mere continuity because it is the poor remainder of a fuller notion of meaning. And, yet, the faith in history was to him... 'a last religion.' It was the futile hope of modern historism that historical relativism will cure itself.”
September 18, 2017
Il testo propone una storia delle concezioni sulla storia in ambito Occidentale, andando a ritroso. Questo per mostrare come molte idee moderne, ormai secolarizzate, in realtà reinterpretino strutture legate al cristianesimo.
Il testo mostra come il materialismo storico proponga una visione messianica che preveda l'avvento di una società senza classi, dove il proletariato finalmente trionferà. In sostanza, il Giudizio Universale e l'avvento del Regno dei Cieli acquista dei tratti terreni, mostrando come la politica possa costruire un "paradiso" in terra.
Anche la visione positivistica e illuminista del progresso secolarizza l'idea di un futuro di salvezza, in cui gli uomini potranno vivere in pace.
Sistemi come l'hegelismo o quello di Vico, invece, mettono in mostra una forza, ora la Ragione, ora la Provvidenza, che regola le vite umane, mostrando un costante progredire. Tutto acquista un senso, anche i fatti più catastrofici.
Ma, andando a ritroso, ci si avvicina alla visione biblica della storia e lì, Lowith, mostra come il cristianesimo e la filosofia della storia siano due cose ben lontane: infatti, il cristianesimo si disinteresse delle cose terrene e dell'agire umano, preoccupandosi solo dell'al di là. Infatti, il Nuovo Testamento non propone nessuna visione della Storia, anzi: si sottolinea l'importanza di disinteressarsi a tutte le passioni umane. E disinteressarsi ai conflitti, agli scontri, ai dolori, ai piaceri significa disinteressarsi a tutte le forze che smuovono gli uomini e producono la storia.
Ciononostante, il Cristianesimo sembra aver contribuito a una visione della storia come una linea in progressiva crescita: ciò è stato possibile poiché il racconto biblico tende verso il grande evento, cioè la venuta di Cristo. Quindi, l'intera storia biblica è una storia crescente. Ma ciò dovrebbe anche significare che, dopo il Cristo, non sia più alcun evento mirabile: tutto si concentra su quell'evento. L'idea di progresso si diffonde poiché la visione cristiana ha proposto un secondo avvento, inteso come il momento finale in cui i giusti saranno divisi dai peccatori. L'istituzione della Chiesa, poi, ha reso il cristianesimo meno "spirituale" e più legato a questioni politiche, contribuendo alla secolarizzazione della propria visione del mondo.
Il testo termina con un'analisi su Nietzsche, unico pensatore analizzato da Lowith che, contrastando il mito cristiano, ha proposto una visione della storia diversa (ma collegata al cristianesimo per opposizione): il mito dell'eterno ritorno riprende la visione ciclica dei classici, i quali non avevano alcuna concezione del progresso. Con Nietzsche, però, l'eterno ritorno diventa una posizione etica, di responsabilità: bisogna agire come se le cose compiute dovessero ripetersi per sempre.
Il testo mostra come il materialismo storico proponga una visione messianica che preveda l'avvento di una società senza classi, dove il proletariato finalmente trionferà. In sostanza, il Giudizio Universale e l'avvento del Regno dei Cieli acquista dei tratti terreni, mostrando come la politica possa costruire un "paradiso" in terra.
Anche la visione positivistica e illuminista del progresso secolarizza l'idea di un futuro di salvezza, in cui gli uomini potranno vivere in pace.
Sistemi come l'hegelismo o quello di Vico, invece, mettono in mostra una forza, ora la Ragione, ora la Provvidenza, che regola le vite umane, mostrando un costante progredire. Tutto acquista un senso, anche i fatti più catastrofici.
Ma, andando a ritroso, ci si avvicina alla visione biblica della storia e lì, Lowith, mostra come il cristianesimo e la filosofia della storia siano due cose ben lontane: infatti, il cristianesimo si disinteresse delle cose terrene e dell'agire umano, preoccupandosi solo dell'al di là. Infatti, il Nuovo Testamento non propone nessuna visione della Storia, anzi: si sottolinea l'importanza di disinteressarsi a tutte le passioni umane. E disinteressarsi ai conflitti, agli scontri, ai dolori, ai piaceri significa disinteressarsi a tutte le forze che smuovono gli uomini e producono la storia.
Ciononostante, il Cristianesimo sembra aver contribuito a una visione della storia come una linea in progressiva crescita: ciò è stato possibile poiché il racconto biblico tende verso il grande evento, cioè la venuta di Cristo. Quindi, l'intera storia biblica è una storia crescente. Ma ciò dovrebbe anche significare che, dopo il Cristo, non sia più alcun evento mirabile: tutto si concentra su quell'evento. L'idea di progresso si diffonde poiché la visione cristiana ha proposto un secondo avvento, inteso come il momento finale in cui i giusti saranno divisi dai peccatori. L'istituzione della Chiesa, poi, ha reso il cristianesimo meno "spirituale" e più legato a questioni politiche, contribuendo alla secolarizzazione della propria visione del mondo.
Il testo termina con un'analisi su Nietzsche, unico pensatore analizzato da Lowith che, contrastando il mito cristiano, ha proposto una visione della storia diversa (ma collegata al cristianesimo per opposizione): il mito dell'eterno ritorno riprende la visione ciclica dei classici, i quali non avevano alcuna concezione del progresso. Con Nietzsche, però, l'eterno ritorno diventa una posizione etica, di responsabilità: bisogna agire come se le cose compiute dovessero ripetersi per sempre.
January 10, 2023
An incredible work of philosophy and history, 'Meaning in History" attempts to trace the roots of history from present day (the late 19th century) to the Bible. Lowith's overall thesis, in an attempt to be succinct, is that the ancients had no need for history because they had no need for the future; to the Greeks, time was circular. The future was nothing except the repeat of the pass- thus history was discarded into the realm of politics.
Only with the advent of the Bible did the future open up as a horizon. As a result, the past became something more as well- "the biblical view of history is delineated as a history of salvation, progressing from promise to fulfillment." Again, "the pattern of history is a movement progressing, and at the same time returning, from alienation to reconciliation." Other authors have taken up that view, such as Augustine, and expanded on it. Secular history, the realm of the profane, had no space in the universal account of history. Augustine spoke quite harshly against the City of Man. As the centuries passed, however, that focus on history as a progression towards ultimate fulfillment (the Second Coming), became less and less important.
The advent of modernity caused a seismic shift. The thinkers of the Enlightenment, such as Voltaire, discarded the religious trapping of history but kept the progressive nature and fulfillment. Lowith thus argues that from modernity on, the idea of historical progress, from a worse state to a better one, has been the basis of all major philosophers of history. As Lowith points out, progress is a fundamentally Christian phenomenon that cannot be stripped away. Marx, Lowith argues, simply erases the supernatural but keeps the messianic trappings and promises in his Communistic writings. As a result, Marx offers nothing except secular Christianity.
The author is compelling and his argumentation makes sense. The method of the work, going from recent to ancient, is interesting as well. I found some chapters to be better than others- his chapter on Orosius was kind of just there and not doing much. That being said, after a second read, there is a lot left on the bone of this philosophical work and one I will be looking forward to reading again.
A final section at the end explains Nietzsche explains how unlike other post Christian writers, Nietzsche actually realized this contradiction and history and sought to return to the ancient mode of history. Not sure if I read it last time but it was an interesting chapter that should probably just be included in the work and not at the very end. An overlooked work of thought in the 20th century to be sure.
Only with the advent of the Bible did the future open up as a horizon. As a result, the past became something more as well- "the biblical view of history is delineated as a history of salvation, progressing from promise to fulfillment." Again, "the pattern of history is a movement progressing, and at the same time returning, from alienation to reconciliation." Other authors have taken up that view, such as Augustine, and expanded on it. Secular history, the realm of the profane, had no space in the universal account of history. Augustine spoke quite harshly against the City of Man. As the centuries passed, however, that focus on history as a progression towards ultimate fulfillment (the Second Coming), became less and less important.
The advent of modernity caused a seismic shift. The thinkers of the Enlightenment, such as Voltaire, discarded the religious trapping of history but kept the progressive nature and fulfillment. Lowith thus argues that from modernity on, the idea of historical progress, from a worse state to a better one, has been the basis of all major philosophers of history. As Lowith points out, progress is a fundamentally Christian phenomenon that cannot be stripped away. Marx, Lowith argues, simply erases the supernatural but keeps the messianic trappings and promises in his Communistic writings. As a result, Marx offers nothing except secular Christianity.
The author is compelling and his argumentation makes sense. The method of the work, going from recent to ancient, is interesting as well. I found some chapters to be better than others- his chapter on Orosius was kind of just there and not doing much. That being said, after a second read, there is a lot left on the bone of this philosophical work and one I will be looking forward to reading again.
A final section at the end explains Nietzsche explains how unlike other post Christian writers, Nietzsche actually realized this contradiction and history and sought to return to the ancient mode of history. Not sure if I read it last time but it was an interesting chapter that should probably just be included in the work and not at the very end. An overlooked work of thought in the 20th century to be sure.
May 12, 2025
em uma natureza em que todos os processos se apresentam como ordenados, cíclicos e eternos — como as chuvas, o sol, o cair das folhas, o vento e o brotar dos frutos —, irrompe a existência de um ente perecível, cuja trajetória pode ser compreendida entre o nascimento e a morte, e cujas criações herdam a mesma sina da transitoriedade: o humano.
diante disso, os antigos descobriram uma forma de fazer com que seus legados perdurassem, deixando de ser breves secções transversais nos ciclos da natureza. falo aqui do ato de recordar — mnemosine, para os gregos, era a mãe de todas as musas. não à toa, heródoto — que, segundo cícero, era o pater historiae (pai da história) — afirmou que sua tarefa era preservar a obra humana, para que o tempo não fosse capaz de fazê-la desaparecer.
na modernidade, entretanto, essa interpretação da história é ressignificada.
e se, em vez de apenas narrarmos isoladamente os eventos humanos, começássemos a analisá-los em cadeia, como um fio condutor guiado pelas forças de ação e reação que regem a própria natureza?
eis que surge a moderna filosofia da história, como uma tentativa de buscar o sentido de nossas ações a partir dos eventos históricos que nos antecederam.
segundo filósofos como kant, hegel e marx, a análise da história universal mostraria o sentido da vida humana, que progressivamente sairia de um estado de sofrimento e abnegação para uma realidade de realizações plenas e regozijo. nosso desenvolvimento técnico e domínio da natureza, exponencialmente potencializados pelas revoluções industriais, seriam a prova disso.
dada essa intro — um cacoete de professor —, apresento este livro seminal.
segundo teoriza karl löwith, não há, contudo, nenhum sentido prévio no movimento histórico. tal pensamento, mesmo quando formulado pelos ateus mais radicais — como marx —, não passaria de um processo de secularização da noção de providência divina, tendo como pano de fundo a estrutura narrativa da escatologia judaico-cristã, que também apresentava uma visão linear e progressiva do tempo, com começo, meio e um fim redentor e pleno de regozijos.
essa foi, certamente, uma das minhas melhores leituras de toda a vida.
indico demais: 5/5⭐️
diante disso, os antigos descobriram uma forma de fazer com que seus legados perdurassem, deixando de ser breves secções transversais nos ciclos da natureza. falo aqui do ato de recordar — mnemosine, para os gregos, era a mãe de todas as musas. não à toa, heródoto — que, segundo cícero, era o pater historiae (pai da história) — afirmou que sua tarefa era preservar a obra humana, para que o tempo não fosse capaz de fazê-la desaparecer.
na modernidade, entretanto, essa interpretação da história é ressignificada.
e se, em vez de apenas narrarmos isoladamente os eventos humanos, começássemos a analisá-los em cadeia, como um fio condutor guiado pelas forças de ação e reação que regem a própria natureza?
eis que surge a moderna filosofia da história, como uma tentativa de buscar o sentido de nossas ações a partir dos eventos históricos que nos antecederam.
segundo filósofos como kant, hegel e marx, a análise da história universal mostraria o sentido da vida humana, que progressivamente sairia de um estado de sofrimento e abnegação para uma realidade de realizações plenas e regozijo. nosso desenvolvimento técnico e domínio da natureza, exponencialmente potencializados pelas revoluções industriais, seriam a prova disso.
dada essa intro — um cacoete de professor —, apresento este livro seminal.
segundo teoriza karl löwith, não há, contudo, nenhum sentido prévio no movimento histórico. tal pensamento, mesmo quando formulado pelos ateus mais radicais — como marx —, não passaria de um processo de secularização da noção de providência divina, tendo como pano de fundo a estrutura narrativa da escatologia judaico-cristã, que também apresentava uma visão linear e progressiva do tempo, com começo, meio e um fim redentor e pleno de regozijos.
essa foi, certamente, uma das minhas melhores leituras de toda a vida.
indico demais: 5/5⭐️
July 24, 2023
Karl Löwith, Meaning in History; The Theological Implications of The Philosophy of History, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1949.
نسخه فارسی:
کارل لووت، معنا در تاریخ، سعید حاجی ناصری، زانیار ابراهیمی، انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی، تهران، ۱۳۹۶.
پاسخ به پرسش از نسبت میان جدید و قدیم و همچنین بحث در باب مشروعیت و خودبنیادی مدرنیته لب لباب تحقیق عالمانه کارل لوویت در این کتاب است. پرسشی که هنوز هم یکی از مهمترین پرسشهای فلسفی و الهیاتی در تاریخ فکر سیاسی و الهیاتی جدید محسوب میشود.
به باور لووت تاریخ جهانی صحنه تنشی است که فرجامشناسی یهودی - مسیحی به آن بار کرده است. این ایده در دوران قدیم بر پایه آموزه مشیت الهی فهمیده میشده و در دوران جدید با سکولارشدن این آموزه خود را در ایده پیشرفت متبلور کرده است. در نتیجه نه تنها لوویت برای مدرنیته مشروعیت مستقلی قائل نیست بلکه کل تاریخ را سکولارشده الهیات مسیحی میداند.
در این رساله محققانه لووت تلاش کرده است تا ریشههای الهیاتی مفهوم مشیت الهی و پیشرفت را در آراء فلسفی و الهیاتی فلاسفه و متالهانی مانند مارکس و سنت آگوستین، از طریقهالمتاخرین تا آباء کلیسا، بررسی میکند و و پس از تحقیق در تاریخ این مفهوم، سرانجام نتیجه میگیرد که با از بین رفتن تمایز بنیادی تاریخ رستگاری و تاریخ جهانی در الهیات مسیحی، یعنی خلطی که میان رخدادهای رهاییبخش در الهیات مسیحی مانند ظهور و تجسم خداوند در تاریخ با اتفاقات دنیوی مانند سقوط امپراتوری روم رخ داده، تنشی در به وجود آمده که مدرنیته و اصول عقاید دگماتیک آن مانند ایده پیشرفت از لوازم آن محسوب میشوند. فجایعی که در این دوران در بعد سیاسی و انسانی و همچنین در بعد الهیاتی، مانند مرگ خداوند، از جمله نتایج این باور الهیاتی و خلط آن توسط مسیحیت است.
پژوهش کارل لووت بخشی از تحقیقات علمی درخشانی است که بیشتر در دهههایی ابتدایی قرن بیستم تا دهه هفتاد میلادی توسط متفکرانی مانند کارل اشمیت، لئو اشتراوس، هانس بلومنبرگ، اریک فولگین و میشل ویله بسط داده شد و هنوز هم ادامه دارد.
نسخه فارسی:
کارل لووت، معنا در تاریخ، سعید حاجی ناصری، زانیار ابراهیمی، انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی، تهران، ۱۳۹۶.
پاسخ به پرسش از نسبت میان جدید و قدیم و همچنین بحث در باب مشروعیت و خودبنیادی مدرنیته لب لباب تحقیق عالمانه کارل لوویت در این کتاب است. پرسشی که هنوز هم یکی از مهمترین پرسشهای فلسفی و الهیاتی در تاریخ فکر سیاسی و الهیاتی جدید محسوب میشود.
به باور لووت تاریخ جهانی صحنه تنشی است که فرجامشناسی یهودی - مسیحی به آن بار کرده است. این ایده در دوران قدیم بر پایه آموزه مشیت الهی فهمیده میشده و در دوران جدید با سکولارشدن این آموزه خود را در ایده پیشرفت متبلور کرده است. در نتیجه نه تنها لوویت برای مدرنیته مشروعیت مستقلی قائل نیست بلکه کل تاریخ را سکولارشده الهیات مسیحی میداند.
در این رساله محققانه لووت تلاش کرده است تا ریشههای الهیاتی مفهوم مشیت الهی و پیشرفت را در آراء فلسفی و الهیاتی فلاسفه و متالهانی مانند مارکس و سنت آگوستین، از طریقهالمتاخرین تا آباء کلیسا، بررسی میکند و و پس از تحقیق در تاریخ این مفهوم، سرانجام نتیجه میگیرد که با از بین رفتن تمایز بنیادی تاریخ رستگاری و تاریخ جهانی در الهیات مسیحی، یعنی خلطی که میان رخدادهای رهاییبخش در الهیات مسیحی مانند ظهور و تجسم خداوند در تاریخ با اتفاقات دنیوی مانند سقوط امپراتوری روم رخ داده، تنشی در به وجود آمده که مدرنیته و اصول عقاید دگماتیک آن مانند ایده پیشرفت از لوازم آن محسوب میشوند. فجایعی که در این دوران در بعد سیاسی و انسانی و همچنین در بعد الهیاتی، مانند مرگ خداوند، از جمله نتایج این باور الهیاتی و خلط آن توسط مسیحیت است.
پژوهش کارل لووت بخشی از تحقیقات علمی درخشانی است که بیشتر در دهههایی ابتدایی قرن بیستم تا دهه هفتاد میلادی توسط متفکرانی مانند کارل اشمیت، لئو اشتراوس، هانس بلومنبرگ، اریک فولگین و میشل ویله بسط داده شد و هنوز هم ادامه دارد.
May 20, 2019
Debo hacer algunas precisiones:
Primero, tal vez se deba a la traducción pero el texto se inclinaba a ratos por ser extremadamente árido y por decir, supongo yo, lo contrario de lo que decía el autor en realidad, eso podrá notarse durante una cuidadosa lectura del texto.
Segundo, el modelo invertido para tratar el estudio del tema, si bien parecía un excelente medio para dar a conocer ideas sobre cómo han visto la historia varios pensadores, al final resultó contraproducente: muchas veces iniciar del principio al fin en libros de historias de las ideas es mejor porque las formulaciones de los filósofos son más sencillas o dan pie a comprender mejor a pensadores posteriores. Con el modelo al revés, lo único que logró el autor fue convertir casi tres cuartos del libro en una tortura medieval. Tristemente para el autor, el hecho de tener que meter aclaraciones para comprender mejor ciertas ideas, lo cual lo llevó a una serie de constantes retrospectivas, indicaba que su modelo fue fallido.
Tercero, considero que la conclusión del libro (no meto aquí los dos apéndices de la edición que leí) no es del todo correcta, sin embargo, los argumentos que esgrime no dejan de ser relevantes para entender problemas varios como la relación del cristianismo con el poder o la visión del cristiano de su lugar en el mundo.
El libro, que yo esperaba leer con avidez, no resultó terrible sin embargo, realmente requiere un esfuerzo de concentración increíble. No apto para aficionados.
Primero, tal vez se deba a la traducción pero el texto se inclinaba a ratos por ser extremadamente árido y por decir, supongo yo, lo contrario de lo que decía el autor en realidad, eso podrá notarse durante una cuidadosa lectura del texto.
Segundo, el modelo invertido para tratar el estudio del tema, si bien parecía un excelente medio para dar a conocer ideas sobre cómo han visto la historia varios pensadores, al final resultó contraproducente: muchas veces iniciar del principio al fin en libros de historias de las ideas es mejor porque las formulaciones de los filósofos son más sencillas o dan pie a comprender mejor a pensadores posteriores. Con el modelo al revés, lo único que logró el autor fue convertir casi tres cuartos del libro en una tortura medieval. Tristemente para el autor, el hecho de tener que meter aclaraciones para comprender mejor ciertas ideas, lo cual lo llevó a una serie de constantes retrospectivas, indicaba que su modelo fue fallido.
Tercero, considero que la conclusión del libro (no meto aquí los dos apéndices de la edición que leí) no es del todo correcta, sin embargo, los argumentos que esgrime no dejan de ser relevantes para entender problemas varios como la relación del cristianismo con el poder o la visión del cristiano de su lugar en el mundo.
El libro, que yo esperaba leer con avidez, no resultó terrible sin embargo, realmente requiere un esfuerzo de concentración increíble. No apto para aficionados.
January 16, 2023
Read for a Political Theology course. I thought this gave a good overview of how different movements and thinkers have approached the study of history.
The overarching theme is the transition from the cyclical view of history that dominated Greek and pre-Christian Roman thought to a more linear view that history was advancing or building toward some end state. This transition was precipitated by Judeo-Christian theology of the end of the world, and has continued as these theological concepts have been secularized by various modern philosophical movements.
Löwith's core insight is that these cyclical and linear perspectives on history each have different implications for how to interpret historical events and how to contextualize current events in the story of our world.
The overarching theme is the transition from the cyclical view of history that dominated Greek and pre-Christian Roman thought to a more linear view that history was advancing or building toward some end state. This transition was precipitated by Judeo-Christian theology of the end of the world, and has continued as these theological concepts have been secularized by various modern philosophical movements.
Löwith's core insight is that these cyclical and linear perspectives on history each have different implications for how to interpret historical events and how to contextualize current events in the story of our world.
In the Greek and Roman mythologies and genealogies the past is represented as an everlasting foundation. In the Hebrew and Christian view of history the past is a promise to the future; consequently, the interpretation of the past becomes a prophecy in reverse, demonstrating the past as a meaningful “preparation” for the future. Greek philosophers and historians were convinced that whatever is to happen will be of the same pattern and character as past and present events; they never indulged in the prospective possibilities of the future.
June 5, 2020
Read about 70 pages of it and enjoyed it, really easily readable, especially knowing he's a student from Hegel and Husserl.
Summarised in his own words:
Die Zukunft ist der wahre Brennpunkt der Geschichte, vorausgesetzt, daß die Wahrheit in dem religiösen Fundament des christlichen Abendlandes beruht, dessen historisches Bewußtsein durch das eschatologische Motiv bestimmt ist: von Jesaia bis Marx, von Augustin bis Hege! und von Joachim bis Schelling. Die Bedeutung dieser Hinsicht auf ein letztes Ende, als finis und telos, besteht darin, daß sie ein Schema fortschreitender Ordnung und Sinnhaftigkeit bereitstellt, das die antike Furcht vor fatum und fortuna überwinden konnte. Das eschaton setzt dem Verlauf der Geschichte nicht nur ein Ende, es gliedert und erfüllt ihn durch ein bestimmtes Ziel
Summarised in his own words:
Die Zukunft ist der wahre Brennpunkt der Geschichte, vorausgesetzt, daß die Wahrheit in dem religiösen Fundament des christlichen Abendlandes beruht, dessen historisches Bewußtsein durch das eschatologische Motiv bestimmt ist: von Jesaia bis Marx, von Augustin bis Hege! und von Joachim bis Schelling. Die Bedeutung dieser Hinsicht auf ein letztes Ende, als finis und telos, besteht darin, daß sie ein Schema fortschreitender Ordnung und Sinnhaftigkeit bereitstellt, das die antike Furcht vor fatum und fortuna überwinden konnte. Das eschaton setzt dem Verlauf der Geschichte nicht nur ein Ende, es gliedert und erfüllt ihn durch ein bestimmtes Ziel
April 28, 2023
The chapters tackling early Christians and early Modern thinkers were of great help for my thesis, but I can't get over how bad the analysis of any thinker from Hegel on (chronologically) was. I highly appreciate this theological approach to history but the categories employed in Löwith's analysis of historical time are almost inoperable and his attempt to fit a great chunk of the most important philosophers of history into these categories was a huge stretch at best.
January 19, 2024
I cannot write a very comprehensive review that would add much which has not already been said by many others but I will say this; I've never read a work THIS short and THIS dense yet also THIS profoundly clear. Löwith, among many other things, is an expert stylist who neither skimps on necessary details nor overindulges in minutiae. The organization of the work is also structurally novel and efficient. If there is one glorious takeaway from this book it would be the following–modernity is too juvenile to uphold a historical consciousness of its own and too corrupt to admit such.
July 22, 2020
I made a whole YouTube series about this book. Aside from the ending (which I didn't care for), it's one of the most pithy books I have ever read.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDAw4...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDAw4...
August 26, 2021
Excellent.
June 19, 2023
Karl Löwith's "Meaning in History" is a seminal work in the field of philosophy of history, offering a profound exploration of the relationship between historical understanding and the search for meaning in human existence. Published in 1949, this book delves into the complex interplay between historical events, human agency, and the quest for purpose within the historical process. In this academic review, we aim to critically engage with Löwith's arguments, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of his approach, and discuss the lasting impact of "Meaning in History" on the field of philosophy and historical scholarship.
"Meaning in History" seeks to address the question of whether history has a discernible pattern or teleological structure that can provide meaning to human existence. Löwith engages with various philosophical and theological perspectives, examining the tension between the notion of historical progress and the limitations of human agency in shaping historical events.
The book is structured around several key themes. Firstly, Löwith delves into the historical philosophies of Giambattista Vico, G.W.F. Hegel, and Friedrich Nietzsche, exploring their respective views on the meaningfulness of historical development. He analyzes the concept of "absolute meaning" and its implications for understanding the purpose and direction of historical progress.
Secondly, Löwith critically examines the notion of historical progress itself, questioning the feasibility of identifying a linear trajectory or a predetermined end point in history. He explores the limitations of human perception and the contingent nature of historical events, arguing that any claims of ultimate meaning are inherently speculative and subject to interpretation.
Furthermore, Löwith investigates the role of religious and existential perspectives in attributing meaning to historical events. He explores the tension between faith-based interpretations of history and secular, historical understanding, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging diverse perspectives and engaging in critical inquiry.
"Meaning in History" presents a thought-provoking analysis of the quest for meaning within the realm of historical understanding. Löwith's work is characterized by its rigorous scholarship, engaging with a wide range of philosophical, theological, and historical sources. His exploration of the tension between historical progress and human agency provides valuable insights into the limitations and possibilities of historical interpretation.
One of the strengths of Löwith's work lies in his ability to navigate the complexities of historical thought and the philosophical underpinnings of historical meaning. His critical examination of key philosophical figures and their theories of historical development offers a nuanced understanding of the diverse perspectives on the relationship between history and meaning.
Löwith's emphasis on the contingent nature of historical events and the limitations of human agency is particularly notable. His analysis challenges simplistic narratives of historical progress and encourages a more nuanced and critical approach to understanding the complex forces at play in historical processes.
However, it is important to critically engage with Löwith's perspective and the potential limitations of his analysis. Some readers may find his exploration of meaning in history to be overly speculative and philosophical, potentially neglecting the concrete realities and specificities of historical contexts. Furthermore, Löwith's work does not extensively engage with non-Western perspectives on historical meaning, which may limit its applicability in a global context.
"Meaning in History" by Karl Löwith remains a significant contribution to the field of philosophy of history. The book's nuanced analysis, engagement with philosophical and theological perspectives, and critical examination of the relationship between historical understanding and the search for meaning provide valuable insights into the complexities of historical interpretation. While readers may have differing views on the ultimate meaning of history, Löwith's work invites critical reflection and fosters a deeper understanding of the philosophical dimensions of historical scholarship.
GPT
"Meaning in History" seeks to address the question of whether history has a discernible pattern or teleological structure that can provide meaning to human existence. Löwith engages with various philosophical and theological perspectives, examining the tension between the notion of historical progress and the limitations of human agency in shaping historical events.
The book is structured around several key themes. Firstly, Löwith delves into the historical philosophies of Giambattista Vico, G.W.F. Hegel, and Friedrich Nietzsche, exploring their respective views on the meaningfulness of historical development. He analyzes the concept of "absolute meaning" and its implications for understanding the purpose and direction of historical progress.
Secondly, Löwith critically examines the notion of historical progress itself, questioning the feasibility of identifying a linear trajectory or a predetermined end point in history. He explores the limitations of human perception and the contingent nature of historical events, arguing that any claims of ultimate meaning are inherently speculative and subject to interpretation.
Furthermore, Löwith investigates the role of religious and existential perspectives in attributing meaning to historical events. He explores the tension between faith-based interpretations of history and secular, historical understanding, emphasizing the importance of acknowledging diverse perspectives and engaging in critical inquiry.
"Meaning in History" presents a thought-provoking analysis of the quest for meaning within the realm of historical understanding. Löwith's work is characterized by its rigorous scholarship, engaging with a wide range of philosophical, theological, and historical sources. His exploration of the tension between historical progress and human agency provides valuable insights into the limitations and possibilities of historical interpretation.
One of the strengths of Löwith's work lies in his ability to navigate the complexities of historical thought and the philosophical underpinnings of historical meaning. His critical examination of key philosophical figures and their theories of historical development offers a nuanced understanding of the diverse perspectives on the relationship between history and meaning.
Löwith's emphasis on the contingent nature of historical events and the limitations of human agency is particularly notable. His analysis challenges simplistic narratives of historical progress and encourages a more nuanced and critical approach to understanding the complex forces at play in historical processes.
However, it is important to critically engage with Löwith's perspective and the potential limitations of his analysis. Some readers may find his exploration of meaning in history to be overly speculative and philosophical, potentially neglecting the concrete realities and specificities of historical contexts. Furthermore, Löwith's work does not extensively engage with non-Western perspectives on historical meaning, which may limit its applicability in a global context.
"Meaning in History" by Karl Löwith remains a significant contribution to the field of philosophy of history. The book's nuanced analysis, engagement with philosophical and theological perspectives, and critical examination of the relationship between historical understanding and the search for meaning provide valuable insights into the complexities of historical interpretation. While readers may have differing views on the ultimate meaning of history, Löwith's work invites critical reflection and fosters a deeper understanding of the philosophical dimensions of historical scholarship.
GPT
December 1, 2016
Fascinating book! Sharp in its analyses, readable, measured in its judgments. Löwith has them all at his fingertips. Some question regarding the methodology / hermeneutic I am still thinking about. Why move backwards in history – especially since he seems to return to the present in the last chapters and appendix to the present (through German Idealism and Nietzsche)?
I want to read his thoughts on Heidegger now, who is, of course, looming large here. I feel I won't understand the book well until I understand his relation to his contemporaries better – Leo Strauss, Rudolf Bultmann, Eric Voegelin especially (besides the grand master). With Strauss: is the choice between Athens and Jerusalem a tragic one? How to think about the relationship between Jews and Christians of the apostolic age and their respective contributions to the problem of history? With Voegelin: do they differ in their reading of Heidegger? In how far the gnostic thinkers can be blamed for evils of gnostic politics? With Bultmann: how does Löwith's sympathy for the early Christians fit with protestantism? With liberal protestantism? With existential protestantism? And how does it sit with his anti-gnosticism?
Vico is a discovery! Löwith seems to like him but then he does not figure really in the conclusion. People seem to read him in very different ways (I gather from a quick google research). From Löwith's characterisation, I wonder if there aren't resources there to get beyond Athens and Jerusalem – or at least for some promising blend.
Some of his thoughts are yet obscure to me but I blame my own lack of knowledge for that. It is definitely a good introduction to the philosophy and theology of history and written in a truly philosophical spirit!
I want to read his thoughts on Heidegger now, who is, of course, looming large here. I feel I won't understand the book well until I understand his relation to his contemporaries better – Leo Strauss, Rudolf Bultmann, Eric Voegelin especially (besides the grand master). With Strauss: is the choice between Athens and Jerusalem a tragic one? How to think about the relationship between Jews and Christians of the apostolic age and their respective contributions to the problem of history? With Voegelin: do they differ in their reading of Heidegger? In how far the gnostic thinkers can be blamed for evils of gnostic politics? With Bultmann: how does Löwith's sympathy for the early Christians fit with protestantism? With liberal protestantism? With existential protestantism? And how does it sit with his anti-gnosticism?
Vico is a discovery! Löwith seems to like him but then he does not figure really in the conclusion. People seem to read him in very different ways (I gather from a quick google research). From Löwith's characterisation, I wonder if there aren't resources there to get beyond Athens and Jerusalem – or at least for some promising blend.
Some of his thoughts are yet obscure to me but I blame my own lack of knowledge for that. It is definitely a good introduction to the philosophy and theology of history and written in a truly philosophical spirit!
May 27, 2022
Il saggio, ormai canonizzato tra i classici della filosofia della storia, passa in rassegna i grandi maestri della disciplina al fine di dimostrare il cosiddetto "teorema della secolarizzazione", ovvero che ogni possibile tentativo di interpretare la storia universale come una serie di fatti e successioni secondo un criterio che li indirizzi logicamente verso un fine ultimo, un "eskhatos" cosmico, consista in realtà in un tentativo di mondanizzare (o "secolarizzare") concetti, valori e idee appartenenti al paradigma religioso "giudeo-cristiano". Se da un lato questa intuizione inevitabilmente ci permette di studiare i grandi autori (anche gli "ateissimi" come Comte, Marx e Voltaire) da una prospettiva diversa, capace di far emergere gli elementi che inconsciamente erano stati sottratti alla tradizione secolare della chiesa, dall'altro mi riconosco totalmente nella critica del Blumenberg, che per affermare la legittimità della modernità definì la teoria del Lowith come una "parateoria contemporanea", capace di trovare conferma alla prova di qualsiasi fatto. Del restom anche solo intuitivamente, assumere la filosofia della storia come uno studio esplicitamente teleologico (assioma dato come naturale e non dimostrato in nessun capitolo del trattato), in qualche modo già richiama un paragone con i grandi monoteismi occidentali, che altro non sono che mitologie finaliste stratificate sotto secoli di specifiche filosofiche e teologiche. Ogni tratto caratteristico della modernità può essere letto come il precipitato di un percorso precedente, anche quando la logica della conversione sfugge ai tradizionali principi di non contraddizione. In generale: sicuramente interessante ed erudito da un punto di vista esegetico/interpretativo, meno da quello teoretico.
October 24, 2010
"How can ancient messianism still appeal and prevail as the spiritual pattern of historical materialism if the modes of material production -- which since Isaiah have fundamentally changed -- are the determining factor of all forms of consciousness?" (45-6, of Marx's messianism)
"The belief in the absolute relevance of history as such, which made the works of Spengler and Toynbee best sellers, is the result of the emancipation of the modern historical conciousness from the foundation in and limitation by classical cosmology and Christian theology. Both restrained the experience of history and prevented its growing into infinite dimensions." (193)
"The modern mind is not single-minded: it eliminates from its progressive outlook the Christian implication of creation and consummation, while it assimilates from the ancient world view the idea of an endless and continuous movement, discarding its circular structure. 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." (207)
"The belief in the absolute relevance of history as such, which made the works of Spengler and Toynbee best sellers, is the result of the emancipation of the modern historical conciousness from the foundation in and limitation by classical cosmology and Christian theology. Both restrained the experience of history and prevented its growing into infinite dimensions." (193)
"The modern mind is not single-minded: it eliminates from its progressive outlook the Christian implication of creation and consummation, while it assimilates from the ancient world view the idea of an endless and continuous movement, discarding its circular structure. 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." (207)
November 23, 2015
Cry in Latin.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews