But these positions are also unprovable from an historical viewpoint. First of all, the majority of humanity still finds itself in its original state, at the very starting point. We may thus ask: "What is progress? Where is this progress of mankind to be seen?" There are elements of great historical development which have established themselves in the Latin and Germanic nations. At least here there is a gradual development of an evolving spiritual force. But one cannot find anywhere in all of history a similar historical pressure of the human spirit. This is a movement originating in early antiquity which has continued with a certain steadiness. But while there is only one system of peoples out of all humanity which took part in this general historical movement, there were, on the contrary, others which were excluded from it. Moreover, we cannot regard the nations included in this movement as enjoying a steady state of progress. For example, if we should look at Asia, we would see that civilization arose there, and that this part of the earth experienced several cultural epochs. But it was there that the tendency, on the whole, was retrogressive, for the most ancient ages of Asiatic culture were the most flourishing; the second and third periods, in which the Greek and Roman element dominated, were already not so significant; and with the invasion of the Mongol barbarians, civilization in Asia came completely to a halt.
An attempt has been made to counter these facts with the hypothesis of a geographical progression, but from the outset I must declare it a worthless position. How could it be maintained, for example, in the case of Peter the Great, that civilization made its progress around the globe, passing from east to west, but then returning again?
A second error to be avoided is the suggestion that all the branches of human experience and knowledge have developed throughout the centuries at the same rate. History shows us—to select only one example from modern times—that art flourished most in the fifteenth century and the first half of the sixteenth. In contrast, it declined most at the end of the seventeenth and during the first three quarters of the eighteenth century. Though even here there are moments when this art really stands out, they in no way justify the assertion that art ascends in the course of centuries to a higher power.
print version
return to list
previous document