Historicism holds that all standards of truth or morality are “historical,” that is, rooted in their own age and culture, and that there is no eternal truth standing outside history.
But does historicism imply that people are fated never to “transcend” history? Not at all.
We should note that “transcend” does not mean “detach oneself from.” Rather, it means unfolding new history on the premise of standing within history.
I have already said before: “Only by relying on history can we possibly transcend history.” Put another way: only by possessing the past can we face the future. Those who have no “past” also have no “future.”
The concept I want to talk about today is “immortality.” Here I do not mean something eternal and unchanging, detached from history and beyond space and time, but rather a kind of historical immortality, or the immortality of history—in any case, what I want to say is that within the horizon of historicism, the concept of “immortality” still has meaning.
People often speak of “eternal masterpieces,” “immortal spirit,” “erecting an eternal monument,” “establishing immortal achievements”… Here, even within a historicist horizon, “eternal” and “immortal” have not been reduced to completely empty modal particles of speech (for example, the “important” in “important speech,” “important thought,” and “important work” has already been reduced to a completely empty modal particle of speech). “Eternal” and “immortal” mean that these masterpieces, these ideas or actions, will not be confined to this era alone, but will transcend the limitations of the age and become an everlasting treasure for later generations.
And the reason this kind of “transcendence” is possible is precisely that human beings have “history.” Here, becoming “history” and becoming “immortal” are one and the same, that is, “being inscribed in the historical record.”
When we say that a certain philosopher or a certain thought has become “immortal,” we do not mean that it has “broken free” of “history” and become absolute; on the contrary, we mean that it has “entered” into “history.” The “immortality” of philosophy is not manifested as remaining forever “fixed and unchanging”; quite the opposite, “immortal” philosophy is manifested in being continuously interpreted and developed by generation after generation of later thinkers, and being read in different ways by different ages.
“Immortal” philosophy is also not manifested as uniqueness, as if it had become a first “step” in history, one that people must pass through in order to move forward—history is not such a monotonous staircase. If that were really the case, then modern people standing at the top of the staircase would have no need whatsoever to turn back and retrace paths already traveled. But the “immortality” within history is precisely manifested in its indeterminacy and diversity. Every “immortal” philosopher provides history with infinite “possibilities”; when we return to them and walk their path again, we may always discover new roads that have never been traveled before. Therefore, whenever people discover that an age has fallen into a predicament and history has taken a wrong turn, we are always able to turn to those “immortal” ideas for help.
Each “immortal” philosopher, first of all, like anyone else, is rooted in history, standing on the foundation of his age and tradition. But at the same time, he must reflect on his age, reflect on himself—in other words, reflect on his history. Reflecting on history does not mean leaving history; opposing fashion does not mean leaving fashion. Any “affirmation” and “negation” are always situated under one and the same milieu. And yet, in the course of what is called the development of “thesis—antithesis—synthesis,” the “negation” unfolds the “future,” that is, the “possibilities” possessed by this age. Thus an “immortal” philosopher, after deeply “seizing” “history”—that is, after rooting himself deeply in his own age—unfolds the future. This is what “transcendence” of the age means.
People are always fixated on seeking “transcendence,” seeking to break through the limitations of their own reality. But breaking through finitude does not mean possessing absolute infinity. Here we must accept the intuitionist position—rejecting “actual infinity.” What is called “infinity” refers to a dynamic process, one that continuously transcends itself and never stops, rather than to some concrete “thing.”
Therefore, from the standpoint of historicism and pluralism, one can still pursue “immortality,” “transcendence,” “infinity,” and so on—but not, like absolutists, by trying to attain immortality by stepping outside history; rather, quite the opposite, by pursuing it through entering into history.
January 22, 2008
Latest Comments
- Yi Wu
2008-01-24 19:40:29
Thus an “immortal” philosopher, after deeply “seizing” “history”—that is, after rooting himself deeply in his own age—unfolds the future. This is what “transcendence” of the age means.
Well said.
What a good article~ so clear and bright. The historicist horizon is a good entry point.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply