Traditional Views of History Seen from the Unification View of History
Having presented outlines of some traditional views of history, I will now compare them with the Unification view of history, and will attempt to show that the Unification view of history is able to unify traditional views.
First, there is the question whether history should be seen as a circular or as a linear movement. The Greek cyclical view and Spengler’s cultural view grasped history as a circular movement, whereas the Christian view, the progressive view, and the materialist view regard history as a linear movement. The philosophy-of-life view held that history develops with the growth of the stream of life. That view could be seen as a modification of the progressive view.
If history is grasped as a linear movement, we can have hope in the development of history, but we are left without a good understanding of the breakdowns and revivals in human history. On the other hand, when we regard history as a circular movement, nations and cultures become destined to perish, and we are left without any hope.
The Unification view of history grasps history from the two aspects of recreation and restoration and understands its development as a spiral movement that has both aspects, namely, a linear forward movement and a circular movement. In other words, it views history as a spiral movement that has both the forward-moving nature of development toward a goal (realization of the original ideal world of creation) and the circular-movement nature of restoring the lost original ideal world through the law of indemnity by establishing providential figures.
Second, there is the question of determinism and non-determinism. Such views of history as the Greek fatalist view, which holds that history moves inevitably towards a given destiny, and Spengler’s cultural view, were deterministic. The providential view, which holds that history proceeds according to God’s providence, can also be regarded as deterministic. Hegel’s view, which holds that reason, or the world spirit, drives history, and the materialist view, which holds that history inevitably reaches the Communist society according to the development of productive forces, are also deterministic. All these views assert that some super-human power drives history. Under such types of determinism, the human being is no more than a being dragged along by history, and it is impossible to change history through efforts based on people’s free will.
On the other hand, Toynbee advocated non-determinism from his position of the theory of free will. That is, he asserted that the way in which history proceeds is chosen by people’s free will. In Toynbee’s non-deterministic position, however, the future image of history remains ambiguous, and therefore we are left without a sure hope for the future.
In contrast, the Unification view of history takes the position that the goal of history is determined, but that the process of history is not determined because the accomplishment of providential events requires the fulfillment of the human portion of responsibility in addition to God’s portion of responsibility. In other words, the Unification view of history has aspects both of determinism and non-determinism. This theory is called the “theory of responsibility.”
When we compare the traditional views of history with the Unification view of history, we find that the traditional views have each emphasized a portion of the Unification view, and that the Unification view is the most comprehensive, unifying view of history. Also, Toynbee’s view of history is similar in many ways to the Unification view of history. From a providential viewpoint, Toynbee’s view can be regarded as being a preparation for the appearance of the Unification view of history. That is to say, Toynbee’s view had the mission of serving as a bridge linking traditional views of history with the Unification view of history.