Hegel's Audaciousness Of Freedom

982 Words2 Pages

In 1806, nearly two hundred years before Fukuyama’s audacious historical stance, George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel declared the end of history. Hegel bases his claim in that the Napoleonic Code, a preliminary, yet revolutionary replacement of previous feudal laws, was being promulgated and slowly implemented throughout Napoleon’s empire . Hegel believes, however, that the adoption of a particular code or set of standards for a civil society, like the Napoleonic Code or the Constitution of the United States, is stipulated on the rational evolution or progression of peoples towards the realization that they are free or equal. In short, a constitution that guarantees your freedom means nothing to those who do not possess the self-consciousness …show more content…

First, the Oriental World understood that “one is free,” that individuals are on their own autonomous beings. But, the Oriental World fell short in that they did not realize that while one was free, so was Mankind, or the collection of peoples in a state. Hegel then proceeds to the Classical World, particularly the ancient Greeks. The Greeks and Romans possessed the “consciousness of freedom,” but the fact that they owned and exploited slaves precludes them from being a truly free society and renders their Volksgesit less authentic. The Germanic World, the final stage in Hegel’s evolution of consciousness, reached the intellectual point where, through the influence of Christianity, they were able to “attain the consciousness that Man, as Man, is free…” , making them intellectually prepared for a codified document, like a constitution. To simplify Hegel (and perhaps this is not doing him justice), this evolution in the consciousness of freedom describes the progression from anarchy to the civil society--Man is free in the Oriental World but Mankind is free in the Germanic …show more content…

But, utilizing both Napoleon’s ideas on national hegemony and also Hegel’s views on the evolution and progression of consciousness clearly show that the Orient, particularly in the era after Sykes-Picot, was a region doomed to conflict and turmoil. This internecine conflict infamously linked to the Orient has now clouded our scholarly and geopolitical understanding of the area, making it our scholarly imperative to analyze and assess the modern Orient as 1) a product of Anglo-French interests and 2) as a region arbitrarily categorized into states entirely unprepared for the prospect of nation

Open Document