• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is history cyclical or linear?

RobertU

RobertU

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 27, 2018
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
788
Location
Vacaville, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe popularized among many conservatives the idea that Western history is cyclical, with prosperity followed by decadence and decline, then a rebirth.

Progressives are more likely to argue that history points towards greater justice, equality and technological achievement and may quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” They will often claim right wingers are on “the wrong side of history.”

The progressive ideal looked promising in the 1990s when the fall of the Soviet Union seemed to signal a trend against tyranny, but the more recent rise of populist authoritarian leaders marked a “turning” against what conservatives would describe as moral decline.

Which perspective is more accurate?
 
What you're talking about is interpretations of events. Not the nature of history.
History is neither cyclical nor linear, and sometimes one or the other. The spin depends entirely on how you interpret events.
History isn't a river. Nor is it a rolling wheel. It's a series of events without any reason to have meaning.
 
Grand Mal said:
What you're talking about is interpretations of events. Not the nature of history.
History is neither cyclical nor linear, and sometimes one or the other. The spin depends entirely on how you interpret events.
History isn't a river. Nor is it a rolling wheel. It's a series of events without any reason to have meaning.
Click to expand...
Disagree. The conservative view is most correct.
 
According to Turning theory, we are currently in a period of Crisis. The High was after WWII. The Awakening was during the 60's and 70's. The Unraveling was from the 80's to about the Great Recession.

I think many in the left would agree Hitler is in the White House blah blah and every institution is collapsing. Of course the right would see it differently.
 
It's obviously linear. Ask a Dodo Bird, or an Etruscan, if history is cyclical. The apparent repetition of events is due to similarity in material conditions, not because Bill Murray's an arsehole.
 
Having said that.....

GjH-CboXIAAFft-
 
RobertU said:
The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe popularized among many conservatives the idea that Western history is cyclical, with prosperity followed by decadence and decline, then a rebirth.

Progressives are more likely to argue that history points towards greater justice, equality and technological achievement and may quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” They will often claim right wingers are on “the wrong side of history.”

The progressive ideal looked promising in the 1990s when the fall of the Soviet Union seemed to signal a trend against tyranny, but the more recent rise of populist authoritarian leaders marked a “turning” against what conservatives would describe as moral decline.

Which perspective is more accurate?
Click to expand...
History is a function of time, and therefore linear.

Human behavior on the other hand is quite cyclical, constantly changing from periods of virtue and greatness to declines (however rapid or gradual) caused by affluence and decadence which generate changes back to virtue and greatness.

...inasmuch as we never learn from history how to stabilize our behavior.
 
Grand Mal said:
What is the conservative view? Linear or cyclical?
Click to expand...
From the OP

"The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe popularized among many conservatives the idea that Western history is cyclical, with prosperity followed by decadence and decline, then a rebirth"
 
The poet William Butler Years claimed the “spirits” informed him that history takes the form of two cone-shaped corkscrews, one inside the other, in which the widest part of the first cone forms the base of the tip of the second cone, and the widest base of the second cone forms the tip of the first cone.
 
Civilizations tend to follow patterns of growth, stability, decline, adaption, growth stability decline.

Every major cultural/ethnic group that has survived for thousands of years has gone through such cycles.


The growth and decline cycle are dependent on each other. A fast growth cycle followed by high levels of luxury tend to see quicker declines.

The forgetting that wealth was dependent on hard productive work is the source of decline.

Europe North America has had a good 50 plus years of wealth. The hard work done by the generation born before WW2 have been forgotten.

The generations after are more wanting life's of leisure. While other cultures are working hard to obtain wealth the growth cycle
 
RobertU said:
The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe popularized among many conservatives the idea that Western history is cyclical, with prosperity followed by decadence and decline, then a rebirth.

Progressives are more likely to argue that history points towards greater justice, equality and technological achievement and may quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” They will often claim right wingers are on “the wrong side of history.”

The progressive ideal looked promising in the 1990s when the fall of the Soviet Union seemed to signal a trend against tyranny, but the more recent rise of populist authoritarian leaders marked a “turning” against what conservatives would describe as moral decline.

Which perspective is more accurate?
Click to expand...

Some sort of hyperspace (describing data in more than 3 dimensions) would make for the most accurate overview. It's all just visualization tools though.

But sure, in the sense that a kyklos (circle/wheel) makes revolutions that on the face of it seem quite similar (but will eventually cease to move) is a quite conservative way of thinking about it.
Conservatism is after all basically just the idea of learning, and adapting from prior experience.

The rising graph perspective works too, but works best in between those intermittent falls of civlizations which most people tend to forget to include in their deliberations.
 
RobertU said:
Which perspective is more accurate?
Click to expand...

Both are true at the same time. History is a linear representation, of the cyclic nature, of societies that form and rise only to later eventually fall.
 
History is simply history. The past.

The future is unknowable therefor unpredictable.
 
BirdinHand said:
Those who don’t learn from history do seem destined to repeat the lessons.

🤷‍♀️
Click to expand...

And I believe that. The history of man must have a goal. Else it is just confusion, no matter the state at the time.

In other words, there must be purpose in history. A purpose that continues down to this day.

If there is no purpose, then it's all just bullshit. It's nothing but what is the order of the day.

Lees
 
RobertU said:
The Fourth Turning by William Strauss and Neil Howe popularized among many conservatives the idea that Western history is cyclical, with prosperity followed by decadence and decline, then a rebirth.

Progressives are more likely to argue that history points towards greater justice, equality and technological achievement and may quote Martin Luther King, Jr.: “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” They will often claim right wingers are on “the wrong side of history.”

The progressive ideal looked promising in the 1990s when the fall of the Soviet Union seemed to signal a trend against tyranny, but the more recent rise of populist authoritarian leaders marked a “turning” against what conservatives would describe as moral decline.

Which perspective is more accurate?
Click to expand...
RobertU:

Perhaps History is both, like a wave function. Cycles of revision and reaction all moving in a linear direction producing a wave function that both moves forward linearly but also repeats or echoes over time while travelling along that linear progression.

Or maybe History does not exist at all and is a function of humans cherry-picking of events and personalities over time to support a widely shared set of myths which we all agree to share or are conditioned to believe by our cultures and states.

Historiography often raises more questions than it answers and does not lend itself to simple models of description or explanations.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
history tends to repeat because we still cling onto it and systems that caused a particular turn to happen. Im not a modernist when it comes to reading history human being love pattern seeking even when a pattern isnt quite there. We also have a cyclical view because the evils of yesteryear never dies because lots of people are childish and petulant.

The people that setup evil systems intent for those systems to last forever so they teach the next generation to keep it going. When they are defeated they never give up. No amount of reasoning, empathy, or defeats stop them.
 
It's linear, but can have repeating themes, as the issues in society have things that reoccur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom