3 What Toynbee and Spengler have in common
Despite their differences, Spengler and Toynbee were beginning an interesting study. The two of them are often regarded as the originators of the relativization of European civilization, often beginning their research with the unit of civilization, but it seems that the starting point of their research was thinking about the future of European civilization. It seems that the research was oriented toward the future . This is a major difference from other historians who have explained various historical phenomena . These two are not strictly historians, nor are they different from modern social scientists (political scientists, economists, sociologists). However, there may be other researchers who have viewed European civilization mainly as the history of capitalism, not the history of Europe. Marx, Hicks, Braudel, Wallerstein, etc. seem to be such people. These four people have drawn up Europe's past, present and future from economic and material life*1.
*1 Marx and Hicks categorized the periods of European history chronologically according to the production system. Marx's ancient production system, feudal production system, market production system, capital production system, and socialist production system. Hicks describes the command economy, the market economy, the city-state economy, the national economy, and the command economy again. Although these are based on the realm of nations, Braudel and Wallerstein have the "world and economy" in mind as a viewpoint of the present age. Their perspective is how this "world economy" has changed over the long, medium, and short term, and it is said that this was established because capitalism was born as a result of the development of the market economy. These two schools do not merely examine history, but both seem to have the aspect of theory that can predict the future. If anything, Braudel and Wallerstein may be more important in modern times. This is because there is still little to see from a global and economic perspective. Compared to Braudel and Wallerstein, Wallerstein is too biased toward economics, which is a difficult point for future studies. It seems that Braudel at least understood his difficulty. This is so in the sense that the world economy existed before 16th-century Europe.
The second thing that Spengler and Toynbee have in common is that they were both strongly aware of the "time axis." The obvious difference between these two and other historians (including those who emphasize capitalism and material life) is that historians have investigated historical facts and their causal relationships to weave history and historical views. On the other hand, it may be that he placed greater importance on the existence of the time axis than on the chain of historical facts*1. It means that they felt something (spirit or creativity) that faded with time.
*1 In addition to Spengler and Toynbee, there is Braudel as a person who pondered deeply about time. In a sense, Braudel was more than the former two. Braudel divides time into three parts. Long term time: geography, environment. Medium-term time: economy. Short Time: as a political and event history .Braudel wrote "Mediterranean Sea in the Time of Felipe II". However, it is quite different from the "time axis" here. From now on, time is considered to be one of the "resources", and even though it is a resource, people, ethnic spirits, and creativity deteriorate with the passage of time, and civilization eventually declines. I think of that figure as a time axis (it flows past, present, and future), and in the sense that I look at it, it is similar to Spengler's and Toynbee's time, but has a point that is different from Braudel's time.
4 What drives history
What I want to think about here is the driving force that changes history. Without human involvement, time by itself produces nothing. If so, what part of human activity is related to time and what creates creations and innovations? The new part of Spengler and Toynbee's thought that has not been paid attention to yet *1 is the theme of "What do humans create while consuming time as a resource?" Isn't it at the point? In this section, we will try to intuitively grasp the image of the driving force of historical change from the writings of past historians, look at some of its essences and structures, and deepen our thoughts on the concept of the time axis. I would like to consider a simple hypothetical model of historical change.
*1 Today, it takes patience to read the works of Spengler and Toynbee. Even the reduced version seems to be hard. Rather, Braudel and Wallerstein are much easier to approach. Its views are clear, concise, and all concrete because it is a reflection on material civilization. Braudel's sources are astonishing. Compared to this, the subjects of Spengler and Toynbee, especially Spengler, also deal with spiritual civilization, and are often abstract and self-righteous. Therefore, reading Spengler and Toynbee carefully will not give you a clear understanding of something. Spengler and Toynbee are mentioned here as founders of thought that attempts to grasp the world through the time axis that connects "past, present, and future." In this way they tried to explain the workings of all civilizations.
Looking at it from a different point of view, it can be said that it means recapturing the relationship between humans and resources. This is because the resources that are the source of all power are ultimately reduced to time, spiritual energy, and material energy, and the time axis is a world cut from one of these resources, time. This is because it can be said to be a view. It can be said that it is a world view that is constructed with time as a resource at the center*1 (When it comes to environmental issues, thinking backwards from the catastrophe will also become important). On the other hand, mental energy is all human thought energy and has various orientations. Material energy is kinetic energy and materials activated by petroleum, nuclear power, etc., and performs various activities and productions according to human will.
*1 The world cut out from the resource of time is, for example, the history of the Korean people and the Han people. South Korea and North Korea, China and Taiwan, and the 70 years since the end of the war are both unchanged, but completely different politics, economies, and cultures have been formed, and the products (including various things) that have been born from them. there was a clear difference. Differences in values and worldviews have resulted in differences in the distribution of resources, which in turn has resulted in differences in what is produced. We can look back on the past, but applying this idea to the future means that we need tools to predict what will happen and what will be produced in the next five years, for example. It can be said that thinking about such things is "the work of cutting out and digging up the world from time."
All rights reserved to M Ariake
