Big Think

The last two philosophy books I have read are Francis Fukuyama's The End of History and the Last Man and Stephen Toulmin's cosmopolitan, two Big Think books.

Fukuyama claims that we are at the end of history in the sense that liberal democratic regimes are the future for most countries. He digs deep into Plato's idea of the tripartite soul and Hegel's philosophy of history for his argument. Part of human nature is the need for recognition. Fukuyama claims that liberal democracies best satisfy that basic human need. The debate rages over whether history is indeed on this track especially since 9/11. Some philosophers, such as Slavoj Zizek, claim there might still be a better way than liberal democracy. Exactly what that better way might be, is a little unclear to say the least.

Toulmin's book claims that philosophy took a decisive turn during the turbulent years of the 17th Century due to religious wars, depressions, and political upheavals. He claims that philosophy moved from Montaigne's open humanistic inquiry during the Renaissance to the modern rationalistic philosophy of Descartes and others, a philosophy that demands foundations and certainty for philosophy, science, and religion. He says that only now, in the post-modern world, are we returning to the more humanistic philosophy of Montaigne where we do not require absolute rationalistic foundations for philosophy, science, and religion. Toulmin sees the desire for rationalistic certainty as a chimera, and sees the post-modern turn as positive since it will lead to more creative solutions to our problems.

I found both books good reads and fascinating. I wonder about historical progress in the grand historical sense.