The science of history

If, for Aristotle, man possessed speech and reason naturally, for Rousseau, man by nature was no different from any irrational beast; beginning to speak, and therefore think, by some chance natural phenomenon that brought men together and forced them to interact with one another. From Rousseau's premise, all human language and human thought - moral, political, and religious - are the purposeless effects of purposeless physical causes; whatever you might think.

Rousseau wants man to live a life according to his nature. But Rousseau’s man is a solitary individual first, and social only by training. Thus, social or civilised man is alienated from his natural state and his natural happiness. The source of his alienation is discoverable only in his history.

The science of history asserts that it alone understands man, that its truth about human affairs is superior to that of philosophy. Unfortunately, science can not validate its own claim. It will always rest on an assertion supported by nothing more than a philosophical argument.

Is there a point in learning history? Simply put, the answer is no. There is, however, a point in studying the history of ideas and to illustrate the history of ideas by reference to various historical events. Thus one could compare the founding of the American Republic and the ideas on which it was based with the founding of the French Republic and the ideas on which its revolution was based with some very illuminating consequences.

The history of Australia that offends Mr Howard might actually have been cut directly from Rousseau’s template. A happy life in the state of nature, the rural idyll destroyed by a civilisation that alienates the Indigenous people from everything they hold dear.

The irony of Mr Howard’s proposal for a new curriculum is that he has sought to change the history that is taught in the schools when what is taught in the universities is the real problem: for it is the university that teaches the future teachers a methodology that states that all value judgments are subjective. By the time they leave university, the teachers have already learnt that their personal opinions of the simple, natural, idyllic Aboriginal life and the violent military occupation of aboriginal lands by the British government and white settlers are subjective.

If Mr Howard wants to assist Aborigines he might begin by ensuring that white men and Aborigines are educated to understand the meaning of civilisation and why liberal democracy is superior to the regime of the tribe. For those who wish to start, they should acquire a copy of Professor Harry Jaffa’s book on Abraham Lincoln, A New Birth of Freedom. Professor Jaffa’s understanding of the political science of republican government is unequalled.