This sense of movement in historical space makes man forward-looking and dynamic. Knowledge of the past liberates man from bondage to it, as distinct from a critical appreciation of the values already created in the past. Awareness of stages, that developed, one from the other, in the past makes man aware of the tremendous potentialities of the present, ever spilling over into the future. The active concern for the future prevails over the historical disagreement about the past.

Empirical Enquiry

History is an 'open' empirical enquiry into the total past, and should not be reduced to sociology or any form of sociological mechanics of socio-economic forces, viewed as determinants of the historical process, without any effective role played by the individual. As already indicated, every philosophical interpretation of the universe is an existential interpretation, which is not objectively verifiable, but which may be deemed to be valid or invalid on the basis of stated criteria. These criteria should be spelled out by the systematic philosopher. The interpretation, which denies any effective role to the individual, is as invalid as the one, which ignores the role of the objective or situational factors, which mould the subject's choice of action. Indeed, if the historical process involves decision-making by persons (as it certainly does), and if decisions involve value judgments (as they certainly do), historical dynamics just cannot be reduced, without any remainder, to purely sociological dynamics of social forces hitting and pushing, as it were, human billiard balls, who have no choice of action.

Likewise, if the individual makes his decision in a concrete situation (which is not of his own choosing, but the cumulative deposit of past events or choices, which cannot be undone or wished away from the stage of reality), his decisions cannot be said to be totally free from situational constraints or compulsions modifying his decision, even in unwanted directions, or making his choice forced or 'tainted', as it were. This, however, does not amount to the elimination of the individual's role. Indeed, individuals possessing outstanding imagination, courage, determination and dedication to ideals have, in fact, given a decisive turn to the course of events throughout the ages. To believe that events would have run the same course, even without the contribution of such outstanding persons, would be unwarranted speculation.

Individual and Circumstance

Of course, it is quite reasonable to hold that the decisive turn could have been given by a similar contribution from some individual possessing similar qualities other than the individual who, in fact, steered events at the time under review. But this substitution of roles presupposes, not merely the abstract logical possibility but rather the actual existence, at the time and place concerned, of another such highly endowed individual or individuals. The actual existence of more than one highly talented or outstanding individual is, however, a contingent fact and certainly not a necessary event in the logical sense, such that it must always be the case.   I doubt, if the course of events in 1917 and immediately thereafter, would have been, what it actually was, in the absence of the vision and techniques provided by Lenin. Going much further back, could the history of Arabia and the medieval world been, what it actually was, without the character and achievements of the Prophet of Islam? The controversy, whether the individual or circumstance plays the dominant role in history, is, therefore, totally uncalled for and futile.

Questions of Philosophy

Can there be any philosophy of history apart from historiography? Could a super-historian formulate some laws of history, as a scientist discovers laws of nature? Are there any stages in the historical process as a whole, or any pattern in the birth, growth, decline and death of human societies, as in the case of individuals? Is there any meaning or over-arching purpose of history, as distinct from the undeniable operation of purpose in history? If this super-purpose be deemed to be the purpose of an omnipotent Creator God, does God habitually regulate history, or sometimes intervene or never at all, giving a long rope, as it were, to men, until the final day of judgment in the post-historical or eschatological future ? Can we discover any direction in human affairs, quite apart from the metaphysical or theological question of Divine purpose? The discussion of the above questions may be said to constitute the philosophy of history, apart from historiography.