Hegel's philosophy of history monograph

No. 3

There are four sentences that characterize all of Hegel’s philosophy of history. Among these four, I have chosen to write my monograph based on the third sentence of Hegel’s philosophy of history.

1. History is the dialectical process whereby spirit comes to know itself and realizes its idea.

2. Freedom is the idea of spirit, and spirit is reason in and for itself.

3. The means of this realization or cunning of reason is the passions of the individual as both subject and object of history, and its form is the state.

4. The national spirit is a moment in the development of the world spirit, and for each such moment as for all, the owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the setting of dusk.

It is indeed a very interesting sentence to research on because it is directly related to some famous individuals like Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, and Napoleon Bonaparte. According to Hegel’s philosophy, these blessed minorities are the only ones who are subjected to actually enjoy the freedom. This is because they; being rulers or the “great man” that Hegel will say, make the rules and regulations according to their passion which interprets in Hegelian word, “self interest.”

But do these blessed minorities who are subjected to freedom really enjoy freedom? Are they really free? The idea of freedom and the usage of the word “free” by Hegel need a Hegelian definition in order to understand Hegel’s sentence thoroughly.

The word “freedom” is different with the British idea of liberty. According to Hegel, the word “freedom” means: acting according to the dictates of your own nature. This means that we experience freedom or should I say the blessed minority experiences freedom by practicing autonomy which means; self law making. (Hegel 2001)

And another important Hegelian concept other than freedom that I would untangle in this paper is the idea of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. To start off with my thesis, I’ve chosen the corrupt government of Korea in 1960.

“In April 26, 1960, the first president of Republic of Korea Sungman Rhee was forced out of his office. According to the history, Sungman Rhee didn’t want to pass down his throne to other people. He wasn’t a charismatic dictator like Hitler but still the history of Korea records him as a dictator who was corrupt and misled by the Americans.

In this kind of disordered situation, the hero rose to settle the nation. His name is Chunghee Park. Born on November 14, 1917, Park was the eighth child from a family of modest means. His father was Seongbin Park and his mother was Namhui Baek. After becoming the major general of the military, Park led a bloodless military coup on May 16, 1961, a coup largely welcomed by a general populace exhausted by political chaos.

By the result of this coup, Chughee Park became the president of Republic of Korea for three consecutive terms before he got assassinated. After becoming the president, which is the antithesis against the Sungman Rhee’s corrupt leadership, President Park made a new constitution that gave him immense power and authority in comparison to other presidents in the history of Korea, “the Yusin constitution.” And this is the direct quotation about the Yusin constitution from the biography of President Park.”
“Park declared a state of emergency "based on the dangerous realities of the international situation." In October 1972, he dissolved Parliament and suspended the Constitution. In December, a new constitution, the Yusin Constitution, was approved in a heavily rigged plebiscite. It borrowed the word "Yusin(維新)" from the Meiji Restoration (Meiji Ishin;明治維新) of Imperial Japan. The new document dramatically increased Park's power. It transferred the election of the president to an electoral college, the National Conference for Unification. The presidential term was increased to six years, with no limits on reelection. In effect, the constitution converted Park's presidency into a legal dictatorship. Park was re-elected in 1972 and 1978 with no opposition.”

But the tragic part of President Park comes right after the third term in the presidential office. BBC news records his death by the title “1979: South Korean President killed.”
“1979: South Korean President killed
The President of South Korea, Park Chung Hee, has been "accidentally" shot dead by the chief of his intelligence service, Kim Jea Kyu.

Five other people, including the president's bodyguard, were also killed. The incident took place at the Korean Central Intelligence Agency's headquarters during a dinner being held by Kim in honour of the president.

A government statement revealed that an argument broke out between Kim Jae Kyu and Park's chief bodyguard, Cha Chi Chul, during which a shot was fired by Kim which hit the president as he tried to intervene.” (1979)

The history proves to us that the outcome of the antithesis, which was the coup against the corrupt government, was the synthesis which is “the Yusin constitution.” When the Yusin constitution was made in favor of President Park, the freedom that Hegel mentioned was achieved among the few blessed minorities who were serving next to the President Park.

So the Hegel’s philosophy of freedom for the minorities or individuals, who makes the rule by their self interest, seems to fit perfect when we compare this philosophy with the case of President Park and the Yusin constitution. The freedom was achieved; the spirit moved the great man and the great man suffered tragic death. But the history was able to move a little bit forward in effort of this great man, “President Chunghee Park.”

Hegel, G.W.F. (2001). The philosophy of history (J. Sibree, Trans.). Kitchener, Ontario:
Batoche Books.


Park Chunghee. (2003) Retrieved on Sep, 2, 2008
Retrieved from http://www.dictatorofthemonth.com/Chunghee/Sep2003chungheeEN.htm


Jim Sears. 1979: South Korean President killed. Retrieved on Sep 2, 2008
Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/26/newsid_2478000/

Kant's philosophy of history position paper

Thesis 5

To start with Kant’s idea about history, I have picked specifically one thesis that I would briefly discuss through this paper. The reason for this is not just because there are nine theses that Kant proposed and I do not want to mention each and every one of them, but the extreme complication of his theory that should be looked upon very carefully.

So to start off with Kant, I have chose Thesis 5.

Thesis 5: The highest problem for the Human Species, to the solution of which it is irresistibly urged by natural impulses, is the establishment of a Universal Civil society founded on the empire of political justice.
(Kant)

In his theses about human perfectibility, I thought that it was truly high enlightenment for Kant to figure out the outcome of our political system and the constitution in general.

I believe that governments or political systems differ among countries and nations. Some people might say that this belief of mine is obvious. But the reason that I state something that is so obvious is because I wanted to dig in deeper into the kinds of governments around the globe.

Beginning with the world super power country, America is known as the nation with two party systems. The democrats and the republicans. It is in fact not prohibited in America to establish a third party but it hasn’t been very successful.

United Kingdom in the other hand is well known for its parliamentary system. They still have a queen who isn’t involved in government. The prime minister is actually in charge of the politics and the House of Lords.

China is well known for the communist party system, but somehow the globalization and the capitalistic movements are happening within China itself and many people are having a second thought before saying that China is still a communist country. Some countries like Taipai still have an ongoing monarchy with the king which has power unlike the queen of England.

So the question is, how do we distinguish good types of governments and bad types of government?

Well I believe that this is the space that Kant’s idea exactly fits in. For Kant, trial and error is a very important concept referring to the types of government. This means that if we try a type of government and if it doesn’t work, then we find out the errors that this type of government has and change it. If the government that was agreed upon the people and the congress doesn’t work, then try something new and change it until it works.

This is a very simple yet important concept that politicians should always keep in mind for the benefit of the country and for the people. I know that changing something that has been done for such a long time is truly hard. But if is doesn’t work, and if it is not beneficial for the people, then why not change and enhance for a better nation to live in?

For an example, I have chosen Germany because Germany undergoes a tremendous changes in their government over the last hundred years and this is because the cause of WWI and WWII.

The paragraphs that I have quoted below are from the speech of Germany’s brutal dictator, Adolph Hitler.

“The Polish State has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms. Germans in Poland are persecuted with bloody terror and driven from their houses. A series of violations of the frontier, intolerable to a great power, prove that Poland is no longer willing to respect the frontier of the Reich.

In order to put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice than to meet force with force from now on. The German Army will fight the battle for the honour and the vital rights of reborn Germany with hard determination. I expect that every soldier, mindful of the great traditions of eternal German soldiery, will ever remain conscious that he is a representative of the National-Socialist Greater Germany. Long live our people and our Reich!”
(1939)

I believe that German soldiers who heard these two paragraphs speech of Hitler, was so willing to go to the battle and fight for Germany in behalf of Hitler. But looking back on the things that happened in WWII, we see that Hitler wasn’t truly committed to what he has said to his people. He actually killed himself not being responsible for the millions of German soldiers and millions of Jews who were brutally killed just because of him.

So after all the pain of war and destruction in Germany, Germany had to adapt into a new environment which was the new government that was imposed by Great Britain, France, United States, and Soviet Union.

Those two wars made major changes in their government and economy. Even though there wasn’t any efforts that was poured by the Germans to change this cruel and irrational dictatorship, it had to be changed and be modified into a better government and a political system.

Change is not necessarily a negative concept. In fact when it comes to changes in the government, it should be a positive concept. Because it should actually mean the enhancement of what we have now into something that is much more useful, achieving perfectibility in future.

Proclamation by Adolph Hitler (Sept. 1, 1939)
Retrieved on September 2, 2008
Retrieved from http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/gp1.htm

Kant's philosophy of history monograph

- The League of Nations -

“THE HIGH CONTRACTING PARTIES, In order to promote international co-operation and to achieve international peace and security by the acceptance of obligations not to resort to war, by the prescription of open, just and honorable relations between nations, by the firm establishment of the understandings of international law as the actual rule of conduct among Governments, and by the maintenance of justice and a scrupulous respect for all treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another, agree to this Covenant of the League of Nations.” (The Covenant of the League of Nations 1924)

When we hear the word “the League of Nations,” we will normally think of Wilson’s 14 points. I remember memorizing President Woodrow Wilson’s 14 points when I was in high school US history class but I don’t actually remember anything about Kant’s idea and the theses when I learned about the League of Nations. It was a fresh fact when I heard that the visionary underneath the proposal of President Woodrow Wilson was Immanuel Kant.

So the question arises. The question that says “so was the league of nations successful according to Kant and Woodrow Wilson’s plan or a failure that brought hardships to many countries?” According to my research, there were both success and failure of the League of Nations on specific countries.


The League experienced success in

1) The Aaland Islands (1921)

“These islands are near enough equal distant between Finland and Sweden. They had traditionally belonged to Finland but most of the islanders wanted to be governed by Sweden. Neither Sweden nor Finland could come to a decision as to who owned the islands and in 1921 they asked the League to adjudicate. The League’s decision was that they should remain with Finland but that no weapons should ever be kept there. Both countries accepted the decision and it remains in force to this day.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

2) Upper Silesia (1921)

“The Treaty of Versailles had given the people of Upper Silesia the right to have a referendum on whether they wanted to be part of Germany or part of Poland. In this referendum, 700,000 voted for Germany and 500,000 for Poland. This close result resulted in rioting between those who expected Silesia to be made part of Germany and those who wanted to be part of Poland. The League was asked to settle this dispute. After a six-week inquiry, the League decided to split Upper Silesia between Germany and Poland. The League’s decision was accepted by both countries and by the people in Upper Silesia.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

3) Memel (1923)

“Memel was/is a port in Lithuania. Most people who lived in Memel were Lithuanians and, therefore, the government of Lithuania believed that the port should be governed by it. However, the Treaty of Versailles had put Memel and the land surrounding the port under the control of the League. For three years, a French general acted as a governor of the port but in 1923 the Lithuanians invaded the port. The League intervened and gave the area surrounding Memel to Lithuania but they made the port an "international zone". Lithuania agreed to this decision. Though this can be seen as a League success ? as the issue was settled ? a counter argument is that what happened was the result of the use of force and that the League responded in a positive manner to those (the Lithuanians) who had used force.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

4) Turkey (1923)

“The League failed to stop a bloody war in Turkey (see League failures) but it did respond to the humanitarian crisis caused by this war.

1,400,000 refugees had been created by this war with 80% of them being women and children. Typhoid and cholera were rampant. The League sent doctors from the Health Organisation to check the spread of disease and it spent ￡10 million on building farms, homes etc for the refugees. Money was also invested in seeds, wells and digging tools and by 1926, work was found for 600,000 people.

A member of the League called this work "the greatest work of mercy which mankind has undertaken." (Chris Trueman 2000)

5) Greece and Bulgaria (1925)

“Both these nations have a common border. In 1925, sentries patrolling this border fired on one another and a Greek soldier was killed. The Greek army invaded Bulgaria as a result. The Bulgarians asked the League for help and the League ordered both armies to stop fighting and that the Greeks should pull out of Bulgaria. The League then sent experts to the area and decided that Greece was to blame and fined her ￡45,000. Both nations accepted the decision.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

The failures of the League of Nations

Article 11 of the League’s Covenant stated:

"Any war of threat of war is a matter of concern to the whole League and the League shall take action that may safe guard peace."

“Therefore, any conflict between nations which ended in war and the victor of one over the other must be considered a League failure.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

1) Italy (1919)

“In 1919, Italian nationalists, angered that the "Big Three" had, in their opinion, broken promises to Italy at the Treaty of Versailles, captured the small port of Fiume. This port had been given to Yugoslavia by the Treaty of Versailles. For 15 months, Fiume was governed by an Italian nationalist called d’Annunzio. The newly created League did nothing. The situation was solved by the Italian government who could not accept that d’Annunzio was seemingly more popular than they were ? so they bombarded the port of Fiume and enforced a surrender. In all this the League played no part despite the fact that it had just been set up with the specific task of maintaining peace.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

2) Teschen (1919)

“Teschen was a small town between Poland and Czechoslovakia. Its main importance was that it had valuable coal mines there which both the Poles and the Czechs wanted. As both were newly created nations, both wanted to make their respective economies as strong as possible and the acquisition of rich coal mines would certainly help in this respect.

In January 1919, Polish and Czech troops fought in the streets of Teschen. Many died. The League was called on to help and decided that the bulk of the town should go to Poland while Czechoslovakia should have one of Teschen’s suburbs. This suburb contained the most valuable coal mines and the Poles refused to accept this decision. Though no more wholesale violence took place, the two countries continued to argue over the issue for the next twenty years.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

3) Vilna (1920)

“Many years before 1920, Vilna had been taken over by Russia. Historically, Vilna had been the capital of Lithuania when the state had existed in the Middle Ages. After World War One, Lithuania had been re-established and Vilna seemed the natural choice for its capital.

However, by 1920, 30% of the population was from Poland with Lithuanians only making up 2% of the city’s population. In 1920, the Poles seized Vilna. Lithuania asked for League help but the Poles could not be persuaded to leave the city. Vilna stayed in Polish hands until the outbreak of World War Two. The use of force by the Poles had won.” (Chris Trueman 2000)


4) War between Russia and Poland (1920 to 1921)

“In 1920, Poland invaded land held by the Russians. The Poles quickly overwhelmed the Russian army and made a swift advance into Russia. By 1921, the Russians had no choice but to sign the Treaty of Riga which handed over to Poland nearly 80,000 square kilometres of Russian land. This one treaty all but doubled the size of Poland.

What did the League do about this violation of another country by Poland?

The answer is simple. nothing. Russia by 1919 was communist and this "plague from the East" was greatly feared by the West. In fact, Britain, France and America sent troops to attack Russia after the League had been set up. Winston Churchill, the British War Minister, stated openly that the plan was to strangle Communist Russia at birth. Once again, to outsiders, it seemed as if League members were selecting which countries were acceptable and ones which were not. The Allied invasion of Russia was a failure and it only served to make Communist Russia even more antagonistic to the West.” (Chris Trueman 2000)


5) The invasion of the Ruhr (1923)

“The Treaty of Versailles had ordered Weimar Germany to pay reparations for war damages. These could either be paid in money or in kind (goods to the value of a set amount) In 1922, the Germans failed to pay an installment. They claimed that they simply could not rather than did not want to. The Allies refused to accept this and the anti-German feeling at this time was still strong. Both the French and the Belgium’s believed that some form of strong action was needed to ‘teach Germany a lesson’.

In 1923, contrary to League rules, the French and the Belgium’s invaded the Ruhr? Germany’s most important industrial zone. Within Europe, France was seen as a senior League member? like Britain? and the anti-German feeling that was felt throughout Europe allowed both France and Belgium to break their own rules as were introduced by the League. Here were two League members clearly breaking League rules and nothing was done about it.

For the League to enforce its will, it needed the support of its major backers in Europe, Britain and France. Yet France was one of the invaders and Britain was a major supporter of her. To other nations, it seemed that if you wanted to break League rules, you could. Few countries criticized what France and Belgium did. But the example they set for others in future years was obvious. The League clearly failed on this occasion, primarily because it was seen to be involved in breaking its own rules.” (Chris Trueman 2000)

The critical cases like wars, famine, and struggles between two nations are in fact extremely hard problems to solve. Because they are actually dealing with millions and millions of lives. With just one wrong decision that the league makes, the entire population of one country can decline or die out. With one right decision that the league makes, the peace can be obtained between the nations and welfare will be promised to the people. But it is very hard to make the right decision all the time. And as Kant has mentioned, enhancement of a government should be done when it doesn’t work. So if the League of Nations didn’t work, then why not bother to change it so that every nation in the world in general can benefit from the league.




Michael Duffy (2000-07). The Covenant of the League of Nations 1924
Retrieved July 10, 2008
Retrieved from http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/leagueofnations.htm

Chris Trueman (2000). The League of Nations.
Retrieved July 10, 2008
Retrieved from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk

Vico's Scienza Nuova position paper

The three stages

I strongly disagree with Vico’s interpretation of humanity and its history based on cyclical stages. The reason is simple yet a strong fact that is undeniable.

First of all, Vico’s theory axes out the possibility of a being called “God.” According to Vico, if a supernatural force or God intrudes in history, then the pattern that he suggests looses validity.

I think this is somewhat similar with the view of Mircea Eliades “cyclical events.” But for Vico, it isn’t cyclical events that he is concerned in but actually in cyclical stages.

There is a point for Vico to dispense God in his theory. Because truly when God interludes with history of mankind, it is no longer cyclical but more of a linear perspective of history. God performs miracles that are not cyclical at all. Therefore to stick to the original plan of Vico, God has to be excluded.

Vico also axes out the Hebrews from his theory. The reason is very simple if you have been reading the paragraphs written above very carefully. Hebrew is God’s chosen people. Therefore many unusual things occur in relevance to the intrusion of God in their stages of life.

So how does the exclusion of Hebrews fit with the word that Vico has said about the cyclical three stages that happen in “all nations?” The word “all” according to Oxford dictionary is “everything, completely, and the whole number or amount.” (2000)

This means that exclusion of one nation called “the Hebrews” is already contradiction to his own theory.

Another curiosity that came up was the usage of the word “development.” I agree that humans have been developing ever since, following the three stages that Vico states in his theory if we are referring to scientific aspects understanding human development.

To explain my point of contradiction is a more précised manner, I believe that it would be helpful for us to understand Vico’s theory by listing down the three steps of Vico’s theory. Three steps are, 1. The age of gods 2. the age of heroes, and finally 3. the age of men.

Age of gods in Vico’s theory is explained and called upon as “the primitive man.” Age of heroes in Vico’s theory is imposed as “the patriarch or eh leader of the clientage” who is referred to as a hero. Finally the Age of men in Vico’s theory represents the human equality and the civilized state.

According to Vico’s theory, we are living in the age of men which is the time that everyone is equal and civilized. But the fact that the cycle will repeat, meaning that we are or after few generations has gone by, the age of gods will come back and everyone will live and act like a barbarian or a primitive man who searches augury from God.

This was something that I couldn’t agree basing this argument on totally secular and scientific basis. No one can deny the fact that technology until this moment has rapidly developed. No one can deny the fact that the science and understanding of human mind and behavior (which is called psychology) is reaching to its highest point. After all this discoveries and development, I don’t think it is possible to go back to the stage of primitive man. That is a ridiculous idea as of now for everyone who is living in this planet.


Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary (6th edition).(2000).
Oxford university press

Vico's Scienza Nuova monograph

Achilles the true mythical hero

We live in a world that is desperately in need of heroes. I might be over generalizing but by reviewing the things that Hollywood is actually producing as a movie, tells us a lot about the need of heroes and heroism. Recently there was a movie called “Iron man” (produced in Hollywood) which talked about a genius scientist who came up with a new weapon which can protect the world from other harmful weapons.

If I had to remember a mythical type of hero, I would probably recall Hercules and Achilles. Not because they are the only mythical heroes, but I remember reading and watching films about their lives that gave me a great impact in understanding Greek mythology.

Vico tries to explain the age of heroes which is the second stage of his theory, by using the mythical hero, Hercules. After the first step which is the age of gods, there come rulers who are called as the patriarchs. These patriarchs are considered heroes being the head of the clientage while protecting them.

“These patriarchs are now considered heroes and heroes mean sons of the gods. And their order is Hercules. The myth had it that Hercules founded every city in Greece. And he said, we have to read that not as a fictional account nor as an authoritative history, but as a mythic history. What it expresses is the fact that Hercules etymologically means son of the gods. And what it basically means is that the sons of the gods, the patriarchs founded all the cities.” (1937)

Hercules is actually representing the patriarchs who were the founder of all the cities. Another good example that shows the human inequality during the age of heroes is one of the greatest heroes of Homer, Achilles. To clarify this statement, I chose to dig in to the facts about Achilles to help us understand the concept of heroism during the age of heroes.

Achilles was the son of Peleus and the Nereid Thetis. The mythical history records him as the mightiest of Greeks who fought in the Trojan War. His mother Thetis attempted to make him immortal by dipping his son Achilles under the river Styx which was the sacred water that made everything invulnerable. But Thetis made a mistake holding her baby son Achilles in his heels. So the heel of Achilles remained vulnerable. (James Hunter)

With the short introduction above that leads us to the story of Achilles, I have decided to look through the primary source, “The Iliad” by Homer. After mentioning so much things about my knowledge on Achilles, I had to correct the errors that were misinterpreted by many authors who mentioned Achilles.

In the actual text of Homer’s Iliad, there are phrases like “Achilles, loved of heaven” and lines like “he spoke he drove his spear at the great and terrible shield of Achilles.” So what does these phrases tells us? It actually tells us that Home himself was writing about Achilles as a hero and the love one from gods.

Other lines like “the fight between Achilles and the river Scamander” or “Phoebus Apollo has been sending Aeneas clad in full armor to fight Achilles,” clarifies the idea of Vico’s age of hero. The reason that I say this is because the name of Achilles was only the one name that was worthy to be mentioned against the thousand warriors of Aeneas and others.

I believe that this story is a good example showing how humans were not really treated equal during the time of the Trojan War. It was the time for Achilles; it was the time for heroes where no one cares about the death of thousands of soldiers, while they care and grief about the courageous hero of Greece, Achilles.



Hunter, J (2008, July 3) Achilles. In The encyclopedia mythica.
Encyclopedia Mythica online
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/a/achilles.html

Vico, G. (1937). Selections from Scienza Nuova. In V.F. Calverton (Ed.), The making of society, an outline of sociology. USA: Random House. (Originally published in 1725)

Homer (750-650 BC). The Iliad.
Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Mircea Eliade's Cosmos and History position paper

First of all, before I start mentioning the key theories of Mircea Eliade, I would like to briefly discuss the basic definition “ritual” and how this word isn’t truly appropriate for its usage referring to Christianity.

Surely, I believe that many people believe in or probably the Christianity itself is well known as a religion of doctrines and rituals.

I strongly oppose to this view of seeing Christianity as one of the major examples of the idea “cyclical events” proposed by Mircea Eliade’s “Cosmos and History.”

While reading Eliade’s masterpiece, which is extremely valued among historians, I can’t and couldn’t say that I totally disagree with everything that Eliade is saying. This position paper standing on the negative side may portray me as a mindless history student. But I strongly believe that I have a clear point to set tackles upon the theory of Eliade’s cyclical events.

Now, let’s start with the Oxford definition of “ritual.” Ritual is a series of actions that are always carried out in the same way, especially as a part of a religious ceremony.” (2001)

The word ritual did actually refer to some kind of religious ceremonies according to the dictionary. But being a Christian who knows what Christianity is all about, I strongly believe that there should be a clearer distinction between Christianity and other religions. The specific reason for this distinction is because of a Bible verse that came into my mind reading Eliade’s theories.

“’You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.’ And he said to them ‘you have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own tradition.’” (NIV, 1999)

These two scriptures that are directly quoted from the Bible were spoken by Jesus to the Pharisees who have strictly followed all the traditions and rituals of the past. This passage seems to directly contradict the idea of “rituals” referring to Christianity.

But why in the world would Jesus say such harsh and cruel sounding words to the ones that he has created? Because the Pharisees probably thought that obeying commandments and laws, following traditions and rituals, will bring them salvation or a life that leads to heaven.

Jesus himself was the way to heaven and nothing else could replace that way. He has shown new things that world can’t call “cyclical.” No one in the history of mankind has walked on water and has risen from the dead. I believe that Jesus in fact disproves the idea that cyclical event is the only way. According to my understanding of his life, cyclical event is just one of the ways of interpreting history.



Holy Bible, New International Version, (1999)
International Bible society

The Oxford advance learner’s dictionary (6th edition),
(2000) Oxford University

Mircea Eliade's Cosmos and History monograph

The dead dictator of North Korea, Il sung Kim a god?

It is in fact very interesting for a historian to write about gods in North Korea. The reason for this bold statement is because North Korea is obviously a well known communist nation, which means that there isn’t any freedom of religion.

After the Korean war of 1950, the Christian beliefs rapidly spread over South Korea. But in other hand North Korea, being under the Soviet Union, refused to grant freedom of religion to their citizens.

Recently I have heard very astonishing news. The news about a man who become a god in North Korea and of course this god/man who I’m referring to is the famous dictator of North Korea, Il sung Kim.

There is a famous saying that the history repeats itself. Mircea Eliade obviously is emphasizing this view through his masterpiece, “Cosmos and History.” In this book, Eliade says that history is mythesized to follow mythic archetypes, to follow these archetypal heroes. The main theory of Eliade is that the history repeats itself and the leaders will try to use archetypal heroes for political purposes.

Going back to Il sung Kim, he became the absolute leader, savior, and dictator/king for the North Koreans after the Korean War. According to my research, there is a specific constitutional law that still exists in North Korea and these laws are not only enacted upon the citizens but are also being educated to primary and secondary students of North Korea.

The articles below are the interpreted constitutional articles of North Korea regarding the deification of Il sung Kim.

Article 1

North Korea is based on the concepts and leadership of Il Sung Kim.
Il Sung Kim is the establisher and the founder, and the origin of communist party of North Korea.

Article 2
Il Sung Kim established the concept of eternal life.
Under this basis concept, he has established political, economical, cultural enhancement making a strong and glorious North Korea.

Article 3
Il Sung Kim gave his life to the people of North Korea.
He is the sun and the primary source of unity and peace of North Korea.

These stated articles sound truly astonishing and absurd. But we can’t deny the fact that the North Koreans are being brain washed to believe these absurd articles. The deification of Il sung Kim and his successor Jung il Kim is still an ongoing process.

They are referring to themselves as a god, and they have succeeded to convince and manipulate the minds of innocent citizens to believe in an archypal being according to Mircea Eliade.

The Deification of Kim Il Sung

Retrieved on September 9, 2008

Retrieved from http://blog.naver.com/sol6915