The Value of the Concept of History to Philosophy

I have speculated for about a year now that history is a useful concept to typology. If typology embodies the most organized viewpoint on symbols and functions, including ultimately memes, then any concept with a strong degree of coherence in typology is also valuable for these other ends and aspects.

Do I have to argue for the value of history?

In the last several decades there have been an increasing number of people arguing for post-modernism, a trend that began with Kant's prelegomena and also Hume's arguments against causal knowledge. Concepts such as post-modernism also have a strong influence on architecture, and consequently the feelings of the everyday urban traveler, whether or not he or she considers these thoughts or perceptions to be post-modern.

History is a useful concept in spite of post-modern developments, as a means of encompassing assumed contexts of linear relationships. I distinguish even the post-modern concept of history from what I will call post-modern ability, or the capacity to effect history in a non-linear fashion.

However, history is still useful as a coherent concept when it becomes the basis for the extended definition of these further post-modern abilities. From a typological framework, it becomes 'the first quantifier'.

(In the context of virtual reality, it becomes increasingly important to map concepts which are imaginary or quasi-real, because even unreal things are subject to simulation; the concept of history offers the exciting prospect of formalizing aspects which are otherwise considered fiction and impasse).