【Written by Reagan Gillooly】

In this paper, I question Kant and Hegel’s suggestion that human suffering is necessary in order for history to reach an ultimate end in which humanity has perfected itself. I demonstrate that Kant and Hegel’s philosophies of history are narrow and limiting, and provide an alternative perspective of the role of human suffering based on fundamental Buddhist concepts of the Pāli Canon. I argue that Kant and Hegel’s understandings of what it means to be human, as well as their conceptions of human history, represent identities that ultimately perpetuate suffering. By approaching these western philosophies through a Buddhist lens, I illustrate that engagement with the same eastern philosophies that Hegel deems irrelevant provides richer, more complex interpretations and alternative views of western philosophies of human history and suffering. 

First, I present Kant and Hegel’s teleological conceptions of human history, the trajectory of which is to achieve a perfect, free state by means of the development of rationality. I point out that these teleologies justify suffering, and that fundamental Buddhist conceptions of what it means to be human provide a different view of suffering that challenges the necessity of its justification. I point out the detrimental Eurocentrism of Kant and Hegel’s philosophies, noting that this attitude of European superiority still exists within contemporary scholarship. I then explain how Buddhism understands the self and the nature of suffering in terms of five aggregates, and how it follows that Hegel and Kant’s notion of the self as essentially rational, and of history as a teleology led by Europe, are misunderstandings of the nature of existence and identities that perpetuates suffering. Finally, I point out that in Buddhism, a historical teleology is impossible, as karma influences all social interactions and dynamics.   

In “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent,” Kant puts forth necessary conditions necessary for history to unfold in such a way that will lead humanity, through the cultivation of the capacity for rationality, or the ability to reason, to develop a peaceful, united, global society. His teleological formulation of human history represents humanity in its best possible form. In other words, if humans are to develop in the best way, this is how we would do so. Accordingly, for Kant, nature must have some goal because over time species ultimately evolve into the best versions of themselves (Kant 1991, 42). The “best version” of humanity, presently represented by Europe, is in the form of cosmopolitan society characterized by a moral understanding that all individuals have an equal inherent worth (Kant 1991, 44). In a cosmopolitan society, individuals are free to pursue their interests without conflict, meaning that people can exercise their freedom to its fullest extent without interfering with the freedom of others (Kant 1991, 45). Every historical event has taken place in order to move humanity closer to this state of existence (Kant 1991, 43). The driving force of history is the development of the capacity for rationality.   

According to Hegel’s “Introduction to the Philosophy of History,” the end, or goal, of world history is for human consciousness, or Spirit, to develop into its highest form, which is ultimate freedom (Hegel 1988, 20). The highest form of Spirit, and the goal of history, is intellect that is entirely self-aware and therefore pure and free. Spirit develops over time by gaining a better understanding of itself in terms of freedom (Hegel 1988, 12). History is the process of Spirit coming to know itself as a being who is entirely free (Hegel 1988, 23). Spirit exists in its effort to become increasingly self-aware, and does so by means of reason (Hegel 1988, 13). As time progresses, humans gain a better understanding of freedom. Different historical periods in Europe represent different stages in Spirit’s development, or in other words how well it knows itself, or how it understands freedom. For Hegel, cultures that are not European are less historically advanced (Hegel 1988, 21). Ultimately, Hegelian history is not random, it is self-guided, as Spirit is a self-sustaining force which exists in pursuit of its end goal of understanding itself fully by use of reason (Hegel 1988, 16). 

Kant and Hegel lived in Europe during a tumultuous era characterized by violence and change, therefore seeking philosophical justifications for the existence of suffering. Both conclude that the end goal of humanity justifies the path that history takes to get there. So, every atrocity that occurs throughout history is necessary and therefore acceptable. For both thinkers, suffering is necessary so that humanity can fulfill its destiny of becoming perfectly rational and entirely free. For example, Kant asserts that European warfare is a way for humanity to realize that it is better off together and united than it is separate and conflicting (Kant 1991, 47).  

Buddhism provides a different framework for the question of the existence of suffering, which brings to light an explanation of human suffering that does not justify it. Kant and Hegel would resist this sort of investigation, as they explicitly dismiss non-European perspectives as archaic, so it may seem odd or counterproductive to examine their philosophies in terms of Buddhist concepts. However, this resistance is a result of the unproductive view that Europeans are the most developed and advanced form of humanity, and that cultures different from their own are inferior. In his philosophy of history, Hegel asserts that “world history goes from east to west, so Europe is simply its end” (Hegel 1988, 92). This is particularly problematic in terms of European colonialism, which has been ideologically justified by these ways of thinking. From this perspective, colonial conquest helps to elevate other cultures to higher levels of sophistication. So, even though colonialism causes suffering, it is justified because that suffering is ultimately beneficial, further advancing non-European cultures, leading to the ultimate perfection of humanity as a whole. This idea of Europe as the furthest evolved version of humanity continues to pervade western ways of thinking, which Edward Said illustrates with the notion of Orientalism. I now turn to a brief discussion of Orientalism in order to demonstrate the persistence of these problematic western attitudes.   

Orientalism is a western way of thinking, based on stereotypes and prejudices, that upholds false understandings of the cultures of the “Orient,” or the Middle East, Asia, and Africa, as exotic, mystical, and subsequently inferior. The European ideal that the conquest of other nations is beneficial to those nations by means of progression and “civilization” drives European political dominance, and in turn legitimizes these false conceptions (Jhally 1998, 9:00). The British and the French have had long-standing colonies in India and North Africa, meaning that the “observations” made by European conquerors and missionaries have been treated as factual and are therefore reinforced by scholarship (Jhally 1998, 10:01).  As a result of Orientalism, the west tends to view Asian religions as romantic and mystical, often decontextualizing religious practices from their origin.  

For example, the contemporary west has an interest in being “spiritual” rather than “religious,” meaning individuals have their own personal understanding of what it means to be spiritual, often taking elements and practices from many different traditions, such as mindfulness and meditation, without recognizing or citing the religions they came from. The west understands Buddhism and other religious traditions inaccurately due to the western view of religion through the lens of commodification and categorization (Cavanaugh 2009, 86). Thinking about Buddhism as if it is a religion like Christianity misunderstands and misrepresents it (King 1999, 147). Western media portrays Buddhism as an individualistic practice that pertains only to monks and passivists, which is not representative of most people who practice Buddhism (Tweed 2008, 91). It is necessary to recognize one’s own implicit biases when studying other cultures within an academic setting in order to avoid reinforcing stereotypes, but it is also essential just as a human navigating a diverse, complicated world composed of so many dramatically different cultures.  

It is important to point out that I am writing this paper after taking eight semesters worth of western philosophy classes and one semester of a Buddhism class. My current understanding of Buddhist concepts and practices is a result of the particular life experiences that I have had. Your understanding of the same concepts is likely different from mine, and that is okay. For the purpose of this paper, when I talk about Buddhism, it is more accurate to say that I am talking about Buddhisms, referring mostly to the fundamental ideas of differing Buddhist schools of thought.  

Generally, the term “Buddhism” refers to the practice of following the Dhamma (Pāli language), or the Dharma (Sanskrit language), which are the teachings of the Buddha. The word “Buddha” means “awakened one,” and specifically refers to Siddhartha Gotama, who lived, became awakened, and conducted his teachings around 5th or 6th century BCE. The teachings of the Dhamma provide a path for “waking up” from delusion by cultivating love, awareness, and compassion based on the idea that delusion leads to attachments and suffering (Harvey 2013, 2.) 

Therāvada Buddhism, practiced in Thailand, Burma (Myanmar), Sri Lanka, Laos, and Cambodia, is the oldest form of Buddhism (Harvey 2013, 4). The Therāvada tradition follows the Pāli Canon scriptures, written in Pāli, the language that is thought to best resemble that which the Buddha spoke. The texts of the Pāli Canon were probably written down for the first time in Sri Lanka around 20 BCE based on oral traditions that had been passed down since the time of the Buddha. Many Therāvadan teachings provide the basis for the teachings of other forms of Buddhism (Harvey 2013, 3). The texts of Mahāyāna Buddhism arose during the 1st century BCE and were written in Sanskrit, largely based on various interpretations of teachings from the Pāli Canon. Mahāyāna Buddhism is practiced in eastern Asia, and the “main sources for our understanding of Mahāyāna teachings are the very extensive Chinese and Tibetan Buddhist Canons” (Harvey 2013, 4). Vajrayāna, also known as Tibetan Buddhism, can be understood as a version of Mahāyāna Buddhism, and is practiced in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan, and Mongolia (Harvey 2013, 4).  Although it is a simplistic way of conceptualizing the complicated development and spread of Buddhist practices over 2500 years, Therāvada, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna Buddhism can be thought of as the three main branches of Buddhism.  

The Pāli Canon, or “Tipiṭaka,” meaning “Three Baskets,” is made up of the Vinaya-piṭaka, or monastic codes, the Sutta-piṭaka, meaning sermons, and the Abhidhamma-piṭaka, or commentaries on the suttas or sermons (Harvey 2013, 459). Broadly, Buddhism is based on four fundamental Noble Truths of existence which originate from the Pāli Canon. The Noble Truths are: There is suffering, craving leads to suffering, suffering can end, and one can end suffering by following the 8-fold path (Keown 2000, 45). The first Noble Truth, that there is suffering, can be understood in terms of the five khandas, or aggregates, that make up the perceived “self.” The five aggregates, which are constantly changing, are the components of human experience and constitute what we tend to understand as a “personality.” They are rūpa, form, vedanā, feeling, sañña, perception, saṅkhāra, mental formations, and viññāṇa, consciousness (Keown 2000, 47).  If one experiences the five khandas, one experiences suffering (Keown 2000, 48).  

According to the second Noble Truth, seeking pleasure, being unsatisfied, or wanting something about the current moment to be different, causes suffering. There are three different kinds of taṇha, or craving. Kāma-taṇhā refers to sensual pleasures, or seeking out that which will make the body (rūpa), feel (vēdana) good. Bhava-taṇhā refers to being, ego, or self-identity, and vibhava-taṇhā means “aversion,” or the dissociation from displeasure (Keown 2000, 49). These taṇhā, desires, are fundamentally dissatisfactory, as they just lead to more taṇhā. As one craving is fulfilled, another appears. As that craving is fulfilled, yet another appears, and so on (Keown 2000, 50). This is dukkha, or suffering.  

The third Noble Truth is that dukkha can end by ending craving. It is possible to reach Nirvana, also known as “Enlightenment” or “Awakening,” through becoming aware that one is not the five khandas (Keown 2000, 52). The Buddha encourages focusing on becoming awakened rather than trying to figure out what Nirvana is like (Keown 2000, 53).   

The fourth Noble Truth constitutes the 8-fold path towards awakening, called magga, by means of cultivating wisdom, moral virtue, and meditation (Keown 2000, 54). These are the three subsections of the 8-fold path, the first being pañña, or wisdom, which pertains to the cultivation of one’s view and resolve. Sīla means moral virtue, and has to do with speech, action, and livelihood, and samādhi, or meditation, is concerned with effort, mindfulness, and concentration (Keown 2000, 55).  

Throughout our lives, we collect identities, and the nature of the human experience makes it so we think we are those identities. At birth, we are given a name, and we identify as a human with a name. Then, we begin to learn roles, like daughter, son, brother, sister, and cousin. We begin to think that we are a person with a name who is a daughter or a sister or a cousin. When we go to school, we think that we are students. When we play sports, we think we are athletes. We think we are a nationality, a race, and an ethnicity. We see ourselves as being these identities, and we see other people as being these identities. We forget that none of us are any of these things, as the five aggregates make it so we seem like we are. We are experiencing particular incarnations who represent different possible manifestations of the five aggregates.  

Dukkha, or suffering, dissatisfaction, aversion, or craving, arises as a result of these identities. When we become attached to identities, we become attached to that which is always changing. When we are attached to something, and it changes, it is uncomfortable, and we want to resist it. Dukkha, or feeling like the situation you are currently in could be better, is a denial of where one is here and now. The denial of where one is here and now is the source of suffering. There is nothing to be gained or lost, there just is. The five aggregates make it so we forget that there just is. By following the 8-fold path, we begin to notice our attachments and our suffering. We realize that they are separate from us, and we let go of them. The five aggregates, which are always changing, are not us, they just shape the experiences that we have, which are also always changing. We realize that our identity, or our ego, or “imaginary friend,” that we think is us, that is constantly changing, is just our incarnation, or our experience. As we identify with our egos less and less, we ease our suffering because we understand that craving is a result of the illusion of the five aggregates.  

Having provided an exegesis of the Noble Truths of Buddhism with special attention to suffering and the five aggregates, I now turn to an analysis of this in light of some of Kant’s and Hegel’s comments about humanity. Kant and Hegel understand humans as being constituted by one essential characteristic. History is the process of humanity becoming what it already is: free for Hegel and rational for Kant. From a Buddhist perspective, humanity already is what it is, so it cannot become something else. The simple notion that humans are a “something” is an attachment. Human existence is an illusion that we perceive through the means of the five aggregates. Through the process of awakening, humans do not become something different, because we are not a thing in the first place. Awakening is more like remembering what we really are by means of remembering what we are not. By nature, the human apparatus, or the five aggregates, make it so we forget that we are experiencing what it is like to be a human, not that we are a human.  

Therefore, we are not rationality, as rationality is part of the aggregate saṅkhāra, meaning mental formations or perceptions. The ability to rationalize is a result of experiencing ever-changing configurations of the five aggregates. For Kant, the “development of rationality” is what will lead humanity to its highest potential. However, the development of rationality does not change what humanity is, or rather, is not. The “development” of an attachment will lead to more attachments, ultimately perpetuating suffering rather than ending it. Similarly, Hegel’s conception of humanity as Spirit, or pure, free consciousness, is also an attachment. The “end of history” for Hegel takes the form of human consciousness becoming completely self-aware by understanding what it means to be free (Hegel 1988, 20). Consciousness is one of the five aggregates, viññāṇa. Viññāṇa cannot become self-aware, and therefore, for Hegel, free, because it is not a self, it is one constitutive component of the human experience. Viññāṇa is just as much a part of the human experience as rūpa, or form, is. The idea of there being a separation between the material realm and the mind is a misunderstanding of the nature of human existence. Every thought we have is a result of the ebb and flow of the five aggregates. It takes discipline, through meditation, to develop the awareness that one is not rationality or consciousness.  

Kant and Hegel both have a teleological understanding of history, meaning history follows a necessary, inevitable path, ultimately ending in a perfect form of society that humanity is destined to reach. The idea that humanity will be better in the future is an attachment, or a denial of the here and now, or a perpetuation of suffering. It is holding onto some idea that reality is supposed to look different than it does. It is giving into delusion. Wanting or expecting things to be better than they are, is dukkha. Attachment to the idea that suffering will not exist in the future guarantees the existence of suffering now. Also, regarding Kant and Hegel’s problematic view that Europe is the most “advanced” form of humanity, in Buddhism, there is no ahead or behind, better or worse, there just is. This is the same as someone from a different continent, like Asia or Africa, claiming that their continent is the most advanced form of society, not Europe. It is an arbitrary claim because they all exist at the same time, so one society cannot be further ahead than another. The identification of humans as European or Asian or African is an attachment, a denial of the here and now, a denial that we are all the same. Therefore suffering cannot be beneficial in terms of societal advancement.  

Finally, history is not teleological, as the unfolding of human existence is driven by karma. The word “karma” comes from the Sanskrit root Kṛ, meaning “action.” Good or bad karma depends on the intention, or cetanā, behind an action. Karma is collective, rather than individual, as karma connects individuals by means of social relationships which continue through multiple lives. These relationships form different communities, so karma therefore influences the interactions between different social groups and institutions in a broad, communal sense. Ultimately, karma plays a role in every social interaction. Individuals are connected by karma to form groups such as families or local communities, so the groups that those groups interact with must be karmically connected as well. Karma is therefore the basis for all social dynamics, from individual interactions to large political events and broad social institutions (Walters 2003, 21). Individuals each forge their own karmic paths, but those paths are deeply intertwined with the paths of others, as karma is a collective force.  

Thus, from a Buddhist viewpoint, Kantian and Hegelian conceptions of humans as essentially rational or essentially free because there is no essential, unchanging self. Our thoughts arise and disappear as we experience what it is like to have five aggregates that constitute the perceived self. Europe is not further ahead, as there is no ahead or behind. Humanity is not better in the future or worse in the past. The denial of this truth is suffering. All that is, is here and now.  

Despite Europe’s historically rich intellectual tradition, great philosophers like Kant and Hegel were ultimately limited by their Eurocentric biases and prejudices. Fortunately, with technological advancements such as the Internet, the world is far more interconnected than it has ever been. The breadth of information and knowledge we have access to is incredible, and people from everywhere on earth are easily able to exchange information and learn from each other. By continuing to interact with philosophical frameworks that are fundamentally different from our own, we can begin to unravel our identities, prejudices, and limiting ways of thinking.