“History knows no scruples and no hesitation. Inert and unnering flows towards her goal. History knows herway. She makes no mistakes.”
Arthur Koestler's quote emphasizes the unstoppable and unerring nature of history as it progresses towards its destined outcome. The author depicts history as a relentless force that moves forward with purpose and inevitability, showing no hesitation or moral considerations. This quote highlights the idea that history is a powerful and unstoppable force that shapes the world in its own way, without making any mistakes along the way. It suggests that events in the past have a certain predetermined path and that they will unfold regardless of human intervention or attempts to influence their course. Overall, Koestler's quote underscores the notion of history as an uncontrollable force that shapes the world in a predetermined manner.
Arthur Koestler's quote "History knows no scruples and no hesitation. Inert and unerring flows towards her goal. History knows her way. She makes no mistakes" reminds us of the inevitability and relentless progression of history. In today's fast-paced world, where technology and innovation are constantly changing the landscape, this quote serves as a reminder that history will continue to unfold regardless of our actions. It highlights the importance of understanding the past to navigate the present and shape the future.
"History knows no scruples and no hesitation. Inert and unerring flows towards her goal. History knows her way. She makes no mistakes." - Arthur Koestler
Reflect on the quote by Arthur Koestler and consider the following questions:
Do you agree with the idea that history has a predetermined path and inevitability? Why or why not?
How does Koestler's perspective on history influence your own understanding of past events and their significance?
In what ways could acknowledging the "unerring flow" of history impact your perspective on current events and the future?
What role do you believe individuals play in shaping the course of history, if any?
How might considering Koestler's words influence your approach to studying history or interpreting historical narratives?
“For the movement was without scruples; she rolled towards her goal unconcernedly and deposed the corpses of the drowned in the windings of her course. Her course had many twists and windings; such was the law of her being. And whosoever could not follow her crooked course was washed on to the bank, for such was her law. The motives of the individual did not matter to her. His conscience did not matter to her, neither did she care what went on in his head and his heart. The Party knew only one crime: to swerve from the course laid out; and only one punishment: death. Death was no mystery in the movement; there was nothing exalted about it: it was the logical solution to political divergences”
“History had a slow pulse; man counted in years, history in generations”
“...The arbitrary power of the Government is unlimited, and unexampled in history; freedom of the Press, of opinion and of movement are as thoroughly exterminated as though the proclamation of the Rights of Man had never been.”
“Our Press and our schools cultivate Chauvinism, militarism, dogmatism, conformism and ignorance. The arbitrary power of the Government is unlimited, and unexampled in history; freedom of the Press, of opinion and of movement are as thoroughly exterminated as though the proclamation of the Rights of Man had never been. We have built up the most gigantic police apparatus, with informers made a national institution, and the most refined scientific system of political and mental torture. We whip the groaning masses of the country towards a theoretical future happiness, which only we can.”
“Satan, on the contrary, is thin, ascetic and a fanatical devotee of logic. He reads Machiavelli, Ignatius of Loyola, Marx and Hegel; he is cold and unmerciful to mankind, out of a kind of mathematical mercifulness. He is damned always to do that which is most repugnant to him: to become a slaughterer, in order to abolish slaughtering, to sacrifice lambs so that no more lambs may be slaughtered, to whip people with knouts so that they may learn not to let themselves be whipped, to strip himself of every scruple in the name of a higher scrupulousness, and to challenge the hatred of mankind because of his love for it--an abstract and geometric love.”
“I think most historians would agree that the part played by impulses of selfish, individual aggression in the holocausts of history was small; first and foremost, the slaughter was meant as an offering to the gods, to king and country, or the future happiness of mankind. The crimes of a Caligula shrink to insignificance compared to the havoc wrought by Torquemada. The number of victims of robbers, highwaymen, rapists, gangsters and other criminals at any period of history is negligible compared to the massive numbers of those cheerfully slain in the name of the true religion, just policy or correct ideology. Heretics were tortured and burnt not in anger but in sorrow, for the good of their immortal souls. Tribal warfare was waged in the purported interest of the tribe, not of the individual. Wars of religion were fought to decide some fine point in theology or semantics. Wars of succession dynastic wars, national wars, civil wars, were fought to decide issues equally remote from the personal self-interest of the combatants.Let me repeat: the crimes of violence committed for selfish, personal motives are historically insignificant compared to those committed ad majorem gloriam Dei, out of a self-sacrificing devotion to a flag, a leader, a religious faith or a political conviction. Man has always been prepared not only to kill but also to die for good, bad or completely futile causes. And what can be a more valid proof of the reality of the self-transcending urge than this readiness to die for an ideal?”