The Burning of the Houses of Lords and Commons, 16th October, 1834 by J. M. W. Turner
There's an inherent contradiction looming over grand theories about where we stand in the scheme of history, and what we should do about it. Whether it be Darwinian evolution, cycles of elite overproduction, Strauss-Howe's "turnings" or Spenglerian civilizational souls and destinies, this contradiction presents itself in the following popular motif: "there is this natural historical development because of some hidden law, which dooms us all to a certain outcome. However, by becoming aware of it, we can work against it and change our destiny." Lately, for example, Bret Weinstein has been a strong proponent of such a theory, in his case referring to Darwinian maladaptation to the modern world and how we need to counter it.
Postulating the existence of some sort of natural law guiding human destiny, and then advising us to break that law, presents us with an obvious problem. Either this really is a natural law, which means we cannot escape it anymore than we can breathe underwater or escape death. Or, we can escape it by an act of will — but if we can do that now, so could various people in the past at different historical junctures, which then raises the question of how much of a law this really is, or why people in the past should have had less free will than us.
Comment: More on love from Paul to the Corinthians: