ABSTRACT
We have seen that philosophies of history formulate true statements about historical future as a whole. Should they adhere to the theory of progress, they infer Ought from Is so as the former becomes a necessary outcome of the latter. Is and Ought are equally historicized. Ought is split into Ought-to-Be and Ought-to-Do, both being produced by an Is itself considered as a product of ‘History5 in its entirety. This is exactly why both Ought-to-Be and Ought-to-Do are seen as outcomes of all human history. As a result, both derive from the universal law of evolution. But being necessary conclusions of the development of ‘History5, they cannot be understood as two forms of Ought but only as two forms of Is. What ought to be, it is and will be, or it is not but it will be. Ought is translated into the present and future tense of existence. Yet this translation is performed with a false consciousness. If Ought is only a figment of imagination and must be grasped as the outcome of Is - as Is temporalized, all previous forms of existence of ‘History5 have to be identified with Ought no less, and the whole universal law of development falls apart. But the form of Is (in the present and the future) have been put forward as values, and as the realization of the highest value, that of freedom. Hence Ought as Is cannot be located in the past. In philosophies of history they resemble lovers who after thousands of years of engagement meet in the nuptial bed of the present and /or the future. This wedding is the end of history (or prehistory) for which the bell tolls.
