The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
The End of the Ideology of Progress　
Now that I have written about the philosophy of hedonism, some people may ask me if it is not necessary to write about it in a noble German style.
Some editors have suggested that it should be a technical book.
However, an essay is an essay in Germany, but in France, it is a thesis.
If you have read Sartre’s “Being and Nothingness,” you will know that there is a café boy as an example of human existence.
It is the legacy of the essays left behind by Montaigne and other French moralists.
Germans think that the more abstract and highbrow, the better, and Japanese assume so because their education is copied from Germany.
Philosophy cannot be practical unless it is written in the context of daily life. 
If you write about something that is not practical, you will often end up with a fake.　
There is another academic mistake that the Japanese have made in the modern era.
As I wrote in the ninth article of this series, the ideology of progress is that Western learning progressed linearly, from theology to philosophy to science.
Once you believe this, you come to despise the past as inferior.
The philosopher is a first-rate student who has escaped theology, and the scientist looks at the philosopher with a blank stare, thinking that the philosopher is an orator.　
As a result, many natural scientists in Japan write their papers in English, the world language, and make no effort to improve their Japanese language skills.
Since English is not a language they have mastered, they have made futile efforts to convert it into English at high speed.
Of course, some do not, Kunihiko Takeda. His philosophy in the booklet “Yasukuni” seemed to me to be an outstanding achievement.
The humanities are more miserable.
Kazuo Watanabe, a French literature scholar, lumped Rabelais of the 16th century with the 19th-century concept of Humanist without understanding Christianity at all.
Many philosophers and historians of the West in Japan assumed that Marxism was a superior science and dutifully traced the fakery of Marx’s materialist view of history in the humanities.
In the books of philosophy and history they write, only “reason,” “enlightenment,” “natural rights,” and “revolution” appear.
I want to suggest that you read “A Study of the History of Japanese Political Thought” by Masao Maruyama today. 
He uses Hegel’s fake as a high-handed attitude to talk about Ogyū Sorai in Japan.
If it brings a bitter smile to your face, you are in the right mind.　
I’ve logically destroyed the “Progressive View of History” in the Sankei Shimbun’s “Sound Argument” column (September 4, 2018) in the form of an essay. Today, it is freely available online.
From here, you are only one step away from realizing that the ideology of progress is causing confusion in historical writing.
While I was worrying about whether experts would notice, I happened to read the general essay in the Journal of Historical Studies, “The Historical Society in 2020: A Retrospective and Perspective.
At the end of the article, the author wrote, “The situation in the academic world last year can be summed up as ‘the end of ideology. The author was Gen Konno, a researcher of M. Weber.
This article continues.