Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

The end of human history?

An extrapolation of entropy in terms of human civilization concerning its own demise perhaps.

Ridiculous religious notions aside it sounds like to me existential decline and stagnation due to lost momentum concerning various collapse scenarios. There are indeed multiple scenarios in which modern civilization could indeed collapse.

Human nature doesn’t change.

Transhumanism essentially means the end of social organization so there’s that also and I definitely would classify that as the end of human history.

The symbiotic relationship between human beings and nature was effectively destroyed with the birth of civilization.

As I view it the last man is one that has all of his humanity, freedom, independence, and individuality stripped from him within the oppressive artificial confines of civilization overtime.

There will come a time in the not too distant future where an advanced technological artificial civilization will do just that especially with the emergence of the technological singularity known as A.I.

What of oral tradition?

History is built upon the presumption of progressivism.

The past and present are human constructs. Instead there is only the present reality of what is…

The guiding influence of all that is authority or government controlling the metanarrative public perception especially in terms of history since both write it for the rest of us.

Today we have the idiotic belief of transhumanism manifest destiny for our entire species as a whole. The more things change the more they remain the same.

Hey, Joker, 12 posts behind one another! =D>

Yes, as you know from some of my other posts that I am saying almost the same. The Greek-Roman culture collapsed after it has become a civilization in a Spenglerian sense (perhaps you remember what Spengler wrote in his main work). Long before that collapse the same happened, for example, in Egypt, much later also in the region of the Mayas, for example.

He does not know much about history.

Yes, of course. But transhumanism is not needed when it comes to the end of history.

He does not know what that means, and he knows almost nothing aboout history.

And, by the way, what he and many others also don’t know is the fact that there is a difference between evolution and history.

So again: I am talking about the end of history not about the end of evolution. The “Last Man” is indeed an example of a man after history, but he is not an example of a man after human Evolution (this would be a contradiction). Androids are no humans but will probably replace all humans, thus will bring the end of the human evolution.

To Arminius,

I do apologize about that. For several weeks I am limited to utilizing my phone for internet as I don’t have a secure internet connection currently which makes things very difficult or limited concerning posting on the forum. Making lengthy posts or replies on my phone is almost virtually impossible.

Transhumanism replaces all human activity systematically if its ideals are ever implemented successfully and by doing so it will effectively amount to the death of all human culture. With human history being an extrapolation of culture this would mean the death of human history also thus its subsequent end. Speaking about Spenglerian thinking I believe he touched upon technological alterations of culture in his book Man And Technics.

I’m quite the observer and student of history where I am curious as to what your qualms are with my statement regarding human nature.

What else could the end of history be if not transhumanism or the technological singularity?

Yes, the complete automation of society or civilization technologically would effectively end human evolution in terms of maladaptability. We already see the beginnings and emergence of this existential maladaptability within our societies currently. This is a direct result of creating an artificially enclosed reality amongst ourselves culturally away from nature.

I like how you illustrated the difference between culture and nature where I would like it if you explained this further. If you could I would like you to cite your references for my own study.

It is clear to me the more I read that culture is indeed a simulated or matrix like existential interface separate from nature where most of humanity’s woes stem from it. It is possible that in more ancient societies culture was more symbiotic with nature thus being natural but the evolving of culture overtime enclosed has separated itself from nature or evolution entirely. Ultimately the future for me concerning our species will be disastrous or catastrophic from all of this.

My only hope is that this future calamity will leave human survivors if possible so that we learn from all of this through collective shared experience but even that might be a foregoing stretch.

You do not have to apologize, my friend, Everything is fine. When I used the preposition “he”, I did not mean you. I only meant you, when I used the preposition “you”. I was talking to you by using the correct prepositons.

Yes. That is right.

I was merely talking about the necessity of the differentiation between the human nature and the human culture (including civilization) and between evolution and history.

For example: decadence, the last men.

You merely have to look around you and think about it a bit. And you will come to the right conclusion that there is a lot of decadence around you and probably also inside of you and that the people are almost willing to be the last men.

I find that this can be diagnosed.

I also refer to the opening post of this thread ( viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185646&p=2465256#p2465256 ), because they must have vanished, if history has come to its end.

3 excerpts as examples:

=>

=>

=>

Culture is the successful or/and unsuccessful implementation of the trial to escape from nature.

Learning by experiencing a catastrophe is one of the most effective kinds of learning, because this means an effect where human nature and human culture are again very close to each other at this moment of experiencing a catastrophe.

Philosophically said, the Marxistic communism, which is based on Hegel’s dialectic, says that the capitalism is the thesis, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the antithesis, and classless equality and equal happiness for all is the synthesis. But if is right that history is class struggle (war), then it is not - or at least only without history - possible to get a classless equality and equal happiness for all. Okay, Hegel already claimed the end of history, also Marx who was a Left-Hegelian, and many others (mostly Hegelians, some Nietzscheans, some others). So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggle (war) remain.

But the end of art could be a sign, an omen for the end of history in the relatively soon future.

**

We are at the precipice at the end of human history towards twilight’s edge.

Clearly, an excellent analysis.
Basic entitlements and privileges are a hindrance of history
How one gets those is the question and the sustenance of
the structure of entitlements from beginning to end usually proceeds on a declining curve.

The end of history may signal the beginning of doubt as to the pathogenesis of the attainment of capital, corresponsongly the power of its sustenance.

Now, when that historial awareness fractures in any bounded social group, that social group, be it a family or country,
They will be progressively defensive and aggressive about their awareness their own entitlement.

People will act as if they have nothing to worry about except their own state of mind and resulting connect with others who appear to threaten the safety and security of their own domain ,will be bothered by their apparent disconnect with the look of others, thereby suppress a socially incongruent approach to each other in favor of focusing on social heresay, relating to their own activities generally.

This general disconnect seems to hang in the air, as if previously no connection can be made with the idea of past
repressed ideas commensurate with others in Their domain.

This oftime fearful transference becomes so overwhelming as to enable some leaders in their field to make accessible the relevance which in most people mind remains insurmountable

The idea in trying to convey is revolutionary to an extent, but more properly reactionary attempt to bring into focus the dynamic elements , so as to remove any obsessively held mythos about the beneficience of any country, empire, group,
, as to the way things can go, or, avoid going there.

Maybe after the relatively long lasting war - as the last war -, there will be humans as the last consumers without any history, without any knowledge about any of their ancestors, thus without genealogy, without any memory (thus also without any cultural memory), only with consumption.