Page 9 of 17

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2014 5:50 am
by fuse
Moreno wrote:I'm not sure which parts seem counter to scientific methodology. If Wisdom is something beyond reason, then it incorporates processes that are definitely beyond scientific methodology. Which I think wisdom does. So does a lot of stupid methodologies. The N-ians look down on most people who have methodologies outside the scientific, while at the same time reserving for themselves Wisdom, which is also outside, but in some, not clearly defined correct way of being outside.

The scientific method relies not only on reason but human creativity and human sensation/perception.

Moreno wrote:The N-ians look down on most people who have methodologies outside the scientific

If that's true it is highly ironic to me, as Nieztsche never strikes me as much of a scientist and the scientific method does not look down on anything but bad experimental design and assumption.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2014 5:57 am
by fuse
I'll define what the scientific method means to me.

Not only am I talking about the whole hypothesis -> specific prediction -> test/experiement -> analysis deal, but also, importantly, about how to choose between competing theories.

Criteria for Distinguishing between Better and Worse Scientific Theories, Wikipedia wrote:The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.
A central prediction from a current theory: the general theory of relativity predicts the bending of light in a gravitational field. This prediction was first tested during the solar eclipse of May 1919.[6]

A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:

It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2014 6:05 am
by fuse
I do think wisdom is beyond science in the sense that science aims to refine the data you have and wisdom requires putting meaning to the data and having the experience to know where x leads. I find it hard to imagine wisdom without some form of science as a part of what led to it.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 12:19 am
by Arminius
According to Ernst Nolte science is a historical existential. So, if there will be no history, than there will be also no more science, but that does not mean, that there will also be no more wisdom, but that means, that there will be "merely" less wisdom. Less wisdom! Bad times. :(

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 12:44 am
by LaughingMan
Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 1:10 am
by Arminius
Tyler Durden wrote:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself?

If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end of human evolution:
If humans destroy history or historical existentials / historical cultures, then it means the end of history.

Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will bring it to the end and destroy all humans: the end of human evolution.
Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will fail, so that some humans will survive without any history: the end of history.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 1:30 am
by LaughingMan
Arminius wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself?

If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end of human Evolution:
If humans destroy history or historical existentials / historical cultures, then it means the end of history.

Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will bring it to the end and destroy all humans: the end of human evolution.
Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will fail, so that some humans will survive without any history: the end of history.


All examples you used being very probable.

Modern technological industrial society worldwide will eventually collapse. Things in motion now are speeding up that process. It's an inevitability.

However, out of the ashes of this collapsed civilization globally lies opportunities for the creation of entirely new cultures, societies, and civilizations.

A new history can emerge even upon the destruction of the older variation.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu May 29, 2014 1:56 am
by Arminius
Tyler Durden wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself?

If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end of human Evolution:
If humans destroy history or historical existentials / historical cultures, then it means the end of history.

Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will bring it to the end and destroy all humans: the end of human evolution.
Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will fail, so that some humans will survive without any history: the end of history.


All examples you used being very probable.

Yes, of course.

Tyler Durden wrote:Modern technological industrial society worldwide will eventually collapse. Things in motion now are speeding up that process. It's an inevitability.

However out of the ashes of this collapsed civilization globally lies opportunities for the creation of entirely new cultures, societies, and civilizations.

A new history can emerge even upon the destruction of the older variation.

Yes, that is right and what I have been saying for a long time.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 2:48 pm
by James S Saint

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 3:01 pm
by Arcturus Descending
Tyler Durden wrote:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.


Probably - it will be where we had gradually but surely destroyed the Earth - if we don't wake up! Then, poof, we will go the way of Venus. :cry:

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:18 pm
by Arminius
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.


Probably - it will be where we had gradually but surely destroyed the Earth - if we don't wake up! Then, poof, we will go the way of Venus. :cry:

No. End of history does absolutely not mean end of planet Earth. End of history does also not mean end of evolution. End of history means merely end of history.

Arminius wrote:If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end of human evolution:
If humans destroy history or historical existentials / historical cultures, then it means the end of history.

Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will bring it to the end and destroy all humans: the end of human evolution.
Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will fail, so that some humans will survive without any history: the end of history.

=> #

The end of history means the end of historical existentials.

Arminius wrote:According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following „historical existentials“, which are translated by me ( [-o< or =D>):

• Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
• Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
• Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
• Classes;
• State;
• Great War;
• City and country as contrast;
• Education, especially in schools and universities;
• Science;
• Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
• Historiography / awareness of history!

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):

„Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder »Existenzialien« - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige »Zwischenspiel« der »eigentlichen Geschichte« bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines »Schemas der historischen Existenz« ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.“
My translation:
„Thus, it is thought to be possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or »existentials« - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting »interlude« of the »actual history« and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a »scheme of historical existence«is the main goal of this book.

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):

„Befinden wir Menschen ... uns bereits in der »Nachgeschichte«, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?“
My translation:
„Are we people ... already in the »post-history« as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?“

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):

„Alle historischen Existenzialien ... haben ... grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der »große Krieg«, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.“
My translation:
„All historical existentialia ... have ... been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the »Great War«, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.“

That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: „Historische Existenz“ („Historical Existence“).

=> #

The end of history means the end of historical existenctials. This historical existenctials are about 6000 years old. So, human history (not human evolution) is also about 6000 years old.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:34 am
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:

This film does not refer to the end of history. :cry: :oops:

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:25 am
by James S Saint
Well, I agree that the end of history doesn't necessitate the end of Man, but I don't see how the end of Man couldn't also mean the end of history.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:46 am
by monad
Arminius wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.


Probably - it will be where we had gradually but surely destroyed the Earth - if we don't wake up! Then, poof, we will go the way of Venus. :cry:

No. End of history does absolutely not mean end of planet Earth. End of history does also not mean end of evolution. End of history means merely end of history.

Arminius wrote:If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end of human evolution:
If humans destroy history or historical existentials / historical cultures, then it means the end of history.

Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will bring it to the end and destroy all humans: the end of human evolution.
Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will fail, so that some humans will survive without any history: the end of history.

=> #

The end of history means the end of historical existenctials.

Arminius wrote:According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following „historical existentials“, which are translated by me ( [-o< or =D>):

• Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
• Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
• Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
• Classes;
• State;
• Great War;
• City and country as contrast;
• Education, especially in schools and universities;
• Science;
• Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
• Historiography / awareness of history!

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):

„Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder »Existenzialien« - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige »Zwischenspiel« der »eigentlichen Geschichte« bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines »Schemas der historischen Existenz« ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.“
My translation:
„Thus, it is thought to be possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or »existentials« - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting »interlude« of the »actual history« and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a »scheme of historical existence«is the main goal of this book.

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):

„Befinden wir Menschen ... uns bereits in der »Nachgeschichte«, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?“
My translation:
„Are we people ... already in the »post-history« as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?“

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):

„Alle historischen Existenzialien ... haben ... grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der »große Krieg«, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.“
My translation:
„All historical existentialia ... have ... been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the »Great War«, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.“

That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: „Historische Existenz“ („Historical Existence“).

=> #

The end of history means the end of historical existenctials. This historical existenctials are about 6000 years old. So, human history (not human evolution) is also about 6000 years old.


I haven't read Herr Nolte's book but from what I've gleaned from the included quotes, haven't these ideas, though more contemporary, already been expounded in principal by both Nietzsche and Spengler? The term "End of History" somewhat misleadingly is often used as defining the end of an epoch and not something relating to an actual end as in the Martian Chronicles where Earthlings redefine themselves as Martians because the earth no longer exists as habitable after a nuclear war.

Also, I appreciate the inclusion of the original German. The source is always best!

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:46 pm
by Arminius
James S Saint wrote:Well, I agree that the end of history doesn't necessitate the end of Man, but I don't see how the end of Man couldn't also mean the end of history.

The end of development at all includes necessarily both the end of evolution and the end of history; the end of evolution includes necessarily the end of history; but the end of history does not include the end of development or the end of evolution.

So your "end of man" includes the end of history, because the end of man means the end of the human evolution (which includes - of course - the end of history). History, as far as we know, is merely a human history or just a history of those humans who make and/or are involved in human history.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:55 pm
by Arminius
Examples of historical existentials again:

• Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
• Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
• Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
• Classes;
• State;
• Great War;
• City and country as contrast;
• Education, especially in schools and universities;
• Science;
• Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
• Historiography / awareness of history!


=> #

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:32 pm
by Arminius
monad wrote:I haven't read Herr Nolte's book but from what I've gleaned from the included quotes, haven't these ideas, though more contemporary, already been expounded in principal by both Nietzsche and Spengler? The term "End of History" somewhat misleadingly is often used as defining the end of an epoch and not something relating to an actual end as in the Martian Chronicles where Earthlings redefine themselves as Martians because the earth no longer exists as habitable after a nuclear war.

Also, I appreciate the inclusion of the original German. The source is always best!

Yes, the source is always the best.

In my OP is said that Hegel was the first with the idea of the end of history:

Arminius wrote:Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was the first one who came to that conclusion, which became a „starting signal“ for many people, e.g.:
Karl Marx with his concept of the paradise after the dictatorship of the proletariat - a Left-Hegelian ideology,thus a reference to Hegel;
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche with his concept of the „last men“;
Oswald A. G. Spengler with his reference to Goethe and Nietzsche, especially with his concept of the decline of culture and the assumption that
    with the utmost probability there will be no more culture after the decline of the occidental culture;
Martin Heidegger with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche;
Ernst Jünger with his reference to Spengler (Nietzsche, Goethe);
Alexandre Kojève (Alexandr Koschewnikov) with his his reference to Hegel;
Ernst Nolte with his reference to Heidegger (Hegel and Nietzsche);
Peter Sloterdijk with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche;
Francis Fukuyama with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche.

There have been many more, and I think that they all have been either Hegelians or Nietzscheans (incl. Spenglerians and Heideggerians).

My questions:

1.) Is the „end of history“ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised?
2.) Is the „end of history“ not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised?
      2.1) Has the „end of history“ been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) ended?
      2.2) Has the „end of history“ been realised since 1989/'90, when the „Cold War“ ended?
      2.3) Will the „end of history“ have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century?

What do you think?

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:46 pm
by LaughingMan
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.


Probably - it will be where we had gradually but surely destroyed the Earth - if we don't wake up! Then, poof, we will go the way of Venus. :cry:


And the universe won't even blink an eye if it had any.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:49 pm
by LaughingMan
I think Oswald Spengler did a brilliant job articulating the end of Western civilization.

Arminius if you haven't yet read his book Man And Technics. Brilliant articulations to be found there.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:50 pm
by turtle
Tyler Durden wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.


Probably - it will be where we had gradually but surely destroyed the Earth - if we don't wake up! Then, poof, we will go the way of Venus. :cry:


And the universe won't even blink an eye if it had any.


that will be very sad

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 3:53 pm
by LaughingMan
Turtle:

that will be very sad


Inevitable. All annihilation is.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 6:04 pm
by Arminius
Tyler Durden wrote:I think Oswald Spengler did a brilliant job articulating the end of Western civilization.

Arminius if you haven't yet read his book Man And Technics. Brilliant articulations to be found there.

Oh, thank you very much, Tyler. I have read all his books.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:17 pm
by LaughingMan
Arminius wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:I think Oswald Spengler did a brilliant job articulating the end of Western civilization.

Arminius if you haven't yet read his book Man And Technics. Brilliant articulations to be found there.

Oh, thank you very much, Tyler. I have read all his books.


Superb writer.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:01 pm
by monad
Arminius wrote:My questions:

1.) Is the „end of history“ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised?
2.) Is the „end of history“ not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised?
      2.1) Has the „end of history“ been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) ended?
      2.2) Has the „end of history“ been realised since 1989/'90, when the „Cold War“ ended?
      2.3) Will the „end of history“ have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century?

What do you think?

Let's get practical. Regardless of all the brilliant intellectuals declaiming on the matter, there is no "end of history" if we have to keep on asking the question. The words "End of History" is fallacious if it only sums up the end of an epoch. It's like saying at the end of Götterdämmerung no one is left alive when it's only the Gods who have left the scene whilst humans are forced to continue. The way EOH is here applied amounts to nothing more than a paragraph within history as a whole.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu Jun 05, 2014 9:10 pm
by Arminius
Tyler Durden wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:I think Oswald Spengler did a brilliant job articulating the end of Western civilization.

Arminius if you haven't yet read his book Man And Technics. Brilliant articulations to be found there.

Oh, thank you very much, Tyler. I have read all his books.


Superb writer.

Yes, that's right. Superb writer, superb thinker, a man of the facts who wrote down the historical facts in his books. Influenced by Heraklit, by Goethe, and by Nietzsche, he was a life philosopher, precisely a culture philosopher.

In his main work he said that he owed almost everything Goethe and Nietzsche:

„Zum Schlusse drängt es mich, noch einmal die Namen zu nennen, denen ich so gut wie alles verdanke: Goethe und Nietzsche. Von Goethe habe ich die Methode, von Nietzsche die Fragestellungen, und wenn ich mein Verhältnis zu diesem in eine Formel bringen soll, so darf ich sagen: ich habe aus seinem Augenblick einen Überblick gemacht. Goethe aber war in seiner ganzen Denkweise, ohne es zu wissen, ein Schüler von Leibniz gewesen.“ - Oswald A. G. Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917, S. IX.
My translation:
„In conclusion, it urges me to once again give the names, which I owe almost everything: Goethe and Nietzsche. From Goethe I have the method, from Nietzsche the questions, and if I should bring my relationship with this in a formula so I can say I have made of his moment an overview. But Goethe in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, had been a disciple of Leibniz.“ - Oswald A. G. Spengler, The Declinig of the West, 1917, p. IX.

Have you read all his books too, Tyler?