Page 4 of 17

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Fri May 02, 2014 11:21 pm
by Arminius
finishedman wrote:I’m saying people subjectively make up stories by the linking up of certain past events to create their philosophy or life narrative. They do it so as to not lose identity as time goes on. They don’t allow for events to stand alone independent of any other events. And I agree it is not necessary.

Right. But they can do that merely with story, thus: without history.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 7:09 am
by James S Saint
History of the World implies substantial changes concerning the entire world; changes in maps, religions, governments, paradigms of thinking, methods of travel, communication,....

I think it is safe to say that there will definitely be an end to that.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 7:59 am
by finishedman
What man knows, experiences and feels continuously gets passed down to future generations. There is some element in the purpose of humans -- when it comes to the intellect -- that insists that all aspects of thought be protected and maintained. For man it would be a frightening experience to lose what he knows. Yet in nature there is no model, no perfect system or method of living. The reward is that we live in harmony with nature. And if we do not harmonize, if we superimpose over nature what we think we ought to be evolving into by means of the fixations of the mind, we will be heading for disaster.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 9:13 pm
by Arminius
I define „history“ as a „cultural evolution“. All „archivable artifacts“ belong to history. So e.g. padded dinosaurs in a museum belong to history because they are archived artifacts, although dinosaurs themselves belong to eveolution-without-history because they did not archive artifacts, they did not have any history. Even human beings had not had any history for the most time of their existence. But they have been having story (here „story“ means only „telling story“, „told story“, etc.) since they began to speak. So „story“ as a „oral tradition“ (tale and so on) does not belong to history.

Do you agree with that definition? If yes, then we can think about the „Eloi“ as an example for humans without history in the future, can't we? The question in this thread is not, whether humans will have story in their future or not, but the question in this thread is, whether humans will have history in their future or not.

Why am I saying that? Because we should not confuse history with any development, for example with the natural development or with the natural evolution. History is cultural evolution. Archivable artifacts belong to history, and history belongs to evolution, and evolution belongs to development in nature. So history is embedded in evolution and in natural development, while evolution is only embedded in natural development. All events are based on natural (physico-chemical) development. Evolution is based on natural (physico-chemical) development. History is based on natural (physico-chemical) development and on (biological) evolution, history is defined as a cultural evolution. Story - as I define it (cp. above) - is also defined as a cultural evolution, but in contrast to history story contains no archivable artifact (except all kinds of an engineered story like an audiotape and so on). Story in this text and context means merely oral tales or oral narratives - not more.

The "house of development":

_______________________| History |
__________________|____ Evolution ____|
______________|______ Development ______|

History is merely the "roof" of the "house of development".

So if we are asking in this thread, whether history ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, then we are always asking, whether cultural evolution ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, whether the relation between human beings and archivable artifacts ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not.

Arminius wrote:The "end of history" means the end of all great narratives, of all great stories, of all "historical existence" (Ernst Nolte), of all culture, of all great wars, and so on. => #


End of history or not, end of historical existence or not - that's the question of this thread.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 10:17 pm
by Orbie
it's not that history will end, that is the question, but that we become oblivious to it. There is always a story, somewhere, it's just that it's not ours. Artifacts, develpment, culture, always leave traces, the deepest ones are hidden, within a kernel of a seed, ready to germinate and develop. His-story is but a germ, of a world of possibiities. It has been tacitly inscripted within and through natural processes.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 12:34 am
by Arminius
obe wrote:it's not that history will end, that is the question, but that we become oblivious to it.

That we become oblivious to history, yes, but that means in consequence that history ends after a while because human beings have become oblivious to it. If human beings become oblivious to history, then there is no historical comprehension anymore; and if there is no historical comprehension, then there will be soon no history. "History" without historians and without people who are interested in history is no history anymore.

obe wrote:There is always a story, somewhere, it's just that it's not ours.

"Stories" have to be told in order to be stories. So only human beings can have stories. "Stories" of animals or plants are merely stories for us because we make and want them to have stories. All non-human-beings do not have any story, they only have information, and they communicate with each other in order to get information - not more.

Story is human - and only human.

obe wrote:Artifacts, develpment, culture, always leave traces ....

That's right, Obe. But to whom are they traces? Who interprets them to be traces? Non-human-beings know nothing about traces as traces, but as a kind of Information - certainly without historical information. Trcae is a word, a concept, a term, a definition only for us. Non-human-beings can not tell you what traces are because they have no human language. Non-human-beings have no story because they have no human language in order to tell a story like human beings do, and they also have no writing language in order to wirte and to archive artifacts historically like human beings have been doing for at least 6000 years.

One needs a human language in order to have stories, and one needs a human writing (script) language in order to have history. Great war - as an eaxmple for an historical existential - can merely defined as "great war", if there is already history. If there is no history, there would be no great war; but even then, if it were possible, the event of a "great war" could not be identified as a great war and therefore would not be defined as a such. It depends on semantics, thus on language, especially on semantics of the writing language because the writing language is the pre-condition for history. And if there is no writing language, there will be no history. And also: If there is nobody left to understand what writing is and what history is, there will be no history - even then, if there are "artifacts", because they are hence no artifacts anymore because nobody knows what artifacts are.

So, if that scenario will come true, human beings will merely be what they had been before they started with writing and - consequently - with history. They will not know what human beings are, although they will still be human beings, just like their ancestors who did not know what human beings are, although they were already human beings. The word "human being" with all its semantics is a creation by human beings with writing language and history.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 10:41 pm
by Moreno
Arminius wrote:So you tend to point 2.3) or even to point 1.) - right?
Sure.

Moreno wrote:Russia seems to be shifting historically as we type. China's role is changing and while much of this is economic and not the snazzy history of wars and famous people bios, it is history.

This can also be interpretated as non-history (a-history) beacuse not little wars or civil wars, but merely great wars (=> #) are an „historical existential“.
Could be, but I see how the Cold war led to a capitulation in Russia economically, as the Neo Cons got invited in, I htink through Yeltsin, and did untold damage in Russia, and despite the redution in threat towards the World from Russia, the Western Powers kept up a very tight first strike set aimed at Russia. I see Russia as now lashing back -note I am not saying Russia is Good, or whatever, merely that we are seeing that something that was seemingly settled was not settled. And this is not about Communism vs. Capitalism, per se, but anything vs. mcworld. I also see a lot of history in what is not war at all, Little or big.

• 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!
If science means technology, especially widespread personal/family use Tech, then OK. this would then include media, which really should be on the list.
I would want to add in consciousness and sense of self.

The „historical existentials“ are merely points of reference in order to find out, whether history has ended or not.
Right and I Think it does help to break things down and see if we then become aware of Changes we want to call historical ones.

No, the "Arab Spring" was either a western production or a western joke!
I don't Think it was a Western production since it actually upset most of the Power players in the West since it was unclear if their puppets were giong to stay in Power. For me it is the mode of interaction that makes it historical.

Moreno wrote: China and Russia and not hooking in to any end of History ....

That is a western interpretation.
That they are not hooking in to it or that they do not have such a viewpoint. My Point was that they are not buying Fukuyama's ideas of what the end of history is.

I am not very much convinced by your text.
What are you not convinced of?
History has not ended yet. In that point we agree.
That would be my main assertion. I'd be agnostic about the future.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 7:52 am
by Historyboy
We know the path is decadence and the goal is death, it lasts about 5 hundred years and begins several years after the second great war, let’s say in our case in the 60′s. From the second Persian war till Alexander have passed 150 years, since the second Punic war and Caesar 150 years. Each time after a great war democracy rises and republic dies (Athens was a republic until the parliament took all power from the Areopagus). The reason why democracy prevails in republics is that the masses take part in huge wars and see themselves as winners, not those who have guided them… they want now power and money, because they claim honor and glory in war – we see how Themistocles demonstrates how he is not the member of nobility(already Plato mocks him by saying he doesn't want a state ruled by the rowers), but he was the member of the noble upbringing of all Athenians, the same upbringing which was abolished afterwards. Then we see a slow perishing of the Julian dynasty and the number of Romans is falling, after that emperors come from outside of Italy, because due to a lack of morals, upbringing and virtues one is incapable to rule - that is why democracy is in the end replaced by monarchy: there is only one single man left capable to rule.

The only city which has survived the ancient Greek collapse and inhabits the offspring of ancient continental Greece is Monemvasia.

It is always the same old boring story. How many years have passed since the second world war?


Eternal return of the same, re-edited.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 7:25 pm
by Arminius
Moreno wrote:I don't Think it was a Western production since it actually upset most of the Power players in the West since it was unclear if their puppets were giong to stay in Power.

Nevertheless: It can be a part of a western strategy.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 10:42 pm
by Moreno
Arminius wrote:
Moreno wrote:I don't Think it was a Western production since it actually upset most of the Power players in the West since it was unclear if their puppets were giong to stay in Power.

Nevertheless: It can be a part of a western strategy.
Well, maybe the oligarchs, sure, but I don't see them as particular patriotic to the West.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 12:36 am
by Arminius
It is possible that the western strategy includes anti-western politics. :wink:

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 3:59 am
by Arminius
Moreno wrote:
Arminius wrote:
• 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!

If science means technology, especially widespread personal/family use Tech, then OK. this would then include media, which really should be on the list.

According to Ernst Nolte both science and technology are meant. Science (incl. technology) also includes media, but media is also included in the other historical existentials, especially in education. Living beings are media beings. So media is important for all living beings, not only for human beings, also not only for historical human beings. What you probably mean with the word „media“ is the „modern media“.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 5:39 am
by Moreno
Arminius wrote:
Moreno wrote:
Arminius wrote:
• 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!

If science means technology, especially widespread personal/family use Tech, then OK. this would then include media, which really should be on the list.

According to Ernst Nolte both science and technology are meant. Science (incl. technology) also includes media, but media is also included in the other historical existentials, especially in education. Living beings are media beings. So media is important for all living beings, not only for human beings, also not only for historical human beings. What you probably mean with the word „media“ is the „modern media“.
I suppose I see Changes in media since the fall of the wall, since 9/11, so I see no way to determine history has ended under the criterion Changes in media. And since the modern trend is a mergence of media and self, the change is enormous. Where i live the amount of people who are scared without their cellphones and laptops and generally walk, drive, eat, bike and socialize while looking down at screens small and large, we post-humans are here. Only they are not some ubermencsh of a cyborg or some other flesh/machine intermingling, but they are just as post human to my Eyes. And rather pathetic. This trend could lead to the end of history. I just don't quite know what happens when nearly eveyrone is no longer quite present at any time. This might lead to very unstable domino like effects.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 4:45 pm
by Arminius
"Übermensch", "cyborg", "flesh/machine-intermingling", "post-human" remind me to my other thread:

If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call "Letzter Mensch" ("Last Man"). This "Last Man" will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 7:39 pm
by Arminius
Phyllo wrote:There will be no more children who would be rejuvenating the culture. That might be the end of history.

At least the demographic development is one of the most importanrt "historical existentials".

If a culture does not have enough children to rejuvenate itself, then the history of this culture ends. And if this culture has alraedy become the culture of all human beings, then the history of all human beings ends. Yet we do not exactly know, whether we have many cultures (and if yes: how many?) or merely one.

Anyway, the demographic development is one of the most importanrt "historical existentials". Therefore I underlined the word "demographics" in the following cited list.

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“).

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 8:28 pm
by Historyboy
So, you don't even know how many cultures you have? :lol:

Don't worry, you have only one. Each culture produces a few books which survive and are transferred to the second culture. As we know Romans have made their own collection of the Greek books which they took to Rome, it was called "Classics".

I too have made a collection of books which will be transferred to the new culture. You can keep the New testament in return, it's for old people!

Thank you and BYE!

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 10:10 pm
by Arminius
According to the German cultural philosopher Oswald A. G. Spengler we know 8 historical cultures, according to the English cultural philosopher Arnold J. Toynbee we know 19 historical cultures. I think Spenglers theory of 8 historical cultures is right. Currently we have 4 „dead“ historical cultures and 4 historical cultures which are still „alive“. Maybe there will come a new one (perhaps Russia, Spengler said), but we do not know, and we also do not know whether the one and only culture has really existed and whether the one and only culture will exist. Institutions like World Bank, IWF, United Nations, ... and so on ... do not mean one culture. The fact that only one culture - the Faustian culture (also called: Western culture) - was able to discover, conquer, capture the whole planet Earth and in addition other parts of the universe is also no proof for the existence of one culture. a so called „universal culture“.

An „universal culture“ is merely ideology, new-religion.

If there will be merely one culture of the human beings, then all historical cultures of the human beings will have to be eliminated. But today the 4 historical cultures of the human beings are still „alive“.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 10:57 pm
by Arminius
But if that „one culture“ as the „universal culture“ will come, then the history probably will be eliminated.

Hear what rulers and their politicians have been preaching since 1989: „One world, one civilisation (culture), one religion, one financial system of course, one economy, one language, one media, one science, one technology, one ecology, one art, one city (no country), one sex / gender, one state (or no state), one education, one rule (leadership); and no nobility, no class, no state (or one state), no great war, no country.“ (And now look at the list again!) That means: No history!

Arminius wrote:According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following „historical existentials“ ...:

• 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 May 08, 2014 11:40 pm
by Historyboy
According to Vollgraff, there is only one culture at the time. The still lasting is Anglosaxon. Before the Anglosaxon there was the Frankish, before that the Gothic, before the Gothic the Norman, then the Celtic, then the Latin ... if the Frankish ended with Caesar in 1800 and the Gothic perhaps with Cesare Borgia, and the Norman with the conquests ... I have the feeling that 2100 is Anglosaxon. It is almost 150 years after the ww2.

Vollgraff does not explicitly say Russians, but Nietzsche said "Russians will enter culture", yet, I think I haven't read more than 50% of Vollgraffs last Band. The answer may still come.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 11:46 pm
by Historyboy
Spengler is a loser. Nietzsche must be a winner because he is fighting against the priestly ascetic idealism - the only cause why cultures are declining.

You western losers think decay is "inevitable"!

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2014 2:50 am
by Arminius
Moreno wrote:And this is not about Communism vs. Capitalism, per se, but anything vs. mcworld.

Capitalism as the thesis (cp. Hegel) and communism as the antithesis (cp. Hegel) are now integrated in the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). It is important to find the new antithesis (cp. Hegel) to the new thesis (cp. Hegel) which is set by the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). What could that new antithesis (cp. Hegel) be?

If there will be no new antithesis (cp. Hegel), then that new thesis (cp. Hegel) will probably be the "eternal thesis" as the so called "universal culture / civilisation" of the "Last Men" and the end of history.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2014 3:28 am
by Moreno
Arminius wrote:
Moreno wrote:And this is not about Communism vs. Capitalism, per se, but anything vs. mcworld.

Capitalism as the thesis (cp. Hegel) and communism as the antithesis (cp. Hegel) are now integrated in the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). It is important to find the new antithesis (cp. Hegel) to the new thesis (cp. Hegel) which is set by the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). What could that new antithesis (cp. Hegel) be?

If there will be no new antithesis (cp. Hegel), then that new thesis (cp. Hegel) will probably be the "eternal thesis" as the so called "universal culture / civilisation" of the "Last Men" and the end of history.

I would call it corporatism because I think this leaves open more possibilities for antithesis. Given that corporatism is also self destructive and resisted locally in a diverse set of ways, it may not need a total system as an antithesis.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2014 10:22 am
by Historyboy
Arminius wrote:
Moreno wrote:And this is not about Communism vs. Capitalism, per se, but anything vs. mcworld.

Capitalism as the thesis (cp. Hegel) and communism as the antithesis (cp. Hegel) are now integrated in the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). It is important to find the new antithesis (cp. Hegel) to the new thesis (cp. Hegel) which is set by the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). What could that new antithesis (cp. Hegel) be?

If there will be no new antithesis (cp. Hegel), then that new thesis (cp. Hegel) will probably be the "eternal thesis" as the so called "universal culture / civilisation" of the "Last Men" and the end of history.


You are really a weak brain! What you describe is nothing but the transition from oligarchy and tyranny into democracy, after 292 and 293 of the Wanderer and the shadow.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2014 6:40 pm
by Arminius
Moreno wrote:I would call it corporatism because I think this leaves open more possibilities for antithesis. Given that corporatism is also self destructive and resisted locally in a diverse set of ways, it may not need a total system as an antithesis.

Maybe, but isn't corporatism at least partly incorporated in their synthesis (cp. Hegel) too?

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 pm
by Orbie
Incorporation is akin to inclusion into, versus a synthetic development. Inclusion implies enclosing an entity into a system, without changing it. In that way incorporation can retain it's identity, whereas synthesis is a new, changed form the dynamic combination of an element and its appearently contradictory system. Incorporation is begotten from the idea of a stable coexistenz of elements each retaining their identity, synthesis changes elements in the process. This feature enables a philosophical bypass into the very ontology of the process Hegel talks about. It is on basis of projection, that Heglelian results can be predicted, but not so with so called "free" enterprise, where game theory is best suited.

That is not to say that one type of analysis is preferable to the other, and in that, incorporation is weaker in terms of conclusiveness. However, It's strength does manifest, in the wait and see attitude of corrections of variables related to the approximations. It can incorporate elements of Heglelianism into it's dynamic, without changin either elements. My conclusion is that depending on the success or failure of globalism, one or the other analytic will prevail.