Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

In reference to Goyim and the Superman, and those stuck in this divisive discourse, the simple fact is, that some One or ones have always to be chosen.

Why? Because that is the way the bicameral mind works(ed), prior to it’s breakdown. Now what follows? The deluge? But god promised, and has set the boundaries, in the most powerful foregone conclusion possible, and that is why Nietzsche has yet to be successfully debunked. There need be gatekeepers, respecting those types of boundaries. Its a question of an inner sanctum which transcends, ahem, the will to power to will. We will be constrained, as we are ,now, increasingly, to break out, or, to understand the constraints upon our boundaries.

And what do you exactly mean in that text and context by saying “our side”?

If it is the opposite side of that pan-psychotic side (including the slavic / slavish idiot from Bosnia where life is rapidly declining!), then I don’t have to come over to your side because it has been my side since my first post in this forum, as you probably know.

Nihilism repeats. When a culture becomes old (“modern”, “civilis[at]ed”), it becomes nihilistic.

Globalism as the “One World”, the “One Nation”, is probably the last stage before the “World of the Last Men” / the “World of the Morlocks and the Eloi” will begin. And the “World of the Last Men” will probably lead to the “World of No Men, but only Machines” (=> #).

The Last man is only possible if there is no Wladimir Wladimirowitsch, from Vladati = to rule.

The black hole has such power. What do you make of Malevich’s black square and his surprematism?

I write to express my own self and to the like-minded who find resonance in it, not necessarily to communicate to all. You see lack of verbiosity as a poor development, I see it as highly sophisticated.

Gestures and tones and the physiology of communication communicates faster than you can imagine and also grasped if the other’s intuition is well-developed. Condensation is an intactness and clarity, and the symbolic order says more to our subliminal conscious than expanded words. It is where and how I want to reach out.

hmm. That’s nice, and well-put, but as a zen master would say, to speak in three short strokes like a sword or not at all.
I get to the heart of the matter; it is what counts.

Since you are contra-nietzsche, and just love the man, for you - to assist you in your self-own diagnosis -
“A distinguished intellect and taste, when it wants to communicate its thoughts, always selects its hearers; by selecting them, it at the same time closes its barriers against “the others”. It is there that all the more refined laws of style have their origin: they at the same time keep off, they create distance, they prevent “access” (intelligibility, as we have said,) while they open the ears of those who are acoustically related to them. And to say it between ourselves and with reference to my own case, I do not desire that either my ignorance, or the vivacity of my temperament, should prevent me being understood by you, my friends: I certainly do not desire that my vivacity should have that effect, however much it may impel me to arrive quickly at an object, in order to arrive at it at all. For I think it is best to do with profound problems as with a cold bath - quickly in, quickly out. That one does not thereby get into the depths, that one does not get deep enough down is a superstition of the hydrophobic, the enemies of cold water; they speak without experience. Oh! The great cold makes one quick!” (nietzsche)

C-N

Not only perceived - but known intimately and slowly as it unfurls itself.

The way I look at it, history will end when all of the books have been burnt, when there is no one left to remember it or to tell of it or to write it.
That’s not necessarily the end of mankind.

cassie -

Freddie also said:

I may not be intuiting his meaning here but it seems to me that what he writes here is in contradiction to what he wrote there in that quote you gave. Of course, he isn’t easy to understand.

How many of you can subscribe all you have learned in the school? Or in other words, how much of that did you use in your lives? I can not imagine blood without passions. There is nothing colder and more boring than public education.

„Telling“ doesn’t belong to the aspects of history because telling is very much older than history. But history implies writing. Without writing there is no history, but only story.

With the utmost probability the end of history has come, when all books have been burnt. But there is a little chance for internet and other systems of telecommunication to conserve facts of the past for the future, but this chance is really a little one, I think.

Right.

Besides: Corresponding to the time duration the human history and the human evolution are comparable with one month and eighty years (eighty years are currently the time span of one averaged human life).

arcturus, there is no contradiction, or atleast not in my eyes. What i quoted even supplements what is said here. Here, he speaks about genuine writing that comes from being in touch with your blood, that is, writing with all your spirit and passion. In what I quoted, he says those who think they do not touch the depth of their spirit and the profoundness that comes from blood just because their approach is a quick one, in and out like with a cold bath, are superstitious and speak without experience.

The western culture has conquered and captured the whole world, not only politically and econimically, but also culturally, scientifically, technically, and artistically. If there shall be a trial for creating a new culture, than that will be very difficult to realise, because nearly all people of the world have - more or less - internalised the western culture. The westerners will be to weak for that task and the others are also to weak or to mixed relating to their origins, their confused positioning between their origins and their internalised western culture, and their disability to break out of that internalised western culture.

With the utmost probability the civilisation as a late kind of the western culture will be continued and no new culture will arise. Perhaps in this or the next century the history will end, perhaps the evolution of the human beings will end, and perhaps the evolution of many other living beings will end.

Back to my questions about the end of history in my OP:

[size=120]1.)[/size] [size=114]Is the „end of history“ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised?[/size]
[size=120]2.)[/size] [size=114]Is the „end of history“ not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised?[/size]
[size=110]2.1)[/size] [size=104]Has the „end of history“ been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) ended?[/size]
[size=110]2.2)[/size] [size=104]Has the „end of history“ been realised since 1989/'90, when the „Cold War“ ended?[/size]
[size=110]2.3)[/size] [size=104]Will the „end of history“ have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century?[/size]

I am sure, if the Western people are asked, the history should never begin. The time of the nations which were historically fertile is over. Who can name a single wester historian, and which westerner is ready to believe him? We West does not believe in truth and thus they have neither historians nor philosophers beyond the “history is written by the winner”. What does a German know beside politics? Not even politics he knows, because he lacks the first and foremost thing which makes him human: morals. He is too aggressive and violence driven.

As Vollgraff said: "so tensely the Greek city-states have stood to each other, so tensely stood (and stand?) German individuals.

But the infertility in history is unfortunately the case with entire Europe.

History did not end with the fall of the Wall. From a US centered perspective, you had 9/11, the Patriot Act, and some wars. These were coupled with Changes in US relations to many nations. It led to a new era. It could lead to all sorts of discussions about politics, governance, separation of Powers, nation states, globallization, ethics of war…and more, so it would seem strange to me to say that history ended with the fall of the wall, at least for US cits. This would all hold for Europé. 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. Then lots of nations that have less Power are having wars, starvation, transitions into global economics, you had The Arab Spring, and while this did not change so much, it offers the potential for more Changes. Arab leaders have been put on notice and the technology that aided this is only going to improve. We also have technology on the government side allowing for all sorts of things, a la Snowdon. Where will the struggle between governments sliding towards fascism vs. people’s awareness and resistence to this go?

China and Russia and not hooking in to any end of History, so any announcement or predictions about when the end of history will happen is just speculation - which could be fun and good training, but still, speculation.

History also tracks the Changes in the way humans live. I see no reason to Think these Changes will happen soon.

Agreed. I am no Hegelian / Marxist on history. I do not see why history should end until the last society dies. Otherwise, you are presupposing that there is a particular story that is being told that culminates in some sort of ideal state i.e. absolute knowing, absolute freedom, the communist state, but I do not believe that there is such an ideal state of society that all of history is leading up to. It’s all flux and change baby. And so long as it’s fluxy and changing, there will be stories to tell.

So you tend to point [size=110]2.3)[/size] or even to point [size=120]1.)[/size] - right?

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“.

The „historical existentials“ are merely points of reference in order to find out, whether history has ended or not.

No, the “Arab Spring” was either a western production or a western joke!

That is a western interpretation.

I am not very much convinced by your text.

History has not ended yet. In that point we agree.

Do you know Francis Fukuyama and his thesis?

According to Hegel’s “Dialektik” e.g. Fukuyama interprets the “extreme liberalism” as the “Thesis”, the “totalitarianism” as the “Antithesis”, the “liberal democracy” as the “Synthesis”. So for Fukuyama the “liberal democracy” is the final stage. According to Peter Scholl-Latour Fukuyama’s thesis has been absurd since its beginning; the global spread of parliamentary “democracy” and an uninhibited market economy would bring mankind a final state of wellfare / wellbeing and harmony; thus, the final line would be drawn under the obsolete antagonisms. In this way Fukuyama’s notion of the “End of History” can be resumed. (Cp. Peter Scholl-Latour, Koloß auf tönernen Füßen, 2005, S. 47). In addition, Peter Scholl-Latour found - to his surprise - that Peter Sloterdijk coined the phrase: “By ‘nation building’ you get at best democratically cladded dictatorships with market economy.” Scholl-Latour: “I would have added: ‘Serving the market economy’.” (Ibid., 2005, S. 50). Fukuyama’s bold thesis of the “end of history” of eternal fights, because the Western model (i.e.: Western culture) has triumphed globally, provides at least for Huntington no substantial analysis. Rather, Huntington sees in the clashes, frictions, conflicts between the great cultures on the basis of different religions and divergent world views, the main role of future disputes.

Fukuyama’s thesis is assessed by Norbert Bolz in this way: “In the initial diagnosis, there is a surprisingly large consensus among thinkers. The famous title of Francis Fukuyama’s book - The End of History and the Last Man - summarises quite simply together the positions of Hegel and Nietzsche.” (Norbert Bolz, Das Wissen der Religion, 2008, S. 53). This world has been defined as “housing of servitude” by Max Weber. The “Gestell” (something like “frame” / “framework” o.s) by Martin Heidegger, the “managed world” by Theodor W. Adorno, and the “technical government” by Helmut Schelsky are only different names for the end product of a specifically modern process, which Arnold Gehlen has brought on the notion of “cultural crystallisation”.

Peter Sloterdijk sees Fukuyama’s work as “the recovery of an authentic political psychology on the basis of the restored Eros-Thymos polarity. It is obvious that this same political psychology (which has little to do with the so-called “mass psychology” and other applications of psychonalyse to political objects) has been moved to new theoretical orientations by the course of events at the center of the current demand. … The time diagnostic lesson, that is hidden in ‘The End of History’, is not to be read from the title slogan, which, as noted, citing only a witty interpretation of Hegelian philosophy by Alexandre Kojève in the thirties of the 20th century (who for his part had dated the ‘end of history’ in the year of publication of Hegel’s Phänomenologie des Geistes [“Phenomenology of Spirit”], 1807). It consists in a careful observation of the prestige and jealousy fights between citizens of the free world, who just then come to the fore when the mobilization of civilian forces has ceased for fighting on external fronts. Successful liberal democracies, recognises the author, will always and because of their best performances be crossed by streams of free-floating discontent. This can not be otherwise, because people are sentenced to thymotic restlessness, and the ‘last men’ more than all the rest …” (Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 65-67).

For Fukuyama “thymos” is nothing other than the psychological seat of the Hegelian desire for “Anerkennung” (appreciation, recognition). (Cp. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History, 1992, p. 233 ); this is the “real engine of human history” (ibid., p. 229). The main features of which Fukuyama is based and from which he derives his ideas are the Hegelian view of history and the Platonic-Hegelian conceptual constructions, especially that what is concerned with thymotic. Something near that is what Sloterdijk has done in his work “Zorn und Zeit” (“Rage and Time”, 2006). Both Sloterdijk and Fukuyama are also influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche, Sloterdijk in addition by Heidegger.

But Sloterdijk’s work mentiones also the Christian era refering to revenge and resentment:

„Vor allem muß heute, gegen Nietzsches ungestümes Resümee, bedacht werden, daß die christliche Ära, im ganzen genommen, gerade nicht das Zeitalter der ausgeübten Rache war. Sie stellte vielmehr eine Epoche dar, in der mit großem Ernst eine Ethik des Racheaufschubs durchgesetzt wurde. Der Grund hierfür muß nicht lange gesucht werden: Er ist gegeben durch den Glauben der Christen, die Gerechtigkeit Gottes werde dereinst, am Ende der Zeiten, für eine Richtigstellung der moralischen Bilanzen sorgen. Mit dem Ausblick auf ein Leben nach dem Tode war in der christlichen Ideensphäre immer die Erwartung eines überhistorischen Leidensausgleichs verbunden. Der Preis für diese Ethik des Verzichts auf Rache in der Gegenwart zugunsten einer im Jenseits nachzuholenden Vergeltung war hoch - hierüber hat Nietzsche klar geurteilt. Er bestand in der Generalisierung eines latenten Ressentiments, das den aufgehobenen Rachewunsch selbst und sein Gegenstück, die Verdammnisangst, ins Herzstück des Glaubens, die Lehre von den Letzten Dingen, projizierte. Auf diese Weise wurde die Bestrafung der Übermütigen in alle Ewigkeit zur Bedingung für das zweideutige Arrangement der Menschen guten Willens mit den schlimmen Verhältnissen. Die Nebenwirkung hiervon war, daß die demütigen Guten selbst vor dem zu zittern begannen, was sie den übermütigen Bösen zudachten.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 4.
My translation:
„Especially must now against Nietzsche’s impetuous résumé be considered that the Christian era, on the whole, just was not the age of the force exerted revenge. Rather, it represented a period in which very seriously the ethics of revenge deferral was enforced. The reason for this must be sought not for long: He is given by the faith of Christians, God’s justice will one day, at the end of times, make the correction of the moral balance sheets. With the prospect of a life after death in the Christian sphere of idea the expectation was always connected of an hyper-historical suffering compensation. The price of this ethic of renunciation of revenge in the present in favour of a backdated retribution in the afterlife was highly - Nietzsche has clearly judged that. It consisted in the generalisation of a latent resentment that projected the repealed revenge desire itself and its counterpart, the damnation fear, into the heart of the faith, the doctrine of the Last Things. In this way, the punishment of the proud in all eternity became a condition for the ambiguous arrangement of people of good will with the dire conditions. The side effect of this was that the humble good ones (do-gooder) began to shake theirselves against what they intend for the wanton evil.“

 And the revenge has best to be avoided by a shift, away from  what Freud has recognized as erotic discontent. This may work on the short term, but long term? You may object that the synthesis always plays musical chairs, and the center doesn't always occupy the current political correctness, of a game of expediency.  The appearance of ultra liberalism may just as well be a current fascination with recurrent material dialectics , a pragmatic tour de force, a wait and see attitude, based on some program or another, as a measure of congruence between oriental and occidental ideas  in an emerging world market of opinions?

Not in any case.

It depends on the case, on the particular case.

You mean Fukuyamas “liberal democracy” as the “Synthesis”? Then it is up to him to object that or not. For me the current Synthesis is not something like a “liberal democracy”, but the globalism: containng amongst others a ochlocracy (anarchy) in order to get the monarchy. Probably the “liberal democracy” had been a Synthesis for a short time in the last fourth of the 18th century, namely the Synthesis of the Thesis “democracy/oligarchy (egalitarianism)”" and the Antithesis “liberalism/individualism (libertarianism)”. Fukuyama confuses his time (especially his Zeitgeist) with Hegel’s time (especially Hegel’s Zeitgeist). He also confuses ideality with reality. So for me Fukuyama is wrong. The assessment of Peter Scholl-Latour, Fukuyama’s thesis has been absurd since its beginning, is right, I think.

History cannot end. That would require something there to stop it from progressing.

Equally; death is not a thing.