Thinking about 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.

Yes, of course.

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

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVY1sAKSIzk[/youtube]

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:

[size=150]No.[/size] End of history does absolutely [size=150]not[/size] mean end of planet Earth. End of history does also [size=150]not[/size] mean end of evolution. End of history means merely end of history.

The end of history means the end of historical existentials.

The end of history means the end of historical existenctials. This historical existenctials are about 6000 years old. So, human history ([size=150]not[/size] human evolution) is also about 6000 years old.

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

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.

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!

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 [size=120]not[/size] 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.

Examples of historical existentials again:

[size=120]• 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![/size]

=> #

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:

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

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.

that will be very sad

Inevitable. All annihilation is.

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

Superb writer.

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.

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?

i have read Spengler yes. The issue here is the end of Western history and civilization , as we have learned it, a very Eurocentric view.We have the East arising, they are not at all involved with Western culture, they have everything to look forward to. The end of Western history, does not coincide with Eastern History, which is transcendental and timeless. So German idealism does not speak a universal language at present, it is a dated, neo-classical, romantic notion. It is a notion , which is a non affordable luxury.