I’ve been intrigued by the End of History debate quite a bit so I thought I’d give it a go. I read through the first 6 and last two pages of this thread so hopefully I didn’t happen to miss the post which says exactly what I’m about to say.
The way I’ve understood the End of History debate is that the primary assertion was that society has been created to provide humanity comfort, well-being, an easy and happy life. The French Revolution had asserted some of the cornerstone ideologies, so to speak, of what that happy life would be like (Liberté, égalité, fraternité), there are more attributes to it, you can throw in notions of socialism and even communism depending how you want to spin it, but ultimately the idea is that everyone will be equal and free of necessity and compulsion, the government aiding and maintaining this state of affairs. The End of History is not something that is meant to have already occured, but that, barring a few stags and detours along the way, humanity is supposed to be moving towards these ideals.
The debate does not only center around this “final state” being the “End”, but also the idea that, if all of our wants are taken care if, there is nothing really left for us to do, nothing to rebel against, no more great deeds to accomplish. There will be daily events, but no real “history” so to speak, and I’m pretty sure this is meant in the sense of monumental history, there will be no great figures to stand above the rest, because everyone is equal (presupposing that equality has been acheived).
I find it difficult to really pick a side on what I believe. I think it is possible that an End of History could be reached in this sense, if there were genetically designed test tube babies as well as many other special circumstances… but maybe in the end I don’t think it is likely. It doesn’t really seem like it is human nature to stay satisfied even under the best of circumstances (though again, I get to thinking, couldn’t some kind of soma or other synthetic be produced to keep us satisfied?)… it is difficult to say, though still I think that we define ourselves as a species by accomplishments. Even though I’m not terribly fascinated by it personally, even if a state of bliss and equality and all that was reached, part of that bliss might be achieved by venturing into space, for example, and we can never know what we might encounter there.
What I really think is important about this debate that doesn’t really have to do with picking a side or not, but can amount to the same thing, is contemplating on how we as humans (at least some of us) can be very much satisfied and appeased. Society has become intricately structured, and for the main (in the west at least) a life plan has been set out for us (ie. grow up playing a little, learn how to function in school, get a job, enjoy certain designated liesure activities, make a family, and so on)…
Some people do not follow the expected life plan, true, but then it is frequently the case that their lives do not possess monumental historicality. Even a lot of recent inventions that are monumental, internet and computers, for example, though they impact our lives greatly and have certain benefits, have in a lot of ways sunken us deeper into the intricately structured fabric of society… Many people spend a lot less time out of doors, even taking physical action in general… also computers have done much to increase social/governmental efficiency and controls.
There are certain aspects of this issue that are not new. I don’t think people always just went out and took destiny into their hands. Human society has always been quite structured and had many social rules and customs (both if you were nobility or a peasant, though the life of a peasant was significantly more limited).
It seems to me like the philosophical school existentialism never really caught on, and was never really progressed by many thinkers beyond the mid-twentieth century… Maybe it’s because the idea of being able to do whatever you feel and make it your meaning seemed so vague to hold any weight? But I think there could have been potential there to really revolutionize the way we interact as a species, breaking down roles and customs, if we could keep our historical heritage and our humanity as a way to communicate, perhaps putting more of a focus on that issue as well, how we can communicate (share meaning, and about what?) when customs are broken down, as well as tying in more pragmatism and making existentialism a pragmatic philosophy of praxis, as well as our relation to existence…
Anyway, now I’m just rambling.