Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

[Arcturus Descending]

C-N

Expression is a unfurling flower, seeking to be perceived by the bee.

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

[Arcturus Descending]

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.

[Arcturus Descending]

cassie -

Freddie also said:

“Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.
It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers.
He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers--and spirit itself will stink."

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.

[Historyboy]

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.

[Arminius]

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.

„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.

That's not necessarily the end of mankind.

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).

[cassie]

cassie -

Freddie also said:

“Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit.
It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers.
He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers--and spirit itself will stink."

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.

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.

[Arminius]

I propose then now as a Westerner - I AM THE FIRST OF MANY - that a new Western religion HAS RISEN. => #

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:

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?

[Historyboy]

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.

[Moreno]

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?

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.

[Existenz41]

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?

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.

[Arminius]

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?

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 Europe.

So you tend to point 2.3) or even to point 1.) - right?

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“.

According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following „historical existentials“, which are translated by me ( or ):

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

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.

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

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

That is a western interpretation.

I am not very much convinced by your text.

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

[Arminius]

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.“

[Orbie]

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 well -being 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, as the "Gestell" (something like "frame") by Martin Heidegger, as "managed world" by Theodor W. Adorno, as "technical government" by Helmut Schelsky), and that 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 (had for its part, the 'dated 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 ist 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 Christan 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?

[Arminius]

And the revenge has best to be avoided by a shift ....

Not in any case.

This may work on the short term, but long term?

It depends on the case, on the particular case.

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.

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.

[Amorphos]

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

Equally; death is not a thing.

[Arminius]

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

So you are saying that progressing and history are not dividable, or they are even the same? Progressing and history do not have to have, but can have to do with each other. Progressing and history are not the same. History is a development, evolution is a development, but history and evolution are not the same. History is a part of evolution because history is an artefact, a product by humans, and humans are as part of the evolution as other living beings.

Equally; death is not a thing.

Is that poetry?

[finishedman]

All you have to do is understand the way your own individual personal past operates. The past is always active. If the past ends, you end. That is the reason why you will never allow that, no matter how hard you try. The past is everywhere in you. Every cell in your body is permeated by it. Every nerve is involved in it. The past has this body so much under control that it will not let it go. The past will not come to an end through any effort you make or whatever will power you effect! The more effort you put into it, the more willpower you use, the stronger it becomes. You came across many insights in this process, but every insight reinforces the past. It does not in any way help to understand anything and to thus free yourself from whatever. Every insight that you obtain with your investigations only strengthens and solidifies that.

[Amorphos]

So you are saying that progressing and history are not dividable, or they are even the same? Progressing and history do not have to have, but can have to do with each other. Progressing and history are not the same. History is a development, evolution is a development, but history and evolution are not the same. History is a part of evolution because history is an artefact, a product by humans, and humans are as part of the evolution as other living beings.

I am saying more that reality is infinite, ergo unlimited. I do think that progressing and history are dividable, but that is because they are perspectives which we impart upon reality, where reality itself is not those things. It is and must be both of those things and anything else we care to throw into the bucket.

It is both progressing, has been and will be, but more it is reassessing the entire expanse in every moment ~ as if second guessing itself. I suppose it does this to predict what it can from the present and history, then it seems as if the whole prediction is thrown into the abyss and bounces back, the result is all in the 'now', yet that 'now' is entirely reliant upon the whole enterprise being intact, only then can reality have universal integrity. that's not to say that infinity isn't expressed in other ways! that would be placing limits upon the limitless. now just keep adding stuff and see where it takes us?

I know what that all sounds like, but I have no other way of expressing such surreal and subtle things, but poetically.

[Arminius]

All you have to do is understand the way your own individual personal past operates. The past is always active. If the past ends, you end. That is the reason why you will never allow that, no matter how hard you try. The past is everywhere in you. Every cell in your body is permeated by it. Every nerve is involved in it. The past has this body so much under control that it will not let it go. The past will not come to an end through any effort you make or whatever will power you effect! The more effort you put into it, the more willpower you use, the stronger it becomes. You came across many insights in this process, but every insight reinforces the past. It does not in any way help to understand anything and to thus free yourself from whatever. Every insight that you obtain with your investigations only strengthens and solidifies that.

Finishedma, hystory and the past are not synonyms. Please! For example: the history refers to the past, the past can, but does not have to refer to the history. If we lose our history, we do not lose our past at all. History has to do with handwriting, with script. If history loses handwriting, then it becomes story. Story refers to the past too. Humans do not need history in order to be humans.

[Historyboy]

The haste, which enslaves most people today, is not coming from greed, not primarily, but from the American Indians. Which doesn't mean that slaves are not hasteful.

[cassie]

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 well -being 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, as the "Gestell" (something like "frame") by Martin Heidegger, as "managed world" by Theodor W. Adorno, as "technical government" by Helmut Schelsky), and that 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 (had for its part, the 'dated 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 ist 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 Christan 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?

Extreme adaptability of ultra-liberalism is the sloth of the cynic is what Sloterdijk was pointing out.

[Arminius]

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 well -being 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, as the "Gestell" (something like "frame") by Martin Heidegger, as "managed world" by Theodor W. Adorno, as "technical government" by Helmut Schelsky), and that 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 (had for its part, the 'dated 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 ist 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 Christan 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?

Extreme adaptability of ultra-liberalism is the sloth of the cynic is what Sloterdijk was pointing out.

Would you mind going into details?

[finishedman]

All you have to do is understand the way your own individual personal past operates. The past is always active. If the past ends, you end. That is the reason why you will never allow that, no matter how hard you try. The past is everywhere in you. Every cell in your body is permeated by it. Every nerve is involved in it. The past has this body so much under control that it will not let it go. The past will not come to an end through any effort you make or whatever will power you effect! The more effort you put into it, the more willpower you use, the stronger it becomes. You came across many insights in this process, but every insight reinforces the past. It does not in any way help to understand anything and to thus free yourself from whatever. Every insight that you obtain with your investigations only strengthens and solidifies that.

Finishedma, hystory and the past are not synonyms. Please! For example: the history refers to the past, the past can, but does not have to refer to the history. If we lose our history, we do not lose our past at all. History has to do with handwriting, with script. If history loses handwriting, then it becomes story. Story refers to the past too. Humans do not need history in order to be humans.

As long as events are dependent upon, caused by, or are led to by other events, there will be stories. The linking up of certain events to promote a designed idea are the stories that precede history.

Negative approaches to events, ideas and history become positive approaches in disguise. If it is a negative approach, it has to negate itself somewhere along the line. It’s claimed that anything this structure touches must turn into a positive thing, because it is a product of positive thinking. So anything you listen to is turned into a method, a system -- you want to get something through this. For example, somebody says there is a mind and you must un-condition your mind. How are you going to un-condition your mind? You are conditioning your mind through this lingo -- that is all that it is necessary for you to see. Don't blame the other chap. So then you leave this chap alone: you never establish any relationship with this man. The moment you use this to get whatever you want to get, or to arrive at some kind of a destination, you are tricking yourself into the same old game. When this is seen, the seeing is the end -- finished, you see. But we haven't understood a thing; we go there again and again. And we have only clarified our thoughts, and through this so-called clarification we have given strength to the continuity of thought -- this is all that has happened. So, it is the hope that keeps people going. They have gotten into habits, routines: instead of going to the spiritual, they go to the philosophical or the ideological -- that's all they are doing. If you see the absurdity of what you are doing, then there is a possibility of your saying to yourself "What the hell am I doing? What am I doing? How am I different? Why am I listening to this?"

[Arminius]

As long as events are dependent upon, caused by, or are led to by other events, there will be stories. The linking up of certain events to promote a designed idea are the stories that precede history.

So, you are saying that every stone has its history too, every subatomic particle has its history too. But that is not what we usually mean with the word "history". Okay, one can poetically say nature has its own "history", but I say that nature has its development, living beings have their evolution, and merely human beings can, but don't have to have history.

Human beings have to have development (cp. nature), have to have evolution (cp. living beings), but they do not have to have history, but they can have history.

[finishedman]

No, 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.