Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

[Arminius]

We have an effect on the way of the future progresses, but who is "we"? The main effect comes frome about 1% of all humans, the effect of about 19-20% of all humans is still considerable, but the effect of about 79-80% of all humans is quite inconsiderable. The latter do what the former want them to do. Basical is the effect of the 1% of all humans, regardless wether the form of government is monarchy/tyrannis, aristocracy/oligarchy, or democracy/ochlocracy. Who decided, decide, and will decide wether or not there is war, for example? 1% of all humans! The other humans (99%) can not change very much. And if there will be no war, no historical existentials, no history anymore, then that will probably be the time of the "last men" (Friedrich W. Nietzsche).

[The Artful Pauper]

Sure, I can understand and accept that, but what I don't really understand is what you feel should be the result of that realization. Are you saying that because only a small percent of individuals effect history on a grand scale, that "we", and for the sake of this conversation we can say that "we" is me, you, anyone else reading, and others we come into contact with who we would have an influence upon, should stop even trying to make changes is the world? I'm not saying that is what you are implying for certain, but it's a little unclear and it seems to me that might be the implication.

I am not looking for easy answers (like some joyous burst of inspiration "we should all join together and change the world!"). I am often quite a pessimist but I don't really see any point in accepting a deeply fatalistic interpretation and living by it without making an attempt.

Would you care to elaborate on what you feel should be done (even if you do not wish to project those kinds of categories on others, I don't know what you desire)? I'm sure some such understanding must guide your own actions.

Also to clarify, when I asked you before about where you place your effort, it was not in some attempt to prove you haven't lived up to some expectation I had (if you even thought that), it is just that I wonder sometimes how interrelated the stances we take are with our outlook and how that connects with how we act. I honestly don't believe that I've accomplished some great thing. I have been ruled by fear for much of my life, it's not something I'm proud of. History for me is integrally connected to my own positioning as a subjective being, it was that that interested me in this thread and in the 'End of History' debate in general. For me philosophy is integrally related to how individuals can understand the world and act.

I'm not saying that last thought is something new, it's been integral to philosophy and prerhaps contemplation prior to the written text, but I do think a lot of philosophical contemplation has moved away from that concern. It is not really important how we act (we here being the philosophers in question and their audience). Many philosophers live their lives through institutions with very structured repetitive behaviours, maybe they always have because there has always been deep structures to social life. (Roles and Institutions, pre-prescribed paths of development)

One of the reasons I had difficulty getting into the understanding of the way history is theorized in this thread is because I had always learned about history prior as being embodied in the written text. Human life before writing (or our possession of the writing of the time) being categorized as pre-history.

I am just wondering, do you think it would be significant or insignificant if a group of people (however large) created narrative texts (with real events, ideas and what have you) and passed them down among others that came to form the group throughout various generations. Would this be beyond the scope of history? Are we defining history as only what is recognized globally? To put it another way, does it only become history because it is recognized globally? If the same transmissions (texts, maybe other artifacts) were later "discovered" or otherwise brought forth to attention, does that make them part of history in a global understanding?

[Arminius]

What should the historian do? If the historian wanted to change something according to his feelings (for example), this historian would not be a real historian. Historians have to know and fix the hoistorical facts without any feelings and disturbance which comes from outside their bodies.

[Orbie]

I almost hate myself to coming to the realization, that unfortunately, Arminius, the percentages we have been pre-occupied with all along this forum have ALWAYS been as such, there seem to have always to have been such breakdown. Aristocracy was a long standing political stance, and perhaps that is the way society breaks down in almost predictable ways, based on inherent powers? This, incidentally is very Kantian, and categorical, so again, we come to the threshold between the pseudo idealism of Leibniz and the ethical 'practicality' of Kant. And the more i think of it, the more it seems that the 'should' of Kant has reserved a sustenance of a continuation between himself and Leibniz. So in a sense, he foresaw the either/or problem in a historical continuum of consciousness. That his logic is flawed, is another matter. But for his time, it was passable.

[The Artful Pauper]

What should the historian do? If the historian wanted to change somethinga according to his feelings (for example), this historian would not be a real historian. Historians have to know and fix the hoistorical facts without any feelings and disturbance which comes from outside their bodies.

How did the historian come into this? I was talking about we as individuals acting. The main parts of my previous comment that referrenced historians (I think) was about whether history must be globally recognized and on the other hand small groups passing down history. I didn't make any implication of historians changing facts that I'm aware of, only individuals acting to influence history.

[Arminius]

I almost hate myself to coming to the realization, that unfortunately, Arminius, the percentages we have been pre-occupied with all along this forum have ALWAYS been as such, there seem to have always to have been such breakdown. Aristocracy was a long standing political stance, and perhaps that is the way society breaks down in almost predictable ways, based on inherent powers? This, incidentally is very Kantian, and categorical, so again, we come to the threshold between the pseudo idealism of Leibniz and the ethical 'practicality' of Kant. And the more i think of it, the more it seems that the 'should' of Kant has reserved a sustenance of a continuation between himself and Leibniz. So in a sense, he foresaw the either/or problem in a historical continuum of consciousness. That his logic is flawed, is another matter. But for his time, it was passable.

Why do you call Leibniz' idealism a "pseudo idealism", Obe?

[Arminius]

How did the historian come into this?

Come into what, please?

I didn't make any implication of historians changing facts that I'm aware of, only individuals acting to influence history.

That's right.

[Orbie]

I almost hate myself to coming to the realization, that unfortunately, Arminius, the percentages we have been pre-occupied with all along this forum have ALWAYS been as such, there seem to have always to have been such breakdown. Aristocracy was a long standing political stance, and perhaps that is the way society breaks down in almost predictable ways, based on inherent powers? This, incidentally is very Kantian, and categorical, so again, we come to the threshold between the pseudo idealism of Leibniz and the ethical 'practicality' of Kant. And the more i think of it, the more it seems that the 'should' of Kant has reserved a sustenance of a continuation between himself and Leibniz. So in a sense, he foresaw the either/or problem in a historical continuum of consciousness. That his logic is flawed, is another matter. But for his time, it was passable.

Why do you call Leibniz' idealism a "pseudo idealism", Obe?

Leibniz has a milder form from that of the classic versions, but far less so than Kant's.

Here is a quote from him to de Volder:(June 30, 1704,)


"It follows from the very fact that a continuous mathematical body cannot be resolved into primary constituents. That it is also not real but something mental and designates nothing but the possibility of parts, not anything actual"

contrast this with Kant:1783/4

"The mathematical properties of matter (e.g.infinite divisibility, proves that space and time belong not to the properties of things, but to the representation of things in sensible intuition."


Arminius, here the trend is the differentiation of the concept of the thing (re-presentation) and the thing-in-it's- self, can be seen . Descartes total disassociation of the thing and the thought of the thing was a problem for Leibniz, because he was at a cross---point, he had to incorporate the classic into the newly evolving de-objective perspectives, which by gradient, seem to have become too prominent as signified objects, or objects of attention. In other words, the classic symbols have started to contract, with the political-economic undertow, seeming to deflect, the reflection into it's nemesis, the structural insecurity holding up the whole edifice. He didn't go as far as to try to synthesize this edifice, and his ideas were an attempt to sustain the whole, by predicating the parts of which the whole was built up, by their dependence on the ideal, the whole. Kant went farther, and treated the whole as totally unavailable to perception, it was revealed through re-presentations of the intuition of the whole.

[Arminius]

Leibniz has a milder form from that of the classic versions, but far less so than Kant's.

Yes, but that doesn't justify to call his idealism a "pseudo idealism", does it?

[Arminius]

I am not looking for easy answers (like some joyous burst of inspiration "we should all join together and change the world!").

"We should all join together and change the world!" That sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward.

The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!

Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can't stop even when they believe that they really need to.

[The Artful Pauper]

How did the historian come into this?

Come into what, please?

Come into the conversation.

I didn't make any implication of historians changing facts that I'm aware of, only individuals acting to influence history.

That's right.

And you confirm that I made no statement that would warrant us talking about historians changing history...

I am not looking for easy answers (like some joyous burst of inspiration "we should all join together and change the world!").

"We should all join together and change the world!" That sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward.

The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!

Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can't stop even when they believe that they really need to.

That sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward.

Do you think you're making a Nietzschean statement here about affirming eternal return? Nietzsche thought there was a progression to be made from Christianity to nihilism to the affirmation of eternal return. If you think it is Nietzschean it is ridiculous. Nietzsche affirmed existence as all becoming. You might be more comfortable with the eternal forms.

Den Conservativen in’s Ohr gesagt. — Was man früher nicht wusste, was man heute weiss, wissen könnte —, eine Rückbildung, eine Umkehr in irgend welchem Sinn und Grade ist gar nicht möglich. Wir Physiologen wenigstens wissen das. Aber alle Priester und Moralisten haben daran geglaubt, — sie wollten die Menschheit auf ein früheres Maass von Tugend zurückbringen, zurückschrauben. Moral war immer ein Prokrustes-Bett. Selbst die Politiker haben es darin den Tugendpredigern nachgemacht: es giebt auch heute noch Parteien, die als Ziel den Krebsgang aller Dinge träumen. Aber es steht Niemandem frei, Krebs zu sein. Es hilft nichts: man muss vorwärts, will sagen Schritt für Schritt weiter in der décadence (— dies meine Definition des modernen „Fortschritts“…). Man kann diese Entwicklung hemmen und, durch Hemmung, die Entartung selber stauen, aufsammeln, vehementer und plötzlicher machen: mehr kann man nicht. —

You admit that you would like history to end:

The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!

And I said,

I am not looking for easy answers (like some joyous burst of inspiration "we should all join together and change the world!").

yet you respond as if that was precicely what I asked for.

It seems like you aren't interested having a straightforward discussion, in which case I'm done here.

[Arminius]

That sentence is a term of those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward.

Do you think you're making a Nietzschean statement here about affirming eternal return?

No.

Nietzsche thought there was a progression to be made from Christianity to nihilism to the affirmation of eternal return. If you think it is Nietzschean it is ridiculous. Nietzsche affirmed existence as all becoming. You might be more comfortable with the eternal forms.

Den Conservativen in’s Ohr gesagt. — Was man früher nicht wusste, was man heute weiss, wissen könnte —, eine Rückbildung, eine Umkehr in irgend welchem Sinn und Grade ist gar nicht möglich. Wir Physiologen wenigstens wissen das. Aber alle Priester und Moralisten haben daran geglaubt, — sie wollten die Menschheit auf ein früheres Maass von Tugend zurückbringen, zurückschrauben. Moral war immer ein Prokrustes-Bett. Selbst die Politiker haben es darin den Tugendpredigern nachgemacht: es giebt auch heute noch Parteien, die als Ziel den Krebsgang aller Dinge träumen. Aber es steht Niemandem frei, Krebs zu sein. Es hilft nichts: man muss vorwärts, will sagen Schritt für Schritt weiter in der décadence (— dies meine Definition des modernen „Fortschritts“…). Man kann diese Entwicklung hemmen und, durch Hemmung, die Entartung selber stauen, aufsammeln, vehementer und plötzlicher machen: mehr kann man nicht. —

Das ist nicht das, was ich meinte.

Do you know German?

You admit that you would like history to end:

The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!

No. That sentence is directed against the following sentence of Karl Marx: "Die Menschen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt aber darauf an, sie zu verändern."

And I said,

I am not looking for easy answers (like some joyous burst of inspiration "we should all join together and change the world!").

We should not change the world because the world is changed enough (see also above).

The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!

Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can't stop even when they believe that they really need to.

[The Artful Pauper]

Do you know German?

No, but I had reason to believe you do, and if you were going to reread that passage I thought you would enjoy it most in its original language.

Aber das ist nicht das, was ich meinte.

Fair enough (a figure of speech, meaning I accept that with all of my Christian humility).

That sentence refers to the following sentence of Karl Marx: "Die Menschen haben die Welt nur unterschiedlich interpretiert; es kommt darauf an, sie zu ändern."

Is it then only from the influence of Marx you would like to protect the world?

The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!

Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can't stop even when they believe that they really need to.

I personally think there is reason to desire change in the world from the way it is. I am less concerned with changing the whole world than I am clearing a pathway through which I can move and continue to create (create by acting, being, not representing). I don't think a world revolving around the production and consumtion of (many) useless objects will continue anyway, why not at least attempt to influence the direction society moves?

I'm sure you could kick my ass in German philosophy (almost the only country worthy of the title (philosophy)). After all, I spent most of my youth crying over The Idiot, and that was only a few years ago.

[Arminius]

Do you know German?

No, but I had reason to believe you do, and if you were going to reread that passage I'm sure you would enjoy it most in its original language.

Yeah. Well done, Thank you.

Aber das ist nicht das, was ich meinte.

"Das ist nicht das, was ich meinte" = "That is not that, what I meant".

You admit that you would like history to end:

That sentence refers to the following sentence of Karl Marx: "Die Menschen haben die Welt nur unterschiedlich interpretiert; es kommt darauf an, sie zu ändern."

Is it then only from the influence of Marx you would like to protect the world?

No. As I said: it is the influence of all those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward. I don't believe in such an eternal progress without any return or other direction than straightforward.

The world has been changed enough; it is important to protect it from those who want to change it!

Unfortunately the changing of the world will not stop because they can't stop even when they believe that they really need to.

I personally think there is reason to desire change in the world from the way it is. I am less concerned with changing the whole world than I am clearing a pathway through which I can move and continue to create (create by acting, being, not representing). I don't think a world revolving around the production and consumtion of (many) useless objects will continue anyway, why not at least attempt to influence the direction society moves?

Because of the backlash; the probabilty for the opposite direction is too high. Please tell me what you exactly want to influence?

I'm sure you could kick my ass in German philosophy (almost the only country worthy of the title (philosophy)).

Thank you.

After all, I spent most of my youth crying over The Idiot, and that was only a few years ago.

Crying? Really?

[The Artful Pauper]

No. As I said: it is the influence of all those who believe in progress as an eternal process without any return or other direction than straightforward. I don't believe in such an eternal progress without any return or other direction than straightforward.

Because of the backlash; the probabilty for the opposite direction is too high. Please tell me what you exactly want to influence?

I won't say that I'm not the one you're protecting the world against, maybe I am? I accept risk, nothing is without risk.

Ultimately I would like to influence a lot of things, but if I had to narrow it down to one (albiet complex) trend, then it would be the way people are introduced to and conceive one another. As it is, I feel that we introduce ourselves not as we conceive or understand ourselves but most frequently as situationally constructed expectations. My hope is not that we will all love each other, I don't think that is possible, but at least more realistic. Probably the main quality of our introductions is related to career. "Hello, how are you, this is what I do (ie, this is what I am, or what I am worth)". Or in a related sense as a list of qualifications "this is what I've done (what standard I have lived up to)".

I think a lot could come of this because it would do much to break down the rigidly formed barriers in our minds (this is how people are, this is how people should be). Ultimately, something similar would remain, people will always have expectations. The reason I want to break those down are because they are socially constructed expectations that maintain designated fields of action and proper conduct. Maybe it's impossible. I have thought that humans are probably ideologically dogmatic because they are either easily satisfied or else have found the means of their satisfaction, I have no intention of taking that away from anyone, but I still need to continue on my Quixotic endeavour because everyone seeks their means of satisfaction, even if it is unattainable.

I understand what it means to affirm nature and the way things are, I still wouldn't say I am there. I am thankful of Nietzsche for revealing to me my ressentiment, but I haven't overcome it.

Crying? Really?

Yes. I've never been "truly Christian", but still I was enamored by the image of the "saint". I also cried while reading Insulted and Humiliated. I was even so far gone that when I read Kierkegaard's "Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing" I cursed my heart for being impure... sad but true story.

(How I read The Idiot at the time:

Nastasya had a strong spirit and character because she suffered from a belief that she was bad (I forget why now, but I think it is because she desired life). Myshkin saw that she was a strong spirit and wanted to help her accept herself (affirm herself in the terminology of this post). She wouldn't and the strength of her spirit was wasted (through the eyes of Myshkin), and it destroyed him. Myshkin wanted to play the saviour to his ideal, but he was not God, he could not make her into something she was not. So the tragedy was doubled, Myshkin could not live up to his own ideal either.)

I understand this idealism (a projected good) that can drag us down. It can even make us mean and nasty when we believe we are the embodiment of all that is good. But this is also why I am always trying to bring philosophy down into myself and deal with it there.

Do you think that having this view from above it all is another idealism?

To put that question in a very different way, do you think that the ones we call the masters (or the 1%, or 20%, etc.) have acted in all innocence, or have acted out of an idealism, just an idealism that isn't fooled by a false conception of what others call "good"?

[Arminius]

"Jeder Grieche hat einen Zug von Don Quijote, jeder Römer einen von Sancho Pansa - was sie sonst noch waren, tritt dahinter zurück." (Oswald Spengler, "Der Untergang des Abendlandes", 1917, S. 50).
Translation:
"Each Greek has a trait of Don Quixote, each Roman has a trait of Sancho Panza - what they were otherwise, recedes behind that." (Oswald Spengler, "The Decline of the West", 1917, p. 50).
Who could be a "Don Quixote" today? Who could be a "Sancho Panza" today?

I understand this idealism (a projected good) that can drag us down. It can even make us mean and nasty when we believe we are the embodiment of all that is good. But this is also why I am always trying to bring philosophy down into myself and deal with it there.

Do you think that having this view from above it all is another idealism?

To put that question in a very different way, do you think that the ones we call the masters (or the 1%, or 20%, etc.) have acted in all innocence, or have acted out of an idealism, just an idealism that isn't fooled by a false conception of what others call "good"?

I think, they do exactly that what is typical for humans or for Occidental humans. Have you read the book "Faust" by Johannn Wolfgang (von) Goethe, or "The Decline of the West" by Oswald Spengler? No one could ever describe "Faust" as accurately as Goethe and Spengler. The Occidental humans (and only they) are Faustians, their (and only their) culture is a Faustian culture.

I recommend that two books, first Goethe's "Faust", then Spengler's "Decline of the West".

Geographically the Occidental culture means the North, West, Central, Southwest, and some Western parts of East Europe. In the following maps you can see the Eastern border of the Occidental culture as a black line in the left map and as a White line in the right map:

"Grenze des Abendlandes" = "Eastern border of the West (Occident)".

"Abendland" (= "West / Occident)" means the Western part of Europe, especially Germany, England, France, Italy, and the Iberian peninsula. The German word "Abendland" literally means "evening land".

[Arminius]

The author of "The Idiot" was a Russian, and Russia has never been a part of the Western culture. All Orthodox Christians have never been a part of the Western culture. The border (see above) between the Catholic (incl. Protestant) Christians, thus the Westerners, and the Orthodox Christians has been existing as border since the 4th century, or earlier because the Roman Empire had been declining since the 2nd century.

Dostojewski believed in the Orthodox Christianity and didn't want Russia to copy the Western culture, but Russia had been doing it since tsar Peter ("the Great"). Probably Dostojewski's books were based on that two aspects. Do you agree?

[The Artful Pauper]

I think, they do exactly that what is typical for humans or for Occidental humans. Have you read the book "Faust" by Johannn Wolfgang (von) Goethe, or "The Decline of the West" by Oswald Spengler? No one could ever describe "Faust" as accurately as Goethe and Spengler. The Occidental humans (and only they) are Faustians, their (and only their) culture is a Faustian culture.

I recommend that two books, first Goethe's "Faust", then Spengler's "Decline of the West".

I read this part of your post last night and I had to take some time to think about it. I did read Faust part one about 8 years ago when I was 16 and admittedly I don't think I was ready for it, I mean it went over my head, particularly towards the end, I think Faust is confronted by spirits? I actually had the book by I left it in Canada when I moved to Europe last year, I was trying to take with my mainly non-fiction... about two years ago there was a time two years ago which would have been good for me to revisit it because I was becoming really interested in German literature, but I did not take some advice from Seneca not to go flitting around to different authors but instead study the ones you know and I really wanted to read Lenz and Achim von Arnim. It was just another symptom of this madness that always takes over me.

But I still understood what you were getting at with your post. I always realize that I want something that isn't natural above all so I've created an unfillable void and the result is actions like madness. I will keep in mind Faust because one day I will return to collect books, I left a lot of treasures behind, but maybe that thought is still part of the same symptom... seeing it all as "treasures", almost like I've become a gollum-like creature, or thinking that I can use the knowledge alchemically to transform the world (or myself -/- into gold).

Dostojewski believed in the Orthodox Christianity and didn't want Russia to copy the Western culture, but Russia had been doing it since tsar Peter ("the Great"). Probably Dostojewski's books were based on that two aspects. Do you agree?

That is a difficult question, regarding Dosteovsky. Maybe it's true. I am inclined to read a bit of what I see as the Faustian into his writings, but that could also just be a result of my own outlook skewing the interpretation.

One of my theories is that focus (what we chose to focus on, or where our focus lands) plays a large role on our thoughts, beliefs and actions. See when I read Brothers Karamazov I did not have a lot of attention for Alyosha, even though Dosteovsky wrote that he was the hero of the book, I was much more focused on Dmitry and Smerdyakov, and to me they are almost Faustian characters... but maybe that was also the point Dosteovsky was trying to make but I was just so allured by them. This is also idealism, when the image you create in your mind means more than what is ultimately there.

I don't really have any clear and great answers to these last responses of yours. This is really beyond me and where I am at. I appreciate them though.

Right now there is a lot of ideas in the culture about mindfulness, even gratitude (like this "new age spirituality") I've never really been able to attach to any of those things. I've even taken offense to them because this ideal I have is so beautiful and alluring, a world of high culture and passion.

I definitely have the western blood in me, with ancestry from Italy and scatterings around the UK and Ireland, so connections to those cultures, and I was brought up in Canada. Never seemed like the people I knew in Canada had that same Faustian drive, I think most people were uncomfortable with it. I'm not very familiar with Spengler's Decline of the West, but from the wikipedia I am taking his description of the Appolonian to be something like mindfulness and gratitude (if not so shallow). I think that outlook has spread a lot, or maybe it is just something like the resignation of the working classes.

We've definitely moved away from the End of History discussion, although I'm sure it is related if only vaguely. I probably projected this Faustian desire onto my image of history — never satisfied.

Is this tragic? (I saw that The Decline of the West said that the Faustian spirit is ultimately tragic.) I was thinking before that since Romanticism brought tragedy into the realm of beauty, and many people look at romanticism as being ridiculous or immature, that the new tragedy is riculousness, or maybe I was just seeing it through the mirror and it's just that tragedy has become ridiculous.

Do you think Nietzsche was beyond the Faustian? It seems like ultimately he still saw the actor as continuing this progress, just with more acceptance and strength and less naivety.

Mir scheint dagegen die wichtigste Frage aller Philosophie zu sein, wie weit die Dinge eine unabänderliche Artung und Gestalt haben: um dann, wenn diese Frage beantwortet ist, mit der rücksichtslosesten Tapferkeit auf die Verbesserung der als veränderlich erkannten Seite der Welt loszugehen. [Richard Wagner in Bayreuth, 3]

He does say to find out what is alterable and lay the focus on that, and in that sense it is not Faustian in the sense of unobtainable... but does the alteration have an ultimate goal that is acheivable? Accepting the world as it is — is this a way beyond the Faustian?

[Arminius]

"Tolstoi ist das vergangene, Dostojewski das kommende Rußland." (Oswald Spengler, "Der Untergang des Abendlandes", 1917-1922, S. 792).
Translation:
"Tolstoi is the past, Dostojewski the coming Russia." (Oswald Spengler, "The Decline of the West", 1917-1922, p. 792).

In Russia, Spengler sees a young, undeveloped culture laboring under the Faustian (Petrine) form. Peter the Great distorted the tsarism of Russia to the dynastic form of Western Europe. The burning of Moscow, as Napoleon was set to invade, he sees as a primitive expression of hatred toward the foreigner. This was soon followed by the entry of Alexander I into Paris, the Holy Alliance and the Concert of Europe. Here Russia was forced into an artificial history before its Culture was ready or capable of understanding its burden. This would result in a hatred toward Europe, a hatred which Spengler argues poisoned the womb of emerging new culture in Russia. While he does not name the culture, he claims that Tolstoy is its past and Dostoyevsky is its future.

"Tolstoi ist mit seinem ganzen Innern dem Westen verbunden. Er ist der große Wortführer des Petrinismus, auch wenn er ihn verneint. Es ist stets eine westliche Verneinung. .... Der echte Russe ist ein Jünger Dostojewskis, obwohl er ihn nicht liest, obwohl und weil er überhaupt nicht lesen kann. Er ist selbst ein Stück Dostojewski. .... Das Christentum Tolstois war ein Mißverständnis. Er sprach von Christus und meinte Marx. Dem Christentum Dostojewskis gehört das nächste Jahrtausend." (Oswald Spengler, "Der Untergang des Abendlandes", 1917-1922, S. 792, 794).
Translation:
"Tolstoy with his whole inside is connected to the West. He is the great spokesman of Petrinism, although he denies it. It is always a Western denial. .... The real Russian is a disciple of Dostoevsky, though he does not read it, though, and because he can not read. He himself is a piece of Dostoevsky. .... The Christianity of Tolstoy was a misunderstanding. He spoke of Christ and meant Marx. The next millennium belongs to the christianity of Dostoevsky." (Oswald Spengler, "The Decline of the West", 1917-1922, p. 792, 794).

[Orbie]

Leibniz has a milder form from that of the classic versions, but far less so than Kant's.

Yes, but that doesn't justify to call his idealism a "pseudo idealism", does it?

Some have, though, by his( Leibniz) referencing Spinoza's ideal. (Irish Journal of Philosophy), so it's not my coining of the term.

[Orbie]

"Tolstoi ist das vergangene, Dostojewski das kommende Rußland." (Oswald Spengler, "Der Untergang des Abendlandes", 1917-1922, S. 792).
Translation:
"Tolstoi is the past, Dostojewski the coming Russia." (Oswald Spengler, "The Decline of the West", 1917-1922, p. 792).

In Russia, Spengler sees a young, undeveloped culture laboring under the Faustian (Petrine) form. Peter the Great distorted the tsarism of Russia to the dynastic form of Western Europe. The burning of Moscow, as Napoleon was set to invade, he sees as a primitive expression of hatred toward the foreigner. This was soon followed by the entry of Alexander I into Paris, the Holy Alliance and the Concert of Europe. Here Russia was forced into an artificial history before its Culture was ready or capable of understanding its burden. This would result in a hatred toward Europe, a hatred which Spengler argues poisoned the womb of emerging new culture in Russia. While he does not name the culture, he claims that Tolstoy is its past and Dostoyevsky is its future.

"Tolstoi ist mit seinem ganzen Innern dem Westen verbunden. Er ist der große Wortführer des Petrinismus, auch wenn er ihn verneint. Es ist stets eine westliche Verneinung. .... Der echte Russe ist ein Jünger Dostojewskis, obwohl er ihn nicht liest, obwohl und weil er überhaupt nicht lesen kann. Er ist selbst ein Stück Dostojewski. .... Das Christentum Tolstois war ein Mißverständnis. Er sprach von Christus und meinte Marx. Dem Christentum Dostojewskis gehört das nächste Jahrtausend." (Oswald Spengler, "Der Untergang des Abendlandes", 1917-1922, S. 792, 794).
Translation:
"Tolstoy with his whole inside is connected to the West. He is the great spokesman of Petrinism, although he denies it. It is always a Western denial. .... The real Russian is a disciple of Dostoevsky, though he does not read it, though, and because he can not read. He himself is a piece of Dostoevsky. .... The Christianity of Tolstoy was a misunderstanding. He spoke of Christ and meant Marx. The next millennium belongs to the christianity of Dostoevsky." (Oswald Spengler, "The Decline of the West", 1917-1922, p. 792, 794).

Arminius, it is intriguing to explore the notion which Dostoevsky's 'Double' plays into this thema, a pivotal piece, very much relevant to the-transitional phase, of creating a direct line of relevance. The idea of eternal recurrance is related to repetition, and the difference is explored by post modern philosophers, as not at all linear. This is where Leibniz becomes relevant, as an agent of concepts, bypassing Kant, making him far more relevant. So You were correct, and incorrect at the same time. Leibnitz's postmodern relevance, is primary, though, but not sustained by such thinkers as Marcuse and Chomsky.

Spengler's main influences were Nietzsche and Goethe, and it is very interesting to note, that Goethe's main influence was Leibniz, yet partly unbeknown to himself.These breaks of succeeding thoughts are very much relevant to Dostoevsky's 'Double' , and accounted for by the difference between a simple double (mirroring) and a complex double, where reflections cause other reflections .

In part, here, i am trying to pull together thoughts which i have missed out on in relation to the ongoing study about the end of history, and am introducing them as mirroring Your correspondence with The Artful Pauper as he described his early attempt to organize a reading list. So , please, pick and choose relevance here, and bypass what is not, and for give the possible redundancy

.

[Arminius]

Spengler's main influences were Nietzsche and Goethe, and it is very interesting to note, that Goethe's main influence was Leibniz, yet partly unbeknown to himself.

Yes, that's right.

"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 Spengler, "Der Untergang des Abendlandes", 1917, S. IX).
Translation:
"Finally, it urges me to once again mention the names, 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 had been in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, a disciple of Leibniz." (Oswald Spengler, "The Decline of the West", 1917, p. IX).

Have you read Spengler's "Decline of the West", Obe?

[Orbie]

Spengler's main influences were Nietzsche and Goethe, and it is very interesting to note, that Goethe's main influence was Leibniz, yet partly unbeknown to himself.

Yes, that's right.

"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 Spengler, "Der Untergang des Abendlandes", 1917, S. IX).
Translation:
"Finally, it urges me to once again mention the names, 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 had been in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, a disciple of Leibniz." (Oswald Spengler, "The Decline of the West", 1917, p. IX).

Have you read Spengler's "Decline of the West", Obe?

I have, but it was with conjunction with research done on this thread, so my memory of detail was subliminal.

[Arminius]

And my translation is okay for you, Obe?

[Orbie]

Arminius, what should i say NOT? I recall taking tutoring from a "Frau Mendel" when around 5-7 years old and lived and worked at casual labor in Linz, in the sixties, but not to presuppose any authority on the subject.

But i did read Spengler way back, so the reading i have done, in all fairness, is a refresher.