Arminius wrote:Did the history essentially end with Hegel, especially with his 1807 published work "Phänomenologie des Geistes"?
Dissatisfied people don't want the end of history, because they invent, look for, and find new "victims" like the workers as the proletariat, the women, the homosexuals (gays, lesbians, "transsexuals"), the underclass, the blacks, the non-whites, the immigrants, the maniacs, the non-smokers, the children, the body, the animals, the environment, the planet Earth, and so on. But is this historically really significant / meaningful?
Orb wrote:Hegel's definition of the end of history is ambiguous as he defines it, according to the encyclopedia of philosophy, probably because he was not really sure of it.
=>Arminius wrote: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“).
James S Saint wrote:There was still many very significant historical events after Hegel; the Internet, the formation of Israel, the collapse of the USSR, the overthrow of the USA, the space race age, artificial intelligence,...
=>Arminius wrote: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.“
James S Saint wrote:I still think that I am not grasping what it is that you are calling "history" when you say that something that is "too important" is not history. How can anything be too important and yet not be history?
Arminius wrote:You do not think that humans are created by God, do you?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:You do not think that humans are created by God, do you?
Of course they are, but that is irrelevant.
So you are talking about the end of significant cultural or social changes as being "the end of history". And I still think that the advent of the internet (for example) is a significant change in culture and society and thus is an "historical" event (along with many others previously listed). And in the relatively near future, there is the reformation of the Americas and Europe. So I can't believe that social/cultural history has ended.
James S Saint wrote:Some people, no doubt, believe that globulization of homosapian ends history because they think that such is the final, never changing state. It is not the final state. The glob will breakup to form a new, unpredictable rearrangement of (hopefully) humanity (else machinery, but probably cyborg-ishness).
The ways to make money that produce nothing are increasing.Arminius wrote:Increasingly states, companies and private households reach the point, from which on the credit no longer opens but blocks the future: Growing debt services saps ever larger parts of current income - until the line is exceeded, beyond which older debts only be postponed by a cascade of new debts in a permanently paralyzed tomorrow. This situation deserves to be called "post-historical": It completely fulfills Arnold Gehlen's classic definition of the posthistoire as a state of high "mobility above the stationary bases" - while one would like to replace the word "stationary" by the word "untenable"
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:The end of History will be AD, (After the DNA Machine.) After this age, a new era of happiness and prosperity will begin.
Moreno wrote:The ways to make money that produce nothing are increasing.Arminius wrote:Increasingly states, companies and private households reach the point, from which on the credit no longer opens but blocks the future: Growing debt services saps ever larger parts of current income - until the line is exceeded, beyond which older debts only be postponed by a cascade of new debts in a permanently paralyzed tomorrow. This situation deserves to be called "post-historical": It completely fulfills Arnold Gehlen's classic definition of the posthistoire as a state of high "mobility above the stationary bases" - while one would like to replace the word "stationary" by the word "untenable"
.Yes, and this has been becoming a dictatorship of inflation-ism, especially since the 15t of August 1971 when the US president Richard Nixon reversed the gold backing. This is just a bastard economy
Amorphos wrote:.Yes, and this has been becoming a dictatorship of inflation-ism, especially since the 15t of August 1971 when the US president Richard Nixon reversed the gold backing. This is just a bastard economy
The bank of England sold quite a lot of its gold because it was no longer needed as a basis for money. I expect American banks done the same. Its like free money! They first make the value of things upon the worth of gold, then keep the worth and sell the gold lol. I noticed that the Chinese are big on buying gold, which is jolly good of them muhahaha. All the west needs now is to get their hands on the Chinese money markets so they can drain all the wealth back, the Chinese however can see that coming hence keep stopping it.
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:I still think that I am not grasping what it is that you are calling "history" when you say that something that is "too important" is not history. How can anything be too important and yet not be history?
Evolution is more natural than cultural, wheras history is more cultural than natural. It is a difference - often even a huge difference - whether living beings like the human beings develop naturally or culturally. It is a difference whether the brain of the humans has grown or the constitutional state is established by the Occidental humans. Evolution is more important than history when it comes to naturally survive. Evolution came before history - the revers is not possible. At first you, for example, have to change from an animal to an human before you can change from an natural human with natural and cultural evolution to a cultural human with natural and cultural evolution and then to a cultural human with history, thus with natural and cultural evolution, and - now: of course - cultural history.
On the way from an animal to an human:
Humans without history (in the narrower sense):![]()
Humans with history (in the narrower sense):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You do not think that humans are created by God, do you?
Arminius wrote:phyllo wrote:The end of history is a political and philosophical concept that supposes that a particular political, economic, or social system may develop that would constitute the end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history
The end of humanity's evolution and change comes when everyone is dead.
There is a difference between the "end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution" and the "end of humanity's evolution". The diffrence is namely the culture!James S Saint wrote:It is often attempted, with moderate success, to erase all knowledge of prior history so as to establish a new age founded on new premises (usually rewriting history so as to hide the old). Does that count as an "end of history"?
Maybe as a pre-stage of (the idea of) the "end of history", but not really.James S Saint wrote:So what does "End of History" really mean?
The "end of history" means the end of all great narratives, of all great stories, of all "historical existence" (Ernst Nolte), of all culture, of all great wars, and so on.James S Saint wrote:I, a bit like Hegal, can tell you where it ends up and why, but not when or how it gets there... or even what kind of species remains. Who is to be in the real Heaven? It is looking very suspiciously like it isn't going to be human (as we were discussing on the other thread). Would that constitute an "End of History", the end of humanity?
Some people may say that the time after the end of history is "haeven on earth", some other people may say that the time after the end of history is "hell on earth". There is no real historical develoment, nothing to do that really counts, boredom, happiness, perhaps it is the (last) age with machines, before the machines will completely replace all human beings (you remember!) - this all depends upon the people's evaluation.
phyllo wrote:The culture will change as long as humans change. Humans change as long as they are alive.There is a difference between the "end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution" and the "end of humanity's evolution". The diffrence is namely the culture!
You can see change happening very clearly as each new generation rejects the current culture and creates its own. You could say that when humans become immortal, there will be no more children who would be rejuvenating the culture. That might be the end of history.
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:Well, I can tell you that it is a "Heaven" scenario, not a "Hell".
And the reason is simply that a part of the activity going on involves inspiring the joy of attending to things that are of actual need. By that means, not only does the person (or whatever) maintain eternal existence, but also enjoys doing so; ie. "Heaven". The only problem in the past was understanding what really is of actual need. But that isn't an issue anymore.
So the Eternal Hell scenario is out.
The other option is the Abyss, wherein everything gets totally lost, as in perhaps that "Black-hole" scenario.
Are you not afraid of the „Last Men“ (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche), or of scenarios which are similar to some written stories, for example by Herbert George Wells, Aldous Huxley, or George Orwell?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users