Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

Care about what? He left the question open ended? Like a blank check? If he did it was in the Nietzchean sense of analysis. The alalysis of chaos, if meaning can not be reinstated structurally, Yes? One always needs an object, or objects, if one is not to fall into the absurd regressions of both Ayer and Russell. But that object is only for general consumption, and ‘caring’ as some kind of general resurrection via the general notion of the above mentioned reductions, means a failure of understanding the artifacts(tools) used to avoid the total collapse. Being, Dasein, as specific ideas in-them-selves, are unforgiving and unforgattable pre-requisites, toward a general sense of unification.
Before we can care with a blank check for others, we have to care for ourselves… That caring is easier said than done, but can not be done, until it is understood…This is why the above philosopher begs on the concept of the Superman.

[size=150]WHO exactly[/size] left the question open ended?

I suspect he meant Friedrich Adolf Sorge … but … ?

Dasein IS an open ended question.The who is not,
besides, that.

But you asked for the “who”, Obe!

Arminius, just because there is a ? after a phrase, doesen’t mean, it relates to questions of identity. In my case it was a double entendre,of implying the implicit union of the subjective with Dasein. I nevr implicated Serge to have a monopoly on it. As a matter of fact, it was after i posted that blog and became aware of the sorry and short life of thos poor man, who was not explicitly a philosopher.

Obe (Orb), you started your question with „he“ - see:

So I asked you whom you meant. Who is „he“?

Oh i see. Yes it is Sorge, and the open enddness has to do with the wide interpretation of caring. Sorry about that.

To the noun “Sorge” refers the personal pronoun “it”, not the personal pronoun “he”. Or do you mean a person with the name “Sorge”? Who is “he” in your sentence: “He left the question open ended?”, Obe (Orb)?

Actually, i left it open ended, from caring, James came close by guessing Friedrich Sorge, but actually it turned out to be Reinhard Sorge, a youthful Nietzchean whose claim was that only certain select men can really belong the the highest ideal type. Do
not ask me about how and why i present this identity as the form of caring, but i really believe, form is not accessible substantively. My own identity (perceived)
from obe to orb is such is equally enigmatic, and i
could go into how i believe a virtual identity is replacing a conventionally adopted one, butthat would be straying from Peter Sloterdijk’s open
endedness of what caring is all about. Caring has
been reduced, admittedly, to various modes, before it’s specific application can be seen for what it is. It may be even most generally been transvalued into
other forms, because, the world has changed so
much in the last hundred years, that it is no more, a neighborly, recognizible place. The oen endedness is variously frought by the search: The search for the
old, the search for the neighberhood, in fact the
search of a history which i hazard inferquently recreate within the Dasain of psychedelic reintegrative, formulas, an alchemical attempt of
both: a simultaneous attempt at bringing together
the hermeneutics (interpretation) and description. This type of bringing together , is what dadaism and cubism is all about, Goethe said in Faust p1-‘I have 2
souls in my breast.’ As Goethe was the original in
respect to the developments of both Schopenhauer and Nietzche, I do not believe neither of whom has successfully resolved the old with the new, the ring,
has yet to re-open, in terms of basic understanding,
nor, in any revealing identifiable nature of the Dasein. Identity becomes a cloud, over a subtle sky, and it is only through the mystery and magic of its
own self desription, that union may be achieved.
Reinhard Sorge is one such an example with whom, we may seek eternal union, even if, if in passing,it’s idea became vaguely apparent through the magic of
the internet’s ability to become cognizant of an
accidental tourist as him. (or i for that matter) Now i am sure, Arminius, You may take this as an example of reading into the implications of the loaded chance
of becoming aware, of whom? Doesen’t matter what
caring brings to the surface, who or even what it is, what does matter is that the ring retain it’s magic fire. Persona disappear, only if their eruption briefly
light the magic fire of once having lived, loved, and

You really meant Reinhard Johannes Sorge?

Should I conclude from your answer that you know the German language?

At the time , yes. The concept of open ended-ness, coincides with a dilution. Ideas can be taken out of context, on the premis of the relatedness of any tow ideas. All ideas can be deconstructed nominally, and the excess aren’t left floating in a totally redundant field, they too form patterns along a time line of abandonment. They may re align and forming and reforming other patterns, into a new totality. The End of History should not shut out any and all relative patterns, that’s is how critical it is, no boulder should be left unturned, not even ones professing a re-establishment of some kind of transcendent possibility. This is the function of modernity, to find peace within a technique of possibilities, a new humanity. Even a mistake may have some presently unknown reason for coming up.

That’s like: All ideas can be annihilated - by nihilists of course.

A little… I studied it at school, and speak fluent Dutch.

Did you know that Huntington was Fukuyama’s teacher at Havard?

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 always invent 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 plants, the environment, the planet Earth, and so on. But is this historically really significant / meaningful?

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,…

But historical sequencing as a developing process has. It took a few hundred years, but with the end of an upward spiral of sequencing, the need to literate it structurally and designate it post structurally, points to an affective-meaningful effort to convert the previously subliminal nature of the process into a literal guide, lest we get lost. The signal has subsumed the sign, the media the message. History has been replaced by interpretation of the arrangement of the signs, of positioned and counter positioned spatio temporal arrangements, without beginning or end points. The final cause and effect as a spatio temporal arrangement of facts, has finally destroyed the progressive movement of a historical development, instead an unbound back and forth movement between the structure and it’s interpretation, its internal logic and it’s semantic manifestation, has replaced it.

There is a hidden cause to the collapse of history,many it is the increasing rate of change of the historical movements themselves, the instability of any particular interpretation as having an effect.
The 50 years of communism, is but a mere dot on a map of thousands of years of imperial domain, such as the case with the now fallen empires, which had time spans of a thousand years.

The 50 years of communism was the last death knoll of the Heglelians process, an unwarranted conversion
Which could be likened to say the short durations of various Europian conflicts, such as the Thirty Years War. the major wars of the twentieth century, for instance, were of significantly shorter duration, ten years at most. A nuclear war fought today internationally, would have a time lapse far shorter, maybe concluding in a matter of months or even weeks, if not days. History is a signification of temporal events, and as uncertainty rises,to the political level , it reverberates the shortness of duration, from the effects, to the affects accompanying the interpretations.

The end of history is not the actual nihilization of time, but the interpretation of the passing of it. De ontology is an RX, for changing the view, that this process can be likened to a run away train, unstoppable, with destination The Singularity. With historical inevitability seen as a retrogression rather then a progression, this interpretation can be avoided. The Singularity in this way,mill present a different picture, likened to a black hole effect, where, there can never really be a journey through the Schwartzchild horizon. It is only an effect. Temporal duration stretches as the limits are approached. At the very limit, there is an infinite expansion, science fools us to believe it’s possible, but the Creation ‘knows’ better than that.

When it comes to understand the “end of history” in the Hegelian sense, one has to know what Hegel exactly meant by “Staat” (“state”), especially by “Rechtsstaat” (“constitutional state”, “state of law”), by “Geist”, especially by “absoluter Geist” (“absolute spirit” [but unfortunately “Geist” is not perfectly translatable]), and, of course, by “Geschichte” (“history”), and by some or many more words and concepts.