Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

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.

Nobody, thus also no philosopher, can really be sure of the term “end of history”, because the definitions of “history” are unfortunately too many and too different. Therefore it is worth to talk about it philosophically in order to find something like an universal definition, but I think that exactly that is not possible. We do not know for sure how “history” and “historicality” can be exactly defined. Can they be defined by e.g. existence philosophy? Should we at first try to define what “historical existence” is? I did it - for example in this thread with the following post:


Some of them may be too important, so that we need to rate them among evolution but not history; some of them may be too unimportant, so that we need to rate them among events but not history; but some of them may be neither too important nor too unimportant, so that we need to rate them among history. :-k


Probably we have to wait before we judge. Maybe there will be a great war because of e.g. Israel. A great war definitely means history.

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?

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.

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).

I also can’t really believe that history in the narrower sense has ended.

According to the fact that I am merely asking whether hostory has ended or not I can say that in some cases is has and in other cases it has not ended. So the conclusiobn is that histoy has probably not ended.

Cyborgs are such a fundamental change that I would say that such a development is more evolutionarily than historically significant, and this does not mean that it is not historically significant.

A long way?
[size=200]=> … => … => … => … =>[/size]

A wrong way?


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”

The end of History will be AD, (After the DNA Machine.) After this age, a new era of happiness and prosperity will begin.

The ways to make money that produce nothing are increasing.

Would you mind describing how your “DNA Machine” works?

Yes, and this has been becoming a dictatorship of inflationism, 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.

How will that end?

That will end catastrophically.

The cultural world as an enclosed simulation or matrix separate from nature and evolution?

The end of human history?

An extrapolation of entropy in terms of human civilization concerning its own demise perhaps.

Ridiculous religious notions aside it sounds like to me existential decline and stagnation due to lost momentum concerning various collapse scenarios. There are indeed multiple scenarios in which modern civilization could indeed collapse.

Human nature doesn’t change.

Transhumanism essentially means the end of social organization so there’s that also and I definitely would classify that as the end of human history.