Page 6 of 17

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 3:47 am
by Arminius
obe wrote: That begs the question of whether such a machine could sustain itself without being tempted by fear.

Therefore my other thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings?

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 6:37 am
by Sauwelios
Moreno wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:3. The "end of history["] is _not_ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher; the idea _may_ be realised.

As Leo Strauss wrote;
It seems like your evidence in favor of the realisation is that N and/or one of his interpreters Thinks it is possible.


Being a hard determinist, I think the end of history will either happen or not. My "may be" is the expression of my knowledge of my ignorance in this regard. All I know is that it has not (yet) come about. I know this because I know I myself and others don't want it to come about, and as long as there is dissent it has not come about. I also know what philosophers are capable of. I understand why the end of history is theoretically possible--namely, due to the fact that nature has become a problem--, and I know the mechanism by which the problem is to be solved. In fact, my current signature quote is all about this.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 6:52 am
by Sauwelios
Arminius wrote:The "Last Men" represent the people after the end of history, and the "Overman" represents the philosopher who is able, and only able, to prevent the end of history.

But does that prevention really "work"? And, if so, who will be such an "Overman" in the face of the development which seems more to prevent him than he to prevent the end of history?


The philosopher is completely prevented when, and only when, the end of history has come about. Preventing it, however, does not mean postponing it--not even indefinitely. It means bringing about a new beginning of history. It means bringing about historical recurrence.

N.B. Nietzsche did will the eternal recurrence, but found it boastful to say so: hence "Zarathustra". Only by the time of his last works did he consider the situation sufficiently dire to risk appearing boastful.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 5:13 pm
by Historyboy
Why not? Animals have no memory at all. Why do you think the Last man is the end? Why not the Last ant?

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 5:23 pm
by Orbie
Sauwelios wrote:
Arminius wrote:The "Last Men" represent the people after the end of history, and the "Overman" represents the philosopher who is able, and only able, to prevent the end of history.

But does that prevention really "work"? And, if so, who will be such an "Overman" in the face of the development which seems more to prevent him than he to prevent the end of history?


The philosopher is completely prevented when, and only when, the end of history has come about. Preventing it, however, does not mean postponing it--not even indefinitely. It means bringing about a new beginning of history. It means bringing about historical recurrence.

N.B. Nietzsche did will the eternal recurrence, but found it boastful to say so: hence "Zarathustra". Only by the time of his last works did he consider the situation sufficiently dire to risk appearing boastful.




I was under the impression he liked the limelight. Maybe he thought he went overboard. But if the situation was/is as dire, as he thought, wouldn't the message have trumped any perception of that overboard-overcoming? (With the exception of the general population.) I would think, he was primarily talking to other philosophers, so boasting would maximally have been perceived as inelegant. My feeling is he was concerned about misinterpretation and it's diffusion into the general populace. And isn't exactly that, what has happened?

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 6:55 pm
by Arminius
Sauwelios wrote:3. The "end of history is _not_ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher; the idea _may_ be realised.

Your 3. point is included in the topic of my thread, included in my OP.

Sauwelios wrote:"Regardless of whether or not Nietzsche knew of Marx' writings, he questioned the communist vision more radically than anyone else. ...." (Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil", paragraph 30. Cf. Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 91-92.)

Very interesting is that the name "Marx" is not mentioned in Nietzsche's works.

Sauwelios wrote:I think the end of history will either happen or not.

That is what I say. :)

Sauwelios wrote:My "may be" is the expression of my knowledge of my ignorance in this regard. All I know is that it has not (yet) come about.

That is what I say. :)

Sauwelios wrote:I know this because I know I myself and others don't want it to come about, and as long as there is dissent it has not come about. I also know what philosophers are capable of. I understand why the end of history is theoretically possible--namely, due to the fact that nature has become a problem--, and I know the mechanism by which the problem is to be solved.

Yes. But according to "the fact that nature has become a problem" Contra-Nietzsche means that it is merely founded by the "Green Movement", which is merely a German movement, and it is typical German to "find a grand solution" (=> #).

Sauwelios wrote:In fact, my current signature quote is all about this.

Your current signature quote:

Sauwelios wrote:"The superman's Dionysian will to overpower would save the past from drowning in democracy's shallow waters by willing the eternal return of past inequalities.
The superman's willing of this eternal return is possible only if his will can emancipate itself from hatred of its past, a hatred responsible for modern egalitarian demands to be liberated from that past. [...] Modern thinkers culminating in Nietzsche made men aware that human creativity or technology was not limited by anything. Nietzsche feared that contemporary egalitarians would employ this unlimited power to create a world of universal peace and equality. He yearned for a superman whose will to overpower nihilism and egalitarianism would use modernity's immense power to create the eternal return of the past's inequality and wars. Then there would be no wars to end all wars." (Harry Neumann, _Liberalism_, pp. 164-66.)

Who is Harry Neumann?

Sauwelios wrote:
Arminius wrote:The "Last Men" represent the people after the end of history, and the "Overman" represents the philosopher who is able, and only able, to prevent the end of history.

But does that prevention really "work"? And, if so, who will be such an "Overman" in the face of the development which seems more to prevent him than he to prevent the end of history?

The philosopher is completely prevented when, and only when, the end of history has come about. Preventing it, however, does not mean postponing it--not even indefinitely. It means bringing about a new beginning of history. It means bringing about historical recurrence.

Yes, but it can also fail. And it is very difficult and hard to bring the history back after the end of history has begun. So optimally the philosopher has to do his work before the history ends.

Sauwelios wrote:N.B. Nietzsche did will the eternal recurrence, but found it boastful to say so: hence "Zarathustra".

Yes, of course. That's known. But we don't have always to concentrate on Nietzsche when it comes to talk about the end of history (cp. my OP.)

In extracts:

Arminius wrote:The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was the first one who came to that conclusion, which became a „starting signal“ for many people, e.g.:
Karl Marx with his concept of the paradise after the dictatorship of the proletariat - a Left-Hegelian ideology,thus a reference to Hegel;
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche with his concept of the „last men“;
Oswald A. G. Spengler with his reference to Goethe and Nietzsche, especially with his concept of the decline of culture and the assumption that with
    the utmost probability there will be no more culture after the decline of the occidental culture;
Martin Heidegger with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche;
Ernst Jünger with his reference to Spengler (Nietzsche, Goethe);
Alexandre Kojève (Alexandr Koschewnikov) with his his reference to Hegel;
Ernst Nolte with his reference to Heidegger (Hegel and Nietzsche);
Peter Sloterdijk with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche;
Francis Fukuyama with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche.

There have been many more, and I think that they all have been either Hegelians or Nietzscheans (incl. Spenglerians and Heideggerians).

For example the two youngest on the list: Sloterdijk and Fukuyama:

Arminius wrote: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.“

What do you think about the thoughts of Sloterdijk and Fukuyama relating to the end of history?

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 11:43 pm
by Historyboy
This people don't know what history is based on, they still believe in "philosophy" as if it is not already their own end.

Only people who aspire a world domination can make history, only those with an unbroken evil will, those where every second person is called Vladimir. And not Koch, Kaufmann, Bäcker, Müller ... Industry is for old dying people.

Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:33 am
by Arminius
      Brav/e Slav/e Vladimir.

          The boy with the weak brain,
              and here he goes again:

               "Brsgwdsvkrkpmxwic"
              which is slavish, slavic.

                  He has no idea,
                   he is Vladimir.

              He has a tributary toy,
              his so called Cezarboy.

                      (Refrain)

              Brav/e Slav/e Vladimir,
                 he has no idea,
           but he has a creeping toy,
             his tributary Cezarboy.

    A.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 12:56 am
    by Arminius
    obe wrote:
    Sauwelios wrote:
    Arminius wrote:The "Last Men" represent the people after the end of history, and the "Overman" represents the philosopher who is able, and only able, to prevent the end of history.

    But does that prevention really "work"? And, if so, who will be such an "Overman" in the face of the development which seems more to prevent him than he to prevent the end of history?

    The philosopher is completely prevented when, and only when, the end of history has come about. Preventing it, however, does not mean postponing it--not even indefinitely. It means bringing about a new beginning of history. It means bringing about historical recurrence.

    N.B. Nietzsche did will the eternal recurrence, but found it boastful to say so: hence "Zarathustra". Only by the time of his last works did he consider the situation sufficiently dire to risk appearing boastful.
    I was under the impression he liked the limelight?

    At least he had known his publicity for many years. Nevertheless: actually he was shy. Besides: Who doesn't like the limelight, especially after a time of acclimatisation?

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:20 am
    by Sauwelios
    Arminius wrote:
    Sauwelios wrote:3. The "end of history is _not_ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher; the idea _may_ be realised.

    Your 3. point is included in the topic of my thread, included in my OP.

    Sauwelios wrote:"Regardless of whether or not Nietzsche knew of Marx' writings, he questioned the communist vision more radically than anyone else. ...." (Strauss, "Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil", paragraph 30. Cf. Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 91-92.)

    Very interesting is that the name "Marx" is not mentioned in Nietzsche's works.

    Sauwelios wrote:I think the end of history will either happen or not.

    That is what I say. :)

    Sauwelios wrote:My "may be" is the expression of my knowledge of my ignorance in this regard. All I know is that it has not (yet) come about.

    That is what I say. :)


    You may have said that in your thread, but you definitely do not say it in your OP, which is what I replied to.


    Sauwelios wrote:I know this because I know I myself and others don't want it to come about, and as long as there is dissent it has not come about. I also know what philosophers are capable of. I understand why the end of history is theoretically possible--namely, due to the fact that nature has become a problem--, and I know the mechanism by which the problem is to be solved.

    Yes. But according to "the fact that nature has become a problem" Contra-Nietzsche means that it is merely founded by the "Green Movement", which is merely a German movement, and it is typical German to "find a grand solution" (=> #).


    That's not what I meant, though it does have some connection to it. As I wrote in early 2012,

      I think the fundamental problem of our era, which was also Nietzsche's era, is the conquest of nature. The conquest of nature was "commanded and legislated" (cf. Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211) by Machiavelli, Bacon, and Descartes (among others) for the sake of philosophy, which was gravely threatened by Christianity back then. The scientific revolution instigated by those philosophers was what "killed" the Christian god, for which "killing" we should be most grateful. However, just as the religious revolution instigated by Socrates and Plato et al. was first beneficial but later became detrimental to philosophy, the revolution instigated by Machiavelli et al. has now itself led to a grave threat to philosophy. For "genuine philosophers" (again BGE 211) like the ones mentioned above belong to the formidable exceptions among men, and those exceptions are now in threat of becoming obsolete to the rule, the many, because of the technological advancements that in the West have made life easy for the many, who now no longer need such formidableness (which is indispensable in real crises).

      The dire situation of many animals is just one of the consequences of what Heidegger called nature's reduction to a Bestand, a standing reserve, a resource. The real problem is paradoxically not that animal rights are not being respected, but the conceited notion of the existence of any rights at all! There's no such thing as natural rights; men are not naturally entitled to accommodate the rest of nature to their needs. But neither are they naturally forbidden to. Therefore, there's only one way to counteract the continuing exploitation of nature; and that consists precisely in the ideal of the eternal recurrence, in the wish that everything, including all the woes that befall animals---and of course men, too, are animals---, recur eternally... For by wishing for the eternal recurrence of all things, one manifests oneself as the counterideal to the ideal of the man who wallows in "wretched contentment" (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, 3)---as an Übermensch as opposed to a Last Man. And only this ideal, "the ideal of the most high-spirited, most alive, and most world-affirming man" (BGE 56), can raise people out of their comfy animal-hide armchairs---if only by offending them!


    Sauwelios wrote:In fact, my current signature quote is all about this.

    Your current signature quote:

    Sauwelios wrote:"The superman's Dionysian will to overpower would save the past from drowning in democracy's shallow waters by willing the eternal return of past inequalities.
    The superman's willing of this eternal return is possible only if his will can emancipate itself from hatred of its past, a hatred responsible for modern egalitarian demands to be liberated from that past. [...] Modern thinkers culminating in Nietzsche made men aware that human creativity or technology was not limited by anything. Nietzsche feared that contemporary egalitarians would employ this unlimited power to create a world of universal peace and equality. He yearned for a superman whose will to overpower nihilism and egalitarianism would use modernity's immense power to create the eternal return of the past's inequality and wars. Then there would be no wars to end all wars." (Harry Neumann, _Liberalism_, pp. 164-66.)

    Who is Harry Neumann?


    Yes, that's who he is, or was--thank you for that link, I didn't even know he was dead (though I'm not surprised; he must have been _ancient_!).


    Sauwelios wrote:
    Arminius wrote:The "Last Men" represent the people after the end of history, and the "Overman" represents the philosopher who is able, and only able, to prevent the end of history.

    But does that prevention really "work"? And, if so, who will be such an "Overman" in the face of the development which seems more to prevent him than he to prevent the end of history?

    The philosopher is completely prevented when, and only when, the end of history has come about. Preventing it, however, does not mean postponing it--not even indefinitely. It means bringing about a new beginning of history. It means bringing about historical recurrence.

    Yes, but it can also fail. And it is very difficult and hard to bring the history back after the end of history has begun. So optimally the philosopher has to do his work before the history ends.


    Well, Nietzsche willed the eternal recurrence the same century Hegel published his Phenomenology. That publication may well mark the end of the beginning of the end of history, but it certainly does not mark the point at which history had completely ended. It still has not completely ended. Yes, it would have been optimal to prevent it from even _starting_ to end, but then again, less than optimal conditions, to say the least, are precisely the optimal conditions of the philosopher!

      "[A]ll the world bewails today the evil situation of the philosopher in _earlier_ times, hemmed in between the stake, bad conscience, and the arrogant wisdom of the Church Fathers: the truth, however, is that precisely this was a much more favorable condition for the education of a powerful, comprehensive, cunning and audaciously daring spirituality than the conditions of life at present. Today, another kind of spirit, namely the spirit of the demagogue, the spirit of the actor, perhaps also the scholarly beaver- and ant-like spirit, finds conditions favorable. But things are so much the worse even for superior artists: for are they not, almost all of them, perishing from lack of inner discipline? They are no longer tyrannized over from without by a church's tables of absolute values or those of a court; thus they also no longer learn to develop their 'inner tyrants,' their will. And what is true of artists is true in a higher and more fateful sense of philosophers. For where are there free spirits today? Show me a free spirit today!--" (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, Kaufmann edition, section 464.)


    Sauwelios wrote:N.B. Nietzsche did will the eternal recurrence, but found it boastful to say so: hence "Zarathustra".

    Yes, of course. That's known. But we don't have always to concentrate on Nietzsche when it comes to talk about the end of history (cp. my OP.)

    In extracts:

    Arminius wrote:The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.

    Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was the first one who came to that conclusion, which became a „starting signal“ for many people, e.g.:
    Karl Marx with his concept of the paradise after the dictatorship of the proletariat - a Left-Hegelian ideology,thus a reference to Hegel;
    Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche with his concept of the „last men“;
    Oswald A. G. Spengler with his reference to Goethe and Nietzsche, especially with his concept of the decline of culture and the assumption that with
        the utmost probability there will be no more culture after the decline of the occidental culture;
    Martin Heidegger with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche;
    Ernst Jünger with his reference to Spengler (Nietzsche, Goethe);
    Alexandre Kojève (Alexandr Koschewnikov) with his his reference to Hegel;
    Ernst Nolte with his reference to Heidegger (Hegel and Nietzsche);
    Peter Sloterdijk with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche;
    Francis Fukuyama with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche.

    There have been many more, and I think that they all have been either Hegelians or Nietzscheans (incl. Spenglerians and Heideggerians).

    For example the two youngest on the list: Sloterdijk and Fukuyama:

    Arminius wrote: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.“

    What do you think about the thoughts of Sloterdijk and Fukuyama relating to the end of history?


    The Christian idea of a heavenly afterlife was indeed preferable to that of a "Heaven on Earth", i.e., the end of history. And as for eros and thymos: _most_ people are erotic rather than thymotic; but the rather thymotic do indeed tend to dominate history, so they have to be overruled by the rather logic, the philosophers. The Machiavellian mechanism, as found in Bacon's New Atlantis, was this: to promote a social system in which scientists and inventors--a species of the thymotic--are praised and rewarded for improving the lives of the masses. By this mechanism, modern philosophers overruled another species of the thymotic, the religious zealots of the time of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Contra-Reformation. By Nietzsche's time, however, it had led to the threat of the end of history.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 5:27 am
    by Arminius
    Sauwelios wrote:You may have said that in your thread, but you definitely do not say it in your OP, which is what I replied to.

    Yes, I didn't say it; therefore I said: "Your 3. point is included in the, included in my OP." Included. Not directly said, but indirectly. Anyway, it is quite important to say it directly. So thank you for writing it!

    Sauwelios wrote:
    Arminius wrote:But according to "the fact that nature has become a problem" Contra-Nietzsche means that it is merely founded by the "Green Movement", which is merely a German movement, and it is typical German to "find a grand solution" (=> #).


    That's not what I meant, though it does have some connection to it. As I wrote in early 2012,

      I think the fundamental problem of our era, which was also Nietzsche's era, is the conquest of nature. The conquest of nature was "commanded and legislated" (cf. Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211) by Machiavelli, Bacon, and Descartes (among others) for the sake of philosophy, which was gravely threatened by Christianity back then. The scientific revolution instigated by those philosophers was what "killed" the Christian god, for which "killing" we should be most grateful. However, just as the religious revolution instigated by Socrates and Plato et al. was first beneficial but later became detrimental to philosophy, the revolution instigated by Machiavelli et al. has now itself led to a grave threat to philosophy. For "genuine philosophers" (again BGE 211) like the ones mentioned above belong to the formidable exceptions among men, and those exceptions are now in threat of becoming obsolete to the rule, the many, because of the technological advancements that in the West have made life easy for the many, who now no longer need such formidableness (which is indispensable in real crises).

      The dire situation of many animals is just one of the consequences of what Heidegger called nature's reduction to a Bestand, a standing reserve, a resource. The real problem is paradoxically not that animal rights are not being respected, but the conceited notion of the existence of any rights at all! There's no such thing as natural rights; men are not naturally entitled to accommodate the rest of nature to their needs. But neither are they naturally forbidden to. Therefore, there's only one way to counteract the continuing exploitation of nature; and that consists precisely in the ideal of the eternal recurrence, in the wish that everything, including all the woes that befall animals---and of course men, too, are animals---, recur eternally... For by wishing for the eternal recurrence of all things, one manifests oneself as the counterideal to the ideal of the man who wallows in "wretched contentment" (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, 3)---as an Übermensch as opposed to a Last Man. And only this ideal, "the ideal of the most high-spirited, most alive, and most world-affirming man" (BGE 56), can raise people out of their comfy animal-hide armchairs---if only by offending them!

    Okay, I merely refered to Contra-Nietzsche's argument in order to get perhaps a counter-argumnent from you. It's not important anymore.

    Sauwelios wrote:Well, Nietzsche willed the eternal recurrence the same century Hegel published his Phenomenology. That publication may well mark the end of the beginning of the end of history, but it certainly does not mark the point at which history had completely ended. Yes, it would have been optimal to prevent it from even _starting_ to end, but then again, less than optimal conditions, to say the least, are precisely the optimal conditions of the philosopher!

    I agree.

    Sauwelios wrote:The Christian idea of a heavenly afterlife was indeed preferable to that of a "Heaven on Earth", i.e., the end of history. And as for eros and thymos: _most_ people are erotic rather than thymotic; but the rather thymotic do indeed tend to dominate history ....

    That's what I've meant, yes. So we have to focus on both thymos and eros as the two focuses (foci) of the ellipse of life, as I sometimes say.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 7:48 am
    by Historyboy
    On the end of his-story:

    β) Von der Entstehung neuer Bündnisse etc. während des Verfalles. §. 363.

    §. 363.

    So verwandeln sich denn also die alten Staaten-Bündnisse und Bundesstaaten in monarchische, weil die Reiche selbst nur noch Monarchien sind a). Dies allein ist schon ein Unglück. Dazu kommt aber sehr oft noch, dass verfallende Nationen und Staaten die Begierde und die Eroberungssucht noch gesunder wenn auch meist auf einer tieferen Stufe etc. stehender Völker reizen und diese in ihnen eine wollkommene Beute sehen. Von allen Seiten durch sie umringt, angegriffen und geplündert, so dass man ihnen den Frieden abkaufen muss, wählt man endlich, wenn es noch anwendbar, das Mittel, sich mit ihnen zu verbünden, sie als Freunde oder Gäste sogar in das Land aufzunehmen. Doch diese kennen zu gut ihre Stärke und die Schwäche ihrer nominellen Freunde, warum sollten sie nur Gäste seyn, wo sie die Herrn seyn können, wenn sie nur wollen. Eine Beschwerde ist leicht gefunden und eine Schlacht macht den verfallenen Staat zu ihrem Eigenthum. Mögen daher die Monarchen verfallner Staaten, alle Bünde erneuern, lösen oder neue schliessen, sie sind und bleiben am Ende doch die Beute noch gesunder Nationen.

    a) Ein noch gesunder kräftiger Gros-Staat, wenn er auch nothwendig einer monarchischen Regierungsform bedarf, ist deshalb noch keine Monarchie, denn seine Existenz als Gros-Staat hängt nicht allein davon ab. Erst mit dem innern moralischen und nationalen Verfalle, wo es nur noch jene Regierungs-Form und das persönliche Interesse des Regenten ist, welche einen solchen Gros-Staat zusammenhalten, verwandelt er sich in eine Monarchie. Sapienti sat. [Dem Weisen ist ausreichend]

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:03 pm
    by Only_Humean
    Arminius, please keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand and not the personal character of other posters. Otherwise, warnings will follow. This holds for all posters in this thread.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:03 pm
    by Only_Humean
    Arminius, please keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand and not the personal character of other posters. Otherwise, warnings will follow. This holds for all posters in this thread.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:03 pm
    by Only_Humean
    Arminius, please keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand and not the personal character of other posters. Otherwise, warnings will follow. This holds for all posters in this thread.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:03 pm
    by Only_Humean
    Arminius, please keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand and not the personal character of other posters. Otherwise, warnings will follow. This holds for all posters in this thread.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:32 pm
    by James S Saint
    O_H, try not to be redundant. 8)

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:35 pm
    by James S Saint
    History can always be created and/or rewritten. So the question is whether the incentive to do that will ever become insignificant. Androids will probably reach that stage. Humans probably won't.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 7:37 pm
    by monad
    James S Saint wrote:History can always be created and/or rewritten. So the question is whether the incentive to do that will ever become insignificant. Androids will probably reach that stage. Humans probably won't.


    If history can be rewritten wouldn't that fictionalize history and create a long novel out of it. I always thought that the historical process consists of rinsing fiction out of history in order to create a more accurate tableau of our dubious activities. There's a lot of 20th century history still in arrears for that kind of purification.

    The End of History occurs when history is no-longer written but imagined.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 7:57 pm
    by James S Saint
    monad wrote:
    James S Saint wrote:History can always be created and/or rewritten. So the question is whether the incentive to do that will ever become insignificant. Androids will probably reach that stage. Humans probably won't.


    If history can be rewritten wouldn't that fictionalize history and create a long novel out of it.

    Seems that way so far. Have you ever watched "Reality TV"? Were you aware that the entire thing was totally fictional? How would you know? How would you know how much history has been massaged and/or invented? Many professors (especially the French) proclaim that all of it is fictional and always will be.

    monad wrote: I always thought that the historical process consists of rinsing fiction out of history in order to create a more accurate tableau of our dubious activities. There's a lot of 20th century history still in arrears for that kind of purification.

    Of course, that is what you are supposed to think.
    What? Did you expect them to say, "Okay, we have invented a new history for the Middle East now. You can download it at http://www..."

    Why do you expect people to let you know when they are deceiving you?

    monad wrote:The End of History occurs when history is no-longer written but imagined.

    Why do you think they keep saying, "Reality is only in your mind"?

    Ten generations from now, there might not have ever been a WW1, much less WW2. Who will be there to argue?

    It has been proposed that someone very prominent is soon to finally announce to the world that space aliens have finally arrived, along with obvious proof of it. How would you know whether they are lying or not? If the media promotes it, it won't be long before the majority accepts it, whether they ever really believed it or not. Another generation, and it will be incontrovertible fact - "historical events created" - and no one the wiser.


    Yes, I know. No one lies on TV without you finding out about it. How else would you know who to believe?

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 8:18 pm
    by Arminius
    Only_Humean wrote:Arminius, please keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand and not the personal character of other posters. Otherwise, warnings will follow. This holds for all posters in this thread.

    Haven't you read the "Cezarian comments" which caused that what only you mean, Only Humean?
    Haven't you noticed the "previous history" of that what only you mean, Only Humean?

    Why don't you throw out that stalker, that troublemaker, that most arrogant troll of this forum?
    Why is he allowed to insult anybody and everybody? And why are other posters not allowed to criticise that bad personal character?

    James S Saint wrote:Arrogant Troll ≡ Anyone speaking anything other than "Good Philosophy". => #

    Does a philosophy forum with the name "I Love Philosophy" really want nothing else than bad "philosophy"?

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 9:50 pm
    by Arminius
    James S Saint wrote:History can always be created and/or rewritten. So the question is whether the incentive to do that will ever become insignificant. Androids will probably reach that stage. Humans probably won't.

    With the utmost probability, yes, but humans had had their very, very long time without any history, so it is also possible that in the future humans will again have no history, and therefor the androids will help them very much.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 7:19 am
    by monad
    James S Saint wrote:
    monad wrote:
    James S Saint wrote:History can always be created and/or rewritten. So the question is whether the incentive to do that will ever become insignificant. Androids will probably reach that stage. Humans probably won't.


    If history can be rewritten wouldn't that fictionalize history and create a long novel out of it.

    Seems that way so far. Have you ever watched "Reality TV"? Were you aware that the entire thing was totally fictional? How would you know? How would you know how much history has been massaged and/or invented? Many professors (especially the French) proclaim that all of it is fictional and always will be.

    monad wrote: I always thought that the historical process consists of rinsing fiction out of history in order to create a more accurate tableau of our dubious activities. There's a lot of 20th century history still in arrears for that kind of purification.

    Of course, that is what you are supposed to think.
    What? Did you expect them to say, "Okay, we have invented a new history for the Middle East now. You can download it at http://www..."

    Why do you expect people to let you know when they are deceiving you?

    monad wrote:The End of History occurs when history is no-longer written but imagined.

    Why do you think they keep saying, "Reality is only in your mind"?

    Ten generations from now, there might not have ever been a WW1, much less WW2. Who will be there to argue?

    It has been proposed that someone very prominent is soon to finally announce to the world that space aliens have finally arrived, along with obvious proof of it. How would you know whether they are lying or not? If the media promotes it, it won't be long before the majority accepts it, whether they ever really believed it or not. Another generation, and it will be incontrovertible fact - "historical events created" - and no one the wiser.


    Yes, I know. No one lies on TV without you finding out about it. How else would you know who to believe?


    What all this seems to imply based on what you write is there can be no End of History because it never even started. We could instead interpret it as if it were some long soap opera encompassing thousands of volumes. This would seem to make history suspect of being more of a Virtual Reality story but I'm not willing to go that far. The stories have to come from somewhere but I will concede that if we could time travel to events which history now records much would have to be rewritten with a corresponding shock of historical proportions to our system.

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 8:52 am
    by Arminius
    The "end of history" is not a very much fixed term.

    Arminius wrote:According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following „historical existentials“, which are translated by me ( [-o< or =D>):

    • 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!

    => #

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

    Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

    PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 10:51 am
    by Arminius
      "The superman's Dionysian will to overpower would save the past from drowning in democracy's shallow waters by willing the eternal return of past inequalities. The superman's willing of this eternal return is possible only if his will can emancipate itself from hatred of its past, a hatred responsible for modern egalitarian demands to be liberated from that past. [...] Modern thinkers culminating in Nietzsche made men aware that human creativity or technology was not limited by anything. Nietzsche feared that contemporary egalitarians would employ this unlimited power to create a world of universal peace and equality. He yearned for a superman whose will to overpower nihilism and egalitarianism would use modernity's immense power to create the eternal return of the past's inequality and wars. Then there would be no wars to end all wars." (Harry Neumann, _Liberalism_, pp. 164-66.)
    Nietzsche's doctrine includes 3 large teaching pieces:

      (1) Übermensch ("Overman", "Superman");
      (2) Ewige Wiederkehr ("Eternal Return");
      (3) Wille zur Macht ("Will to power").