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.
Arminius wrote:1.) Is the „end of history“ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised?
2.) Is the „end of history“ not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea had, has, or will have been realised?
2.1) Has the „end of history“ been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) ended?
2.2.) Has the „end of history“ been realised since 1989/'90, when the „Cold War“ ended?
2.3.) Will the „end of history“ have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century?
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.
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"?
James S Saint wrote:So what does "End of History" really mean?
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?
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!
phyllo wrote:The culture will change as long as humans change.
phyllo wrote:Humans change as long as they are alive.
phyllo wrote: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.
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.
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?
James S Saint wrote: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?
I consider those to be the hell on Earth that preceded the final anentropic stage. It is similar to now, but worse, wherein lives are just wasted needlessly because some idiot on top arranged it to be that way and idiots beneath him thought it was necessary to arrange a holy city surrounded by a human trash bin (separating heaven and Earth). The final era is completely different, with or without humans.
The Eloi and the Morlocks are a temporary stage.
Arminius wrote:Did you see the film "Time Machine" in the 1959 version?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:Did you see the film "Time Machine" in the 1959 version?
Sure, and also the more recent version.
They are actually telling of the present, very slightly exaggerated.
The Morlocks are the social engineers.
The Eloi are pretty much everyone else.
It is actually pretty similar to The Matrix wherein the Eloi are those trapped in the machine dream world. The Architect and the "programs" are the Morlock. On the Zionist side in the film, they also have their version of Eloi and Morlock (their own programmers) but don't show that part much.
Arminius wrote:Do you know, whether Wells knew Nietzsche very much? I ask because Wells' Eloi are similar to Nietzsche's „Last Men“, and when Wells published his „Time Machine“ (1895), Nietzsche was insane and unable to write, but all his books had already been known for a relative long time.
Uccisore wrote:I think the end of history is an individual thing right now. More and more people behave as though we are living after the end of history, and thus they make themselves unimportant in history.
Uccisore wrote:I don't think the number will ever reach 100%- history will continue for those who have power, but we are essentially living in a post-historical culture already.
James S Saint wrote:What would be the list of "historical essentials" to be eliminated?
Arminius wrote:James S Saint wrote:What would be the list of "historical essentials" to be eliminated?
That's a good question, and I have expected that question. But would you mind answering before I answer in a more detailed way?
James S Saint wrote:Arminius wrote:That's a good question, and I have expected that question. But would you mind answering before I answer in a more detailed way?
Oh geeez.. I'm not sure you want me doing that?
James S Saint wrote:As with all things, there is the actual and the mental model (including physics). Some refer to actual history, which can never be exactly known and some refer to "history" as being merely whatever is currently documented (and often erased and rewritten). The mind identifies or objectizes (forms a mental picture or as a mental object) situations or events and records them as historical events based on relevance.
Those who record history for sake of humanity, identify some things as relevant and others as irrelevant and document the relevant ones. New ages bring people who then erase or alter documents so as to further their chosen cause.
So the idea of no one ever documenting anything seen as relevant means that the age that has been entered regards no changes as relevant and thus either doesn't document them or merely documents them as an ambiguous repeated cycle. Or perhaps, as suggested, we simply stop calling it "our history" because there are no more humans to consider anything relevant.
As long as some living entity exists, there will always be a personal history relevant to that individual, at least. And it is hard for me to imagine even the possibility of life continuing in any form without any recording of social events marked as significant moments of change as far as those lives are concerned. Every small town and family has its historical events.
So the only thing that I could safely call the "historical essentials" that are being referred to would be the globally public announcements concerning globally significant events standing out above the average enough to be note worthy.
The greater issue is of course, the contrived historical announcing, a purely imaginary history for sake of an artificially propagated society being told of events so as to inspire them in certain ways even though those events never really occurred (The Matrix scenario). The more people believe what they are told via a news mediator, the more invention of history occurs and the less anyone knows of it being completely fake.
So to a public, history could never actually end because either the level of relevance will shift so as to make formerly irrelevant things noteworthy or invented historical scenarios will be told to them regardless of perhaps nothing actually relevant changing.
Arminius wrote:According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following „historical existentials“, which are translated by me:
• 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!
We know the path is decadence and the goal is death. it lasts 5 hundred years. From the second Persian war till Alexander have passed 150 years, since the second Punic war and Caesar 150 years. Each time after a great war democracy rises and republic dies (Athens was a republic until the parliament took all power from the Areopagus). The reason why democracy prevails in republics is that the masses take part in huge wars and see themselves as winners, not those who have guided them... they want now power and money, because they claim honor and glory in war. Then we see a slow perishing of the Julian dynasty and the number of Romans is falling until the final conquest through the Germans. It is always the same old boring story. How many years have passed since the second world war? Must the Slaws clean up the mess left behind Germans?
The only city which has survived the ancient Greek collapse and inhabits the offspring of ancient continental Greece is Monemvasia.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users