Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

I suppose I see Changes in media since the fall of the wall, since 9/11, so I see no way to determine history has ended under the criterion Changes in media. And since the modern trend is a mergence of media and self, the change is enormous. Where i live the amount of people who are scared without their cellphones and laptops and generally walk, drive, eat, bike and socialize while looking down at screens small and large, we post-humans are here. Only they are not some ubermencsh of a cyborg or some other flesh/machine intermingling, but they are just as post human to my Eyes. And rather pathetic. This trend could lead to the end of history. I just don’t quite know what happens when nearly eveyrone is no longer quite present at any time. This might lead to very unstable domino like effects.

“Übermensch”, “cyborg”, “flesh/machine-intermingling”, “post-human” remind me to my other thread:

Will machines completely replace all human beings?
If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call “Letzter Mensch” (“Last Man”). This “Last Man” will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.

At least the demographic development is one of the most importanrt “historical existentials”.

If a culture does not have enough children to rejuvenate itself, then the history of this culture ends. And if this culture has alraedy become the culture of all human beings, then the history of all human beings ends. Yet we do not exactly know, whether we have many cultures (and if yes: how many?) or merely one.

Anyway, the demographic development is one of the most importanrt “historical existentials”. Therefore I underlined the word “demographics” in the following cited list.

So, you don’t even know how many cultures you have? :laughing:

Don’t worry, you have only one. Each culture produces a few books which survive and are transferred to the second culture. As we know Romans have made their own collection of the Greek books which they took to Rome, it was called “Classics”.

I too have made a collection of books which will be transferred to the new culture. You can keep the New testament in return, it’s for old people!

Thank you and BYE!

According to the German cultural philosopher Oswald A. G. Spengler we know 8 historical cultures, according to the English cultural philosopher Arnold J. Toynbee we know 19 historical cultures. I think Spenglers theory of 8 historical cultures is right. Currently we have 4 „dead“ historical cultures and 4 historical cultures which are still „alive“. Maybe there will come a new one (perhaps Russia, Spengler said), but we do not know, and we also do not know whether the one and only culture has really existed and whether the one and only culture will exist. Institutions like World Bank, IWF, United Nations, … and so on … do not mean one culture. The fact that only one culture - the Faustian culture (also called: Western culture) - was able to discover, conquer, capture the whole planet Earth and in addition other parts of the universe is also no proof for the existence of one culture. a so called „universal culture“.

An „universal culture“ is merely ideology, new-religion.

If there will be merely one culture of the human beings, then all historical cultures of the human beings will have to be eliminated. But today the 4 historical cultures of the human beings are still „alive“.

But if that „one culture“ as the „universal culture“ will come, then the history probably will be eliminated.

Hear what rulers and their politicians have been preaching since 1989: „One world, one civilisation (culture), one religion, one financial system of course, one economy, one language, one media, one science, one technology, one ecology, one art, one city (no country), one sex / gender, one state (or no state), one education, one rule (leadership); and no nobility, no class, no state (or one state), no great war, no country.“ (And now look at the list again!) That means: No history!

According to Vollgraff, there is only one culture at the time. The still lasting is Anglosaxon. Before the Anglosaxon there was the Frankish, before that the Gothic, before the Gothic the Norman, then the Celtic, then the Latin … if the Frankish ended with Caesar in 1800 and the Gothic perhaps with Cesare Borgia, and the Norman with the conquests … I have the feeling that 2100 is Anglosaxon. It is almost 150 years after the ww2.

Vollgraff does not explicitly say Russians, but Nietzsche said “Russians will enter culture”, yet, I think I haven’t read more than 50% of Vollgraffs last Band. The answer may still come.

Spengler is a loser. Nietzsche must be a winner because he is fighting against the priestly ascetic idealism - the only cause why cultures are declining.

You western losers think decay is “inevitable”!

Capitalism as the thesis (cp. Hegel) and communism as the antithesis (cp. Hegel) are now integrated in the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). It is important to find the new antithesis (cp. Hegel) to the new thesis (cp. Hegel) which is set by the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). What could that new antithesis (cp. Hegel) be?

If there will be no new antithesis (cp. Hegel), then that new thesis (cp. Hegel) will probably be the “eternal thesis” as the so called “universal culture / civilisation” of the “Last Men” and the end of history.

I would call it corporatism because I think this leaves open more possibilities for antithesis. Given that corporatism is also self destructive and resisted locally in a diverse set of ways, it may not need a total system as an antithesis.

You are really a weak brain! What you describe is nothing but the transition from oligarchy and tyranny into democracy, after 292 and 293 of the Wanderer and the shadow.

Maybe, but isn’t corporatism at least partly incorporated in their synthesis (cp. Hegel) too?

Incorporation is akin to inclusion into, versus a synthetic development. Inclusion implies enclosing an entity into a system, without changing it. In that way incorporation can retain it’s identity, whereas synthesis is a new, changed form the dynamic combination of an element and its appearently contradictory system. Incorporation is begotten from the idea of a stable coexistenz of elements each retaining their identity, synthesis changes elements in the process. This feature enables a philosophical bypass into the very ontology of the process Hegel talks about. It is on basis of projection, that Heglelian results can be predicted, but not so with so called “free” enterprise, where game theory is best suited.

That is not to say that one type of analysis is preferable to the other, and in that, incorporation is weaker in terms of conclusiveness. However, It’s strength does manifest, in the wait and see attitude of corrections of variables related to the approximations. It can incorporate elements of Heglelianism into it’s dynamic, without changin either elements. My conclusion is that depending on the success or failure of globalism, one or the other analytic will prevail.

Incorporation is akin to inclusion into, versus a synthetic development. Inclusion implies enclosing an entity into a system, without changing it. In that way incorporation can retain it’s identity, whereas synthesis is a new, changed form the dynamic combination of an element and its appearently contradictory system. Incorporation is begotten from the idea of a stable coexistenz of elements each retaining their identity, synthesis changes elements in the process. This feature enables a philosophical bypass into the very ontology of the process Hegel talks about. It is on basis of projection, that Heglelian results can be predicted, but not so with so called “free” enterprise, where game theory is best suited.

That is not to say that one type of analysis is preferable to the other, and in that, incorporation is weaker in terms of conclusiveness. However, It’s strength does manifest, in the wait and see attitude of corrections of variables related to the approximations. It can incorporate elements of Heglelianism into it’s dynamic, without changing either elements. My conclusion is that depending on the success or failure of globalism, one or the other analytic will prevail.

That’s interesting.

And which one will prevail?

Communism and capitalism? I dont really think so. I think it is a kind of synthesis of capitalism and feudalism. Though I am not really Hegelian, so I don’t assume these kinds of steps.

Going along with the idea that it is more likely that technology will replace human labor to a large part, incorporation of antithetical systems will be superseded by technocratic methods. This will arise, because the failure of a synthetic Capitalistic(democratic)-socialist(communist) model to prevent a new social democracy to emerge, as a viable system. These methods will become incorporated within a system of apologia, wherein it will necessarily to veil the actual patent lack of resolution. Corporate fascism, probably of the machines, is likely, if “they” don’t watch out.

The feudalism doesn’t fit in the modern synthesis (cp. Hegel), but it could fit in a post-modern, the future synthesis (cp. Hegel), if there will be no “eternal thesis” as the so called “universal culture / civilisation” of the “Last Men” and the end of history. => #

There is a difference between the meaning of “corporation” in English and the meaning of “Korporation” in German. In the English language one can use the words “corporation” and “company” nearly synonymously. So, what do you exactly mean, when you speak about “corporation”? Do you mean the fascistic “corporation”?

Arminus, similarity can be found between medieval-capital and company-corporation, in that both capital and corporate are fairly newly arrived entities. Whether there is overlap in meaning between old and new derivations, do not take away the significance of the meaningful dynamic based on their function. German philosophy is geared toward meaning of words, and no wonder the Vienna circles of the positivists originated in Austria, a German speaking country. Nietzsche started his career with meaning theory.

The dynamic approach, of looking at systemic aspects of corporations, do not designate a specific entity,but look at incorporation as an ontological tool. Elements incorporated into a system, are not necessarily synthesized. The corporate way of thinking suggests, even in the political sphere, about, for instance, the incorporation of new states into the United States. In this sense, the individual states still regain their relative autonomy, at least in the formal, geopolitical sense. In Germany, the different states as Bavaria, Schwabia, and others, are not constituted in this manner. They are more federalized, slanting more toward the central authority geopolitically speaking. The homogeneity of their populations affords more unification. Fascism arises out of gross political misunderstanding of the dynamics and the identity of the elements in any culture. It happens when apparent unity is glosses over a thesis-antithesis disjunction. The result is a political dualism. In case social democracy, the word hides the disjunction caused by the ambiguity resulting from confusing democracy with capitalism, and socialism with communism. The dynamic is hidden, but the politics of it carries on in an incorporation of these ideas. The isms remain the same, the public is lead to believe they are living in a socially democratic state.
The modern corporate world is the literal unabashed dynamic, unhidden, since it is seen as an economic and not a political entity. However, the hidden political agenda of such entities reflects a difference, which has become reified as institutions are concerned in a recurring pattern of meaning.

That’s correct.

That’s correct too.

But nevertheless: it is also a political entity, and it is a grown and furthermore growing political entity.