Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

Probably to some extent. LIke all the military dictator types, probably consciouslyl and unconsciouly modeled superior officers and other alpha males.

I have to say, what you probably already realize, was that his statements seemed to imply some kind of future Power play, or perhaps even his already advancing in the World gaining of Power. Now it is ad hom, though relevent, given his ‘they are all cows’ assertion, to wonder if anyone would, by any scientific method or sociological analysis, be able to find qualities, in terms of Power, that separate him out from even middle management in a Corporation. I can see feeling like one understands more than the average Joe, including the average middle management executive, but mere understanding didn’t quite fit the smugness inherent in Calling people cows. Perhaps one of the cows hates being milked and having her Babies taken away Young, etc. But she probably just looks like all the other cows in the field and has to deal with the same Power imbalances in her society as all the other cows do.

In a way, big deal.

More to the point, it might be a case of WHO those wishing to rule study? A fair benign ruler would study a great humane ruler from the past - a ruler who wanted to rule only for power and greed would study - who? Ghengis Khan, Hannibal? I don’t really know the kind of rulers they were. Charlemagne might be someone to study. Alexander the Great perhaps if one wanted to be a despot.

As Nietzsche’s Zarathustra said, “the knowledge will bring you to power”(Herrschaft), of course, there is an order of rank in intelligence:

  1. Wisdom
  2. Reason
  3. Slyness
  4. Stupidity

unfortunately the modern Europeans are too reasonable.

Historyboy

Wouldn’t you put self-awareness and consciousness of self first?
Knowledge of what? What you will do with that power? What your intention is in attaining it?

I don’t know. Perhaps making the floors around slippery without noticing it.

And since the post- Nietzschians tend to accept mainstream science and rule out other methodologies, it gets very hard for them to distinguish some types of stupidity from wisdom. They do hate the reasonists, sometimes for good reasons (lol), but there they are, calling for something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.

Well I’d say Nietzsche has been an immense influence on me, and I accept a good deal of scientific methodology when it comes to knowledge and understanding the world, and maybe I’m crazy or brainwashed for thinking this, but I actually think science is a good tool for distinguishing between stupidity and reason. I’ve explained my reasoning before, will do it again if requested. Convince me otherwise?

I think anyone can confuse stupidity and wisdom at times, but those who are most frequently confused and who identify as proponents of scientism may not actually understand the scientific method and are just dropping sciency terms around for fad, 'cause it seems intellectual and unchallengeable.

This seems counter to scientific methodology I’m aware of on all three accounts. This is why I always separate people who support & agree with science in some vague way with what the scientific method actually is.

Yes, I call the former science groupies.

I definitely meant wisdom and thought it as I wrote that post. don’t know why reason came out.

The scientific method relies not only on reason but human creativity and human sensation/perception.

If that’s true it is highly ironic to me, as Nieztsche never strikes me as much of a scientist and the scientific method does not look down on anything but bad experimental design and assumption.

I’ll define what the scientific method means to me.

Not only am I talking about the whole hypothesis → specific prediction → test/experiement → analysis deal, but also, importantly, about how to choose between competing theories.

I do think wisdom is beyond science in the sense that science aims to refine the data you have and wisdom requires putting meaning to the data and having the experience to know where x leads. I find it hard to imagine wisdom without some form of science as a part of what led to it.

According to Ernst Nolte science is a historical existential. So, if there will be no history, than there will be also no more science, but that does not mean, that there will also be no more wisdom, but that means, that there will be “merely” less wisdom. Less wisdom! Bad times. :frowning:

Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.

If humans destroy themselves, then it means the end of human evolution:
If humans destroy history or historical existentials / historical cultures, then it means the end of history.

Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will bring it to the end and destroy all humans: the end of human evolution.
Perhaps the humans only start to destroy and the machines will fail, so that some humans will survive without any history: the end of history.

All examples you used being very probable.

Modern technological industrial society worldwide will eventually collapse. Things in motion now are speeding up that process. It’s an inevitability.

However, out of the ashes of this collapsed civilization globally lies opportunities for the creation of entirely new cultures, societies, and civilizations.

A new history can emerge even upon the destruction of the older variation.

Yes, of course.

Yes, that is right and what I have been saying for a long time.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVY1sAKSIzk[/youtube]

Probably - it will be where we had gradually but surely destroyed the Earth - if we don’t wake up! Then, poof, we will go the way of Venus. :cry: