I don’t know. Perhaps making the floors around slippery without noticing it.
And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is “studying how to rule” what rulers do?
Arcturus Descending: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:
- Wisdom
- Reason
- Slyness
- Stupidity
unfortunately the modern Europeans are too reasonable.
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.
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.
something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.
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.
Moreno:something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.
This seems counter to scientific methodology I’m aware of on all three accounts.
I’m not sure which parts seem counter to scientific methodology. If Wisdom is something beyond reason, then it incorporates processes that are definitely beyond scientific methodology. Which I think wisdom does. So do a lot of stupid methodologies. The N-ians look down on most people who have methodologies outside the scientific, while at the same time reserving for themselves Wisdom, which is also outside, but in some, not clearly defined correct way of being outside.
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.
distinguishing between stupidity and reason
I definitely meant wisdom and thought it as I wrote that post. don’t know why reason came out.
I’m not sure which parts seem counter to scientific methodology. If Wisdom is something beyond reason, then it incorporates processes that are definitely beyond scientific methodology. Which I think wisdom does. So does a lot of stupid methodologies. The N-ians look down on most people who have methodologies outside the scientific, while at the same time reserving for themselves Wisdom, which is also outside, but in some, not clearly defined correct way of being outside.
The scientific method relies not only on reason but human creativity and human sensation/perception.
The N-ians look down on most people who have methodologies outside the scientific
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.
The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term “theory” is hardly applicable.
A central prediction from a current theory: the general theory of relativity predicts the bending of light in a gravitational field. This prediction was first tested during the solar eclipse of May 1919.[6]A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:
It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics). It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct. It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.) It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time. It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.
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.
Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.
Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself?
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.
Tyler Durden:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself?
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.
Arminius: Tyler Durden:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself?
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.
Yes, of course.
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, that is right and what I have been saying for a long time.
Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.
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.
Tyler Durden:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.
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.
[size=150]No.[/size] End of history does absolutely [size=150]not[/size] mean end of planet Earth. End of history does also [size=150]not[/size] mean end of evolution. End of history means merely end of history.
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.
The end of history means the end of historical existentials.
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!Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):
„Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder »Existenzialien« - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige »Zwischenspiel« der »eigentlichen Geschichte« bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines »Schemas der historischen Existenz« ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.“
My translation:
„Thus, it is thought to be possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or »existentials« - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting »interlude« of the »actual history« and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a »scheme of historical existence«is the main goal of this book.Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):
„Befinden wir Menschen … uns bereits in der »Nachgeschichte«, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?“
My translation:
„Are we people … already in the »post-history« as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?“Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):
„Alle historischen Existenzialien … haben … grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der »große Krieg«, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.“
My translation:
„All historical existentialia … have … been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the »Great War«, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.“That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: „Historische Existenz“ („Historical Existence“).
The end of history means the end of historical existenctials. This historical existenctials are about 6000 years old. So, human history ([size=150]not[/size] human evolution) is also about 6000 years old.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVY1sAKSIzk[/youtube]
This film does not refer to the end of history.
Well, I agree that the end of history doesn’t necessitate the end of Man, but I don’t see how the end of Man couldn’t also mean the end of history.
Arcturus Descending: Tyler Durden:Is the end of history where humanity destroys itself? Curious people want to know.
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.
[size=150]No.[/size] End of history does absolutely [size=150]not[/size] mean end of planet Earth. End of history does also [size=150]not[/size] mean end of evolution. End of history means merely end of history.
Arminius: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.The end of history means the end of historical existenctials.
Arminius: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!Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):
„Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder »Existenzialien« - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige »Zwischenspiel« der »eigentlichen Geschichte« bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines »Schemas der historischen Existenz« ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.“
My translation:
„Thus, it is thought to be possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or »existentials« - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting »interlude« of the »actual history« and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a »scheme of historical existence«is the main goal of this book.Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):
„Befinden wir Menschen … uns bereits in der »Nachgeschichte«, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?“
My translation:
„Are we people … already in the »post-history« as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?“Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):
„Alle historischen Existenzialien … haben … grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der »große Krieg«, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.“
My translation:
„All historical existentialia … have … been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the »Great War«, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.“That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: „Historische Existenz“ („Historical Existence“).
The end of history means the end of historical existenctials. This historical existenctials are about 6000 years old. So, human history ([size=150]not[/size] human evolution) is also about 6000 years old.
I haven’t read Herr Nolte’s book but from what I’ve gleaned from the included quotes, haven’t these ideas, though more contemporary, already been expounded in principal by both Nietzsche and Spengler? The term “End of History” somewhat misleadingly is often used as defining the end of an epoch and not something relating to an actual end as in the Martian Chronicles where Earthlings redefine themselves as Martians because the earth no longer exists as habitable after a nuclear war.
Also, I appreciate the inclusion of the original German. The source is always best!