Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

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:

[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.

The end of history means the end of historical existentials.

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.

This film does not refer to the end of history. :cry: :blush:

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.

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!