Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

Should I conclude from your answer that you know the German language?

At the time , yes. The concept of open ended-ness, coincides with a dilution. Ideas can be taken out of context, on the premis of the relatedness of any tow ideas. All ideas can be deconstructed nominally, and the excess aren’t left floating in a totally redundant field, they too form patterns along a time line of abandonment. They may re align and forming and reforming other patterns, into a new totality. The End of History should not shut out any and all relative patterns, that’s is how critical it is, no boulder should be left unturned, not even ones professing a re-establishment of some kind of transcendent possibility. This is the function of modernity, to find peace within a technique of possibilities, a new humanity. Even a mistake may have some presently unknown reason for coming up.

That’s like: All ideas can be annihilated - by nihilists of course.

A little… I studied it at school, and speak fluent Dutch.

Did you know that Huntington was Fukuyama’s teacher at Havard?

Did the history essentially end with Hegel, especially with his 1807 published work “Phänomenologie des Geistes”?
Dissatisfied people don’t want the end of history, because they always invent new “victims” like the workers as the proletariat, the women, the homosexuals (gays, lesbians, “transsexuals”), the underclass, the blacks, the non-whites, the immigrants, the maniacs, the non-smokers, the children, the body, the animals, the plants, the environment, the planet Earth, and so on. But is this historically really significant / meaningful?

There was still many very significant historical events after Hegel; the Internet, the formation of Israel, the collapse of the USSR, the overthrow of the USA, the space race age, artificial intelligence,…

But historical sequencing as a developing process has. It took a few hundred years, but with the end of an upward spiral of sequencing, the need to literate it structurally and designate it post structurally, points to an affective-meaningful effort to convert the previously subliminal nature of the process into a literal guide, lest we get lost. The signal has subsumed the sign, the media the message. History has been replaced by interpretation of the arrangement of the signs, of positioned and counter positioned spatio temporal arrangements, without beginning or end points. The final cause and effect as a spatio temporal arrangement of facts, has finally destroyed the progressive movement of a historical development, instead an unbound back and forth movement between the structure and it’s interpretation, its internal logic and it’s semantic manifestation, has replaced it.

There is a hidden cause to the collapse of history,many it is the increasing rate of change of the historical movements themselves, the instability of any particular interpretation as having an effect.
The 50 years of communism, is but a mere dot on a map of thousands of years of imperial domain, such as the case with the now fallen empires, which had time spans of a thousand years.

The 50 years of communism was the last death knoll of the Heglelians process, an unwarranted conversion
Which could be likened to say the short durations of various Europian conflicts, such as the Thirty Years War. the major wars of the twentieth century, for instance, were of significantly shorter duration, ten years at most. A nuclear war fought today internationally, would have a time lapse far shorter, maybe concluding in a matter of months or even weeks, if not days. History is a signification of temporal events, and as uncertainty rises,to the political level , it reverberates the shortness of duration, from the effects, to the affects accompanying the interpretations.

The end of history is not the actual nihilization of time, but the interpretation of the passing of it. De ontology is an RX, for changing the view, that this process can be likened to a run away train, unstoppable, with destination The Singularity. With historical inevitability seen as a retrogression rather then a progression, this interpretation can be avoided. The Singularity in this way,mill present a different picture, likened to a black hole effect, where, there can never really be a journey through the Schwartzchild horizon. It is only an effect. Temporal duration stretches as the limits are approached. At the very limit, there is an infinite expansion, science fools us to believe it’s possible, but the Creation ‘knows’ better than that.

When it comes to understand the “end of history” in the Hegelian sense, one has to know what Hegel exactly meant by “Staat” (“state”), especially by “Rechtsstaat” (“constitutional state”, “state of law”), by “Geist”, especially by “absoluter Geist” (“absolute spirit” [but unfortunately “Geist” is not perfectly translatable]), and, of course, by “Geschichte” (“history”), and by some or many more words and concepts.

Hegel’s definition of the end of history is ambiguous as he defines it, according to the encyclopedia of philosophy, probably because he was not really sure of it.

Nobody, thus also no philosopher, can really be sure of the term “end of history”, because the definitions of “history” are unfortunately too many and too different. Therefore it is worth to talk about it philosophically in order to find something like an universal definition, but I think that exactly that is not possible. We do not know for sure how “history” and “historicality” can be exactly defined. Can they be defined by e.g. existence philosophy? Should we at first try to define what “historical existence” is? I did it - for example in this thread with the following post:

=>

Some of them may be too important, so that we need to rate them among evolution but not history; some of them may be too unimportant, so that we need to rate them among events but not history; but some of them may be neither too important nor too unimportant, so that we need to rate them among history. :-k

=>

Probably we have to wait before we judge. Maybe there will be a great war because of e.g. Israel. A great war definitely means history.

I still think that I am not grasping what it is that you are calling “history” when you say that something that is “too important” is not history. How can anything be too important and yet not be history?

Evolution is more natural than cultural, wheras history is more cultural than natural. It is a difference - often even a huge difference - whether living beings like the human beings develop naturally or culturally. It is a difference whether the brain of the humans has grown or the constitutional state is established by the Occidental humans. Evolution is more important than history when it comes to naturally survive. Evolution came before history - the revers is not possible. At first you, for example, have to change from an animal to an human before you can change from an natural human with natural and cultural evolution to a cultural human with natural and cultural evolution and then to a cultural human with history, thus with natural and cultural evolution, and - now: of course - cultural history.

On the way from an animal to an human:

Humans without history (in the narrower sense):

Humans with history (in the narrower sense):


You do not think that humans are created by God, do you?

Of course they are, but that is irrelevant.

So you are talking about the end of significant cultural or social changes as being “the end of history”. And I still think that the advent of the internet (for example) is a significant change in culture and society and thus is an “historical” event (along with many others previously listed). And in the relatively near future, there is the reformation of the Americas and Europe. So I can’t believe that social/cultural history has ended.

Some people, no doubt, believe that globulization of homosapian ends history because they think that such is the final, never changing state. It is not the final state. The glob will breakup to form a new, unpredictable rearrangement of (hopefully) humanity (else machinery, but probably cyborg-ishness).

I also can’t really believe that history in the narrower sense has ended.

According to the fact that I am merely asking whether hostory has ended or not I can say that in some cases is has and in other cases it has not ended. So the conclusiobn is that histoy has probably not ended.

Cyborgs are such a fundamental change that I would say that such a development is more evolutionarily than historically significant, and this does not mean that it is not historically significant.


A long way?
[size=200]=> … => … => … => … =>[/size]

A wrong way?

:-k

Increasingly states, companies and private households reach the point, from which on the credit no longer opens but blocks the future: Growing debt services saps ever larger parts of current income - until the line is exceeded, beyond which older debts only be postponed by a cascade of new debts in a permanently paralyzed tomorrow. This situation deserves to be called “post-historical”: It completely fulfills Arnold Gehlen’s classic definition of the posthistoire as a state of high “mobility above the stationary bases” - while one would like to replace the word “stationary” by the word “untenable”

The end of History will be AD, (After the DNA Machine.) After this age, a new era of happiness and prosperity will begin.

The ways to make money that produce nothing are increasing.

Would you mind describing how your “DNA Machine” works?