Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

So, for you Golem is the representative idea of Judaism...and christianity is not an outcrop of Judaism, mixed with parts of Hellenism?

The splintering of Judaism into, I think Straus put it this way, Religious Zionism (represented by the Orthodox Jew, still true to his chosen identifier), the Cultural Zionist (seeking to carry through with this decisiveness of being chosen but not in a final Armageddon, but in seclusion, in a nation State, contradicting the Wandering Jew identifier of world's outsider. Here the meme seeks to become genetic), and the Cultural Zionist (the memetic form, wanting to eradicate all genetic and cultural distinctions so as to disappear within the multitudes).

Capitalism reduced man to a product, producer...and so does Marxism.
Jew as Banker.
Freud shames the Goyim, with expositions on his sexuality, leaving death on the side.
And what of Derrida?

You seem more interested in deciding what metaphors are more relevant than not.

The position is psychological.
A relationship between man and nature, his own and the cosmos.

It doesn't matter what name you put on the attitude, what people become its representative group, it's the attitude that contrasts with the pagan, Hellenic one.

The symbiotic relationship between human beings and nature was effectively destroyed with the birth of civilization.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The Last man is only possible if there is no Wladimir Wladimirowitsch, from Vladati = to rule.

As I view it the last man is one that has all of his humanity, freedom, independence, and individuality stripped from him within the oppressive artificial confines of civilization overtime.

There will come a time in the not too distant future where an advanced technological artificial civilization will do just that especially with the emergence of the technological singularity known as A.I.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

The way I look at it, history will end when all of the books have been burnt, when there is no one left to remember it or to tell of it or to write it.
That's not necessarily the end of mankind.

What of oral tradition?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

History cannot end. That would require something there to stop it from progressing.

Equally; death is not a thing.

History is built upon the presumption of progressivism.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

All you have to do is understand the way your own individual personal past operates. The past is always active. If the past ends, you end. That is the reason why you will never allow that, no matter how hard you try. The past is everywhere in you. Every cell in your body is permeated by it. Every nerve is involved in it. The past has this body so much under control that it will not let it go. The past will not come to an end through any effort you make or whatever will power you effect! The more effort you put into it, the more willpower you use, the stronger it becomes. You came across many insights in this process, but every insight reinforces the past. It does not in any way help to understand anything and to thus free yourself from whatever. Every insight that you obtain with your investigations only strengthens and solidifies that.

The past and present are human constructs. Instead there is only the present reality of what is.....

[Mictlantecuhtli]

No, I’m saying people subjectively make up stories by the linking up of certain past events to create their philosophy or life narrative. They do it so as to not lose identity as time goes on. They don’t allow for events to stand alone independent of any other events. And I agree it is not necessary.

The guiding influence of all that is authority or government controlling the metanarrative public perception especially in terms of history since both write it for the rest of us.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Crimes have alwasy been normal in US history. Manifest Destiny was a series of crimes. Relations with Latin America. Indentured servants, slaves. The robber barons. How WW1 was sold to americans by 'americans' and how it was sold. Whatever. Crimes have Always been tucked in plain sight in norms.

In the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was the widely held belief in the United States that American settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent. Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny:

- The special virtues of the US people and their institutions;
- The mission of the US to redeem and remake the west in the image of agrarian US;
- An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty.

Today we have the idiotic belief of transhumanism manifest destiny for our entire species as a whole. The more things change the more they remain the same.

[Arminius]

Hey, Joker, 12 posts behind one another!

Ridiculous religious notions aside it sounds like to me existential decline and stagnation due to lost momentum concerning various collapse scenarios. There are indeed multiple scenarios in which modern civilization could indeed collapse.

Yes, as you know from some of my other posts that I am saying almost the same. The Greek-Roman culture collapsed after it has become a civilization in a Spenglerian sense (perhaps you remember what Spengler wrote in his main work). Long before that collapse the same happened, for example, in Egypt, much later also in the region of the Mayas, for example.

There is a difference between the "end-point of humanity's sociocultural evolution" and the "end of humanity's evolution". The diffrence is namely the culture!

The culture will change as long as humans change. Humans change as long as they are alive.

You can see change happening very clearly as each new generation rejects the current culture and creates its own. You could say that when humans become immortal, there will be no more children who would be rejuvenating the culture. That might be the end of history.

Human nature doesn't change.

He does not know much about history.

Transhumanism essentially means the end of social organization so there's that also and I definitely would classify that as the end of human history.

Yes, of course. But transhumanism is not needed when it comes to the end of history.

The Last man is only possible if there is no Wladimir Wladimirowitsch, from Vladati = to rule.

As I view it the last man is one that has all of his humanity, freedom, independence, and individuality stripped from him within the oppressive artificial confines of civilization overtime.

There will come a time in the not too distant future where an advanced technological artificial civilization will do just that especially with the emergence of the technological singularity known as A.I.

He does not know what that means, and he knows almost nothing aboout history.

And, by the way, what he and many others also don't know is the fact that there is a difference between evolution and history.

So again: I am talking about the end of history not about the end of evolution. The "Last Man" is indeed an example of a man after history, but he is not an example of a man after human Evolution (this would be a contradiction). Androids are no humans but will probably replace all humans, thus will bring the end of the human evolution.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

To Arminius,

I do apologize about that. For several weeks I am limited to utilizing my phone for internet as I don't have a secure internet connection currently which makes things very difficult or limited concerning posting on the forum. Making lengthy posts or replies on my phone is almost virtually impossible.

Transhumanism replaces all human activity systematically if its ideals are ever implemented successfully and by doing so it will effectively amount to the death of all human culture. With human history being an extrapolation of culture this would mean the death of human history also thus its subsequent end. Speaking about Spenglerian thinking I believe he touched upon technological alterations of culture in his book Man And Technics.

I'm quite the observer and student of history where I am curious as to what your qualms are with my statement regarding human nature.

What else could the end of history be if not transhumanism or the technological singularity?

Yes, the complete automation of society or civilization technologically would effectively end human evolution in terms of maladaptability. We already see the beginnings and emergence of this existential maladaptability within our societies currently. This is a direct result of creating an artificially enclosed reality amongst ourselves culturally away from nature.

I like how you illustrated the difference between culture and nature where I would like it if you explained this further. If you could I would like you to cite your references for my own study.

It is clear to me the more I read that culture is indeed a simulated or matrix like existential interface separate from nature where most of humanity's woes stem from it. It is possible that in more ancient societies culture was more symbiotic with nature thus being natural but the evolving of culture overtime enclosed has separated itself from nature or evolution entirely. Ultimately the future for me concerning our species will be disastrous or catastrophic from all of this.

My only hope is that this future calamity will leave human survivors if possible so that we learn from all of this through collective shared experience but even that might be a foregoing stretch.

[Arminius]

To Arminius,

I do apologize about that. For several weeks I am limited to utilizing my phone for internet as I don't have a secure internet connection currently which makes things very difficult or limited concerning posting on the forum. Making lengthy posts or replies on my phone is almost virtually impossible.

You do not have to apologize, my friend, Everything is fine. When I used the preposition "he", I did not mean you. I only meant you, when I used the preposition "you". I was talking to you by using the correct prepositons.

Transhumanism replaces all human activity systematically if its ideals are ever implemented successfully and by doing so it will effectively amount to the death of all human culture. With human history being an extrapolation of culture this would mean the death of human history also thus its subsequent end. Speaking about Spenglerian thinking I believe he touched upon technological alterations of culture in his book Man And Technics.

Yes. That is right.

I'm quite the observer and student of history where I am curious as to what your qualms are with my statement regarding human nature.

I was merely talking about the necessity of the differentiation between the human nature and the human culture (including civilization) and between evolution and history.

What else could the end of history be if not transhumanism or the technological singularity?

For example: decadence, the last men.

You merely have to look around you and think about it a bit. And you will come to the right conclusion that there is a lot of decadence around you and probably also inside of you and that the people are almost willing to be the last men.

I find that this can be diagnosed.

I also refer to the opening post of this thread ( viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185646 ) and to what Ernst Nolte said in his book "Historische Existenz" ("Historical Existence") about the "historical existentials" ( viewtopic.php?f=1&t=185646&p=2465256#p2465256 ), because they must have vanished, if history has come to its end.

Yes, the complete automation of society or civilization technologically would effectively end human evolution in terms of maladaptability. We already see the beginnings and emergence of this existential maladaptability within our societies currently. This is a direct result of creating an artificially enclosed reality amongst ourselves culturally away from nature.

I like how you illustrated the difference between culture and nature where I would like it if you explained this further. If you could I would like you to cite your references for my own study.

3 excerpts as examples:

1)

When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. Although it is difficult to say whether there is one human culture or several human cultures, I would say, if I had to refer to merely one human culture, that a human being is a luxury being. In another thread I said:

The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.

Only human beings (thus no other living beings) are able to distance or disassociate themselves so much from nature. Humans live on islands of luxury. They have their human bubbles like hulls / shells, caves, huts / cottages, houses, beyond that: castles, churches / cathedrals, cities, city states, states, nations, empires, global empires ... and so forth. Because they are much more spiritual / mental / intellectual than other creatures, they have not only a bodily but also a spiritual immune system. This spiritual immune system is the main cause of the enormous luxury and the characteristic feature of human culture/s. Because of the fact that there are many different spiritual immune systems of humans possible, one should rather speak about several human cultures and not about one human culture.

=>

2)

Naturally humans beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.

=>

3)

We can say that an "authentic human life" means a "life according to the human's nature", whereas an "unauthentic life" means a "life according to the human's culture/s".
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
If humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s (=>#), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.

=>

It is clear to me the more I read that culture is indeed a simulated or matrix like existential interface separate from nature where most of humanity's woes stem from it. It is possible that in more ancient societies culture was more symbiotic with nature thus being natural but the evolving of culture overtime enclosed has separated itself from nature or evolution entirely.

Culture is the successful or/and unsuccessful implementation of the trial to escape from nature.

Ultimately the future for me concerning our species will be disastrous or catastrophic from all of this.

My only hope is that this future calamity will leave human survivors if possible so that we learn from all of this through collective shared experience but even that might be a foregoing stretch.

Learning by experiencing a catastrophe is one of the most effective kinds of learning, because this means an effect where human nature and human culture are again very close to each other at this moment of experiencing a catastrophe.

[Arminius]

Philosophically said, the Marxistic communism, which is based on Hegel's dialectic, says that the capitalism is the thesis, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the antithesis, and classless equality and equal happiness for all is the synthesis. But if is right that history is class struggle (war), then it is not - or at least only without history - possible to get a classless equality and equal happiness for all. Okay, Hegel already claimed the end of history, also Marx who was a Left-Hegelian, and many others (mostly Hegelians, some Nietzscheans, some others). So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggle (war) remain.

[Arminius]

But the end of art could be a sign, an omen for the end of history in the relatively soon future.

Hegel’s ... teleological understanding of history served as a useful template for Danto’s conclusions. Hegel understood progress as an overarching dialectic — a process of self-realization and understanding that culminates in pure knowledge. This state is ultimately achieved through philosophy, though it is initially preceded by an interrogation into the qualities of religion and art. As Danto summarized in a later essay entitled “The Disenfranchisement of Art” (1984):

When art internalizes its own history, when it becomes self-conscious of its history as it has come to be in our time, so that its consciousness of its history forms part of its nature, it is perhaps unavoidable that it should turn into philosophy at last. And when it does so, well, in an important sense, art comes to an end.

Danto is not the only philosopher to have adopted an Hegelian dialectic. Both Francis Fukuyama and Karl Marx utilized Hegelianism to reach their own historical conclusions. Fukuyama argued that liberal democracy and free market capitalism represented the zenith of Western civilization, whilst Marx argued that communism would replace capitalism (neither of these developments have quite panned out).

HEGEL’S END-OF ART THESIS.

"Art , considered in its highest voc ation, is and remains for us a thing of the past. Thereby it has lost for us genuine truth and life, and has rather been transferred into our ideas instead of maintaining its earlier necessity in reality and occupying its higher place." - Hegel’s Aesthetics: Lectures on Fine Arts. Translated by T. M. Knox. Oxford; The Clarendon Press, 1975. 10. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Hegel’s writing are to this superb translation.This is the most forceful of Hegel's many formulations of what we may designate his End-of-Art Thesis, and it appears very near the beginning of the published version of his Lectures on Aesthetics - his Vorlesungen über die Aesthetic - delivered for the fourth and final time in the Winter Semester of 1828, at the University of Berlin.

The thesis is so intricately woven into the texture of Hegel’s text, however, that it must be regarded as a central and indeed as tructural feature of his philosophy of art, rather than a critical obiter dictum regarding the art of his time. And it as much addresses what other philosophers have said about art, as art itself.

Of course art will go on being made. There will be art after the end of art.

"Art can be used as a fleeting play, affording recreation and entertainment, decorating our surroundings, giving pleasantness to the externals of our life, and making other objects stand out by artistic adornm ent.' - Ibid., 7.

So understood, art will play any number of roles in what Hegel terms the objective spirit of a society - the system of meanings and practices that constitute the form of life its members live. But Hegel was not speaking of art in terms of objective spirit when he advanced the End-of-Art Thesis.

"The universal need for art ... is man’s rational need to lift the inner and outer world into his spiritual consciousness as an object in which he recognizes again his own self." - Ibid., 31.

That is art’s 'highest vocation',to which alone the End-of-Art Thesis has application. So the truth of the thesis was consistent with art, and even great art, continuing to be made. In the Epilogue to his lecture, Origins of the Work of Art (1935-’36), Martin Heidegger wrote:

"The judgment that Hegel passes in these statements cannot be evaded by pointing out that since Hegel’s lectures ... we have seen many new art works and art movements arise. Hegel did not mean to deny this possibility. The question, however, remains: is art still an essential and necessary way in which truth that is decisive for our historical existence happens, or is art no longer of this character?" - Martin Heidegger, "The Origin of the Work of Art". Translation by Albert Hofstadter, Philosophies of Art and Beauty: Selected Readings in Aesthetics from Plato to Heidegger. Edited by Albert Hofstadter and Richard Kuhns. New York; The Modern Library, 1964. 700.

....

**

[Zero_Sum]

We are at the precipice at the end of human history towards twilight's edge.

[Meno_]

Philosophically said, the Marxistic communism, which is based on Hegel's dialectic, says that the capitalism is the thesis, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the antithesis, and classless equality and equal happiness for all is the synthesis. But if is right that history is class struggle (war), then it is not - or at least only without history - possible to get a classless equality and equal happiness for all. Okay, Hegel already claimed the end of history, also Marx who was a Left-Hegelian, and many others (mostly Hegelians, some Nietzscheans, some others). So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggle (war) remain.

Clearly, an excellent analysis.
Basic entitlements and privileges are a hindrance of history
How one gets those is the question and the sustenance of
the structure of entitlements from beginning to end usually proceeds on a declining curve.

The end of history may signal the beginning of doubt as to the pathogenesis of the attainment of capital, corresponsongly the power of its sustenance.

Now, when that historial awareness fractures in any bounded social group, that social group, be it a family or country,
They will be progressively defensive and aggressive about their awareness their own entitlement.

People will act as if they have nothing to worry about except their own state of mind and resulting connect with others who appear to threaten the safety and security of their own domain ,will be bothered by their apparent disconnect with the look of others, thereby suppress a socially incongruent approach to each other in favor of focusing on social heresay, relating to their own activities generally.

This general disconnect seems to hang in the air, as if previously no connection can be made with the idea of past
repressed ideas commensurate with others in Their domain.

This oftime fearful transference becomes so overwhelming as to enable some leaders in their field to make accessible the relevance which in most people mind remains insurmountable

[Meno_]

The idea in trying to convey is revolutionary to an extent, but more properly reactionary attempt to bring into focus the dynamic elements , so as to remove any obsessively held mythos about the beneficience of any country, empire, group,
, as to the way things can go, or, avoid going there.

[Arminius]

Philosophically said, the Marxistic communism, which is based on Hegel's dialectic, says that the capitalism is the thesis, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the antithesis, and classless equality and equal happiness for all is the synthesis. But if is right that history is class struggle (war), then it is not - or at least only without history - possible to get a classless equality and equal happiness for all. Okay, Hegel already claimed the end of history, also Marx who was a Left-Hegelian, and many others (mostly Hegelians, some Nietzscheans, some others). So, as long as there is history there is no classless equality and equal happiness for all, so that the classes, the inequality, thus the class struggle (war) remain.

Clearly, an excellent analysis.
Basic entitlements and privileges are a hindrance of history
How one gets those is the question and the sustenance of
the structure of entitlements from beginning to end usually proceeds on a declining curve.

The end of history may signal the beginning of doubt as to the pathogenesis of the attainment of capital, corresponsongly the power of its sustenance.

Now, when that historial awareness fractures in any bounded social group, that social group, be it a family or country,
They will be progressively defensive and aggressive about their awareness their own entitlement.

People will act as if they have nothing to worry about except their own state of mind and resulting connect with others who appear to threaten the safety and security of their own domain ,will be bothered by their apparent disconnect with the look of others, thereby suppress a socially incongruent approach to each other in favor of focusing on social heresay, relating to their own activities generally.

This general disconnect seems to hang in the air, as if previously no connection can be made with the idea of past
repressed ideas commensurate with others in Their domain.

This oftime fearful transference becomes so overwhelming as to enable some leaders in their field to make accessible the relevance which in most people mind remains insurmountable

Maybe after the relatively long lasting war - as the last war -, there will be humans as the last consumers without any history, without any knowledge about any of their ancestors, thus without genealogy, without any memory (thus also without any cultural memory), only with consumption.