E N D   O F   H I S T O R Y ?

The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.

My questions:

Some people may say that the time after the end of history is „haeven on earth“, some other people may say that the time after the end of history is „hell on earth“. There is no real historical develoment, nothing to do that really counts, boredom, happiness, perhaps it is the (last) age with machines, before the machines will completely replace all human beings (**|**) - this all depends upon the people's evaluation.

Please don't confuse the „end of history“ with the „end of evolution“ - both are different. The „end of history“ does also not mean the „end of human beings“, at least not necessarily. It can be, but it does not have to be that „history“, „human evolution“, and even „evolution“ simultaneously end .

History began about 6000 years ago and will perhaps end in the end of the 21st, or in the 22nd, or in the 23rd century (I refer to one of the questions above; see: => 2.3). But remember that all „historical existentials“ (alle „historischen Existenziale“), how Ernst Nolte called them, have to be eliminated, before one can say that the end of history is really reached. The process which leads to the end of history has to have the same dimension as the so-called „neolithic revolution“ had. And Nolte said that all „historical existentials“ have changed very much, but have not been elimanted yet. (Cp. Ernst Nolte, Historische Existenz, 1998, p. 682 [**]; translated by me [**]). I think, the post-historical age will be the the very last age with machines, before the machines will completely replace all human beings (**|**), so in the end of the 21st, or in the 22nd, or in the 23rd century history as we have been knowing it for about 6000 years will have reached its end because all „historical existentials“ will probably be eliminated then.

We have a probabilty of about 20% to stop the procees which will lead to the fact (!) that all human beings are completely replaced by machines (**|**). I merely see a possibility to stop it, if there will be an accident which will lead to that stop. There will have to be a coincidence like an accident in order to get that possibility. The „human reason“ by itself and the „human emotion“ by itself will never stop, but accelerate that process in favour of the machines.

I would not encourage all „young people to get children at all“, I would favor and support a policy which means just the contrary to the current policy, thus the contrary to the irresponsible mindlessness or abandon concerning (1) culture / civilisation, (2) education, (3) demographics / reproduction / sexuality, (4) ethics / custom / morality / religion, (5) economics / ecology, (6) technique / technology, (7) science, and so on. This policy as the contrary to the current policy would lead to more responsibility at all, thus also when it comes to get children. Not the irresponsible, but merely the responsible human beings would have childen then.

1.) My emphasis on technology is because of the fact that nearly all people don't care that technology changes them. They are almost like the Eloi or the „Last Men“. That's dangerous and terrible! Technology should never be underestimatied.

2.) Psyche as defined in modern times is - unfortunately - dangerous and terrible too. In the German languuage there is - still (!) - a difference (possible) between „Psyche“ and „Geist“ (“mind“, „conscience“, „consciousness“, „awareness“, „knowledge“, „esprit“, „spirit“, „génie“, „intelligence“, „intellect, „apprehension“, „brain“, „sense“, a.s.o. [**|**|**]), but in the English language and all other languages that difference is no longer possible (in former times it was!). What does that mean? I think, the danger is, that, if there is no difference between them, it is very much easier to enslave people.

If the psyche gets under control, then you have to have another mechanism in order to defend your freedom. Currently the psyche becomes a controlled instance, which it has never been before. So there is no instance left for freedom. If you have another and even a very much more powerful instance of freedom, you have another and even a very much more powerful chance to defend your freedom. Geist is this other instance of freedom, and it's very much more powerful than psyche. But if you have no word for this instance of freedom, then it is only a question of time when you will get totally under control. If there is no instance of freedom in language and in thinking, there soon will be no freedom at all.

Most people really don't want freedom, but idols, ideology / religion, thus slavery (which they always confuse with „freedom“).

Globalism as the „One World“, the „One Nation“, is probably the last stage before the „World of the Last Men“ / the „World of the Morlocks and the Eloi“ will begin. And the „World of the Last Men“ will probably lead to the „World of No Men, but only Machines“ (**|**).

The western culture has conquered and captured the whole world, not only politically and econimically, but also culturally, scientifically, technically, and artistically. If there shall be a trial for creating a new culture, than that will be very difficult to realise, because nearly all people of the world have - more or less - internalised the western culture. The westerners will be to weak for that task and the others are also to weak or to mixed relating to their origins, their confused positioning between their origins and their internalised western culture, and their disability to break out of that internalised western culture.

With the utmost probability the civilisation as a late kind of the western culture will be continued and no new culture will arise. Perhaps in this or the next century the history will end (**|**), perhaps the evolution of the human beings will end, and perhaps the evolution of many other living beings will end.

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 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?“

„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 „historical existentials“ are merely points of reference in order to find out, whether history has ended or not.

History has not ended yet.

According to Hegel’s „Dialektik“ e.g. Fukuyama interprets the „extreme liberalism“ as the „Thesis“, the „totalitarianism“ as the „Antithesis“, the „liberal democracy“ as the „Synthesis“. So for Fukuyama the „liberal democracy“ is the final stage. According to Peter Scholl-Latour Fukuyama’s thesis has been absurd since its beginning; the global spread of parliamentary „democracy“ and an uninhibited market economy would bring mankind a final state of wellfare / wellbeing and harmony; thus, the final line would be drawn under the obsolete antagonisms. In this way Fukuyama’s notion of the „End of History“ can be resumed. (Cp. Peter Scholl-Latour, Koloß auf tönernen Füßen, 2005, S. 47). In addition, Peter Scholl-Latour found - to his surprise - that Peter Sloterdijk coined the phrase: „By »nation building« you get at best democratically cladded dictatorships with market economy.“ Scholl-Latour: „I would have added: »Serving the market economy«.“ (Ibid., 2005, S. 50). Fukuyama’s bold thesis of the „end of history“ of eternal fights, because the Western model (i.e.: Western culture) has triumphed globally, provides at least for Huntington no substantial analysis. Rather, Huntington sees in the clashes, frictions, conflicts between the great cultures on the basis of different religions and divergent world views, the main role of future disputes. **

Fukuyama’s thesis is assessed by Norbert Bolz in this way: „In the initial diagnosis, there is a surprisingly large consensus among thinkers. The famous title of Francis Fukuyama’s book - The End of History and the Last Man - summarises quite simply together the positions of Hegel and Nietzsche.“ (Norbert Bolz, Das Wissen der Religion, 2008, S. 53). This world has been defined as „housing of servitude“ by Max Weber. The „Gestell“ (something like „frame“ / „framework“ o.s.) by Martin Heidegger, the „managed world“ by Theodor W. Adorno, and the „technical government“ by Helmut Schelsky are only different names for the end product of a specifically modern process, which Arnold Gehlen has brought on the notion of „cultural crystallisation“. **

Peter Sloterdijk sees Fukuyama’s work as „the recovery of an authentic political psychology on the basis of the restored Eros-Thymos polarity. It is obvious that this same political psychology (which has little to do with the so-called „mass psychology“ and other applications of psychonalyse to political objects) has been moved to new theoretical orientations by the course of events at the center of the current demand. .... The time diagnostic lesson, that is hidden in »The End of History«, is not to be read from the title slogan, which, as noted, citing only a witty interpretation of Hegelian philosophy by Alexandre Kojève in the thirties of the 20th century (who for his part had dated the »end of history« in the year of publication of Hegel’s Phänomenologie des Geistes [“Phenomenology of Spirit“], 1807). It consists in a careful observation of the prestige and jealousy fights between citizens of the free world, who just then come to the fore when the mobilization of civilian forces has ceased for fighting on external fronts. Successful liberal democracies, recognises the author, will always and because of their best performances be crossed by streams of free-floating discontent. This can not be otherwise, because people are sentenced to thymotic restlessness, and the »last men« more than all the rest ....“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 65-67). **

For Fukuyama „thymos“ is nothing else than the psychological seat of the Hegelian desire for „Anerkennung“ (appreciation, recognition, tribute). (Cp. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History, 1992, p. 233 ); this is the „real engine of human history“ (ibid., p. 229). The main features of which Fukuyama is based and from which he derives his ideas are the Hegelian view of history and the Platonic-Hegelian conceptual constructions, especially that what is concerned with thymotic. Something near that is what Sloterdijk has done in his work “Zorn und Zeit“ (“Rage and Time“, 2006). Both Sloterdijk and Fukuyama are also influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche, Sloterdijk in addition by Heidegger. **

But Sloterdijk's work mentions also the Christian era referring to revenge and resentment:

“Vor allem muß heute, gegen Nietzsches ungestümes Resümee, bedacht werden, daß die christliche Ära, im ganzen genommen, gerade nicht das Zeitalter der ausgeübten Rache war. Sie stellte vielmehr eine Epoche dar, in der mit großem Ernst eine Ethik des Racheaufschubs durchgesetzt wurde. Der Grund hierfür muß nicht lange gesucht werden: Er ist gegeben durch den Glauben der Christen, die Gerechtigkeit Gottes werde dereinst, am Ende der Zeiten, für eine Richtigstellung der moralischen Bilanzen sorgen. Mit dem Ausblick auf ein Leben nach dem Tode war in der christlichen Ideensphäre immer die Erwartung eines überhistorischen Leidensausgleichs verbunden. Der Preis für diese Ethik des Verzichts auf Rache in der Gegenwart zugunsten einer im Jenseits nachzuholenden Vergeltung war hoch - hierüber hat Nietzsche klar geurteilt. Er bestand in der Generalisierung eines latenten Ressentiments, das den aufgehobenen Rachewunsch selbst und sein Gegenstück, die Verdammnisangst, ins Herzstück des Glaubens, die Lehre von den Letzten Dingen, projizierte. Auf diese Weise wurde die Bestrafung der Übermütigen in alle Ewigkeit zur Bedingung für das zweideutige Arrangement der Menschen guten Willens mit den schlimmen Verhältnissen. Die Nebenwirkung hiervon war, daß die demütigen Guten selbst vor dem zu zittern begannen, was sie den übermütigen Bösen zudachten.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 4.
My translation:
„Especially must now against Nietzsche's impetuous résumé be considered that the Christian era, on the whole, just was not the age of the force exerted revenge. Rather, it represented a period in which very seriously the ethics of revenge deferral was enforced. The reason for this must be sought not for long: It is given by the faith of Christians, God's justice will one day, at the end of times, make the correction of the moral balance sheets. With the prospect of a life after death in the Christian sphere of idea the expectation was always connected of an hyper-historical suffering compensation. The price of this ethic of renunciation of revenge in the present in favour of a backdated retribution in the afterlife was highly - Nietzsche has clearly judged that. It consisted in the generalisation of a latent resentment that projected the repealed revenge desire itself and its counterpart, the damnation fear, into the heart of the faith, the doctrine of the Last Things. In this way, the punishment of the proud in all eternity became a condition for the ambiguous arrangement of people of good will with the dire conditions. The side effect of this was that the humble good ones (do-gooder) began to shake theirselves against what they intend for the wanton evil.“

Fukuyama’s „liberal democracy“ as the „Synthesis“? Then it is up to him to object that or not. For me the current Synthesis is not something like a „liberal democracy“, but the globalism: containing amongst others an ochlocracy (anarchy) in order to get the monarchy. Probably the „iberal democracy“ had been a Synthesis for a short time in the last fourth of the 18th century, namely the Synthesis of the Thesis „democracy/oligarchy (egalitarianism)“ and the Antithesis „liberalism/individualism (libertarianism)“. Fukuyama confuses his time (especially his Zeitgeist) with Hegel's time (especially Hegel's Zeitgeist). He also confuses ideality with reality. So for me Fukuyama is wrong. The assessment of Peter Scholl-Latour, Fukuyama's thesis has been absurd since its beginning (**|**), is right, I think.

I define „history“ as a „cultural evolution“. All „archivable artifacts“ belong to history. So e.g. padded dinosaurs in a museum belong to history because they are archived artifacts, although dinosaurs themselves belong to eveolution-without-history because they did not archive artifacts, they did not have any history. Even human beings had not had any history for the most time of their existence. But they have been having story (here „story“ means only „telling story“, „told story“, etc.) since they began to speak. So „story“ as a „oral tradition“ (tale and so on) does not belong to history.

Do you agree with that definition? If yes, then we can think about the „Eloi“ as an example for humans without history in the future, can't we? The question is not, whether humans will have story in their future or not, but the question is, whether humans will have history in their future or not.

Why am I saying that? Because we should not confuse history with any development, for example with the natural development or with the natural evolution. History is cultural evolution. Archivable artifacts belong to history, and history belongs to evolution, and evolution belongs to development in nature. So history is embedded in evolution and in natural development, while evolution is only embedded in natural development. All events are based on natural (physico-chemical) development. Evolution is based on natural (physico-chemical) development. History is based on natural (physico-chemical) development and on (biological) evolution, history is defined as a cultural evolution. Story - as I define it (cp. above) - is also defined as a cultural evolution, but in contrast to history story contains no archivable artifact (except all kinds of an engineered story like an audiotape and so on). Story in this text and context means merely oral tales or oral narratives - not more.

So if we are asking whether history ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, then we are always asking, whether cultural evolution ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, whether the relation between human beings and archivable artifacts ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not.

The „house of change“:

| History |
|___ Evolution ___|
|______ Development ______|
|_____________ Change _____________|

Non-human-beings know traces as a kind of information - but nothing about traces as a linguistical and philosophical meaning. „Trace“ is a word, a concept, a term, a definition only for human beings. Non-human-beings can not tell you what traces are because they have no human language. Non-human-beings have no story because they have no human language in order to tell a story like human beings do, and they also have no writing language in order to wirte and to archive artifacts historically like human beings have been doing for at least 6000 years.

One needs a human language in order to have stories, and one needs a human writing (script) language in order to have history. Great war - as an eaxmple for an historical existential (**|**) - can merely be defined as „great war“, if there is already history. If there is no history, there would be no great war; but even then, if it were possible, the event of a „great war“ could not be identified as a great war and therefore would not be defined as a such. It depends on semantics, thus on language, especially on semantics of the writing language because the writing language is the pre-condition for history. And if there is no writing language, there will be no history. And also: If there is nobody left to understand what writing is and what history is, there will be no history - even then, if there are „artifacts“, because they are hence no artifacts anymore because nobody knows what artifacts are.

So, if that scenario will come true, human beings will merely be what they had been before they started with writing and - consequently - with history. They will not know what human beings are, although they will still be human beings, just like their ancestors who did not know what human beings are, although they were already human beings. The word „human being“ with all its semantics is a creation by human beings with writing language and history.

According to Oswald Spengler the West has been consisting religiously of catholics and protestants, thus without all (all!) orthodox Christians. Greeks, Slavs, and other orthodox Christians have never been belonging to the Western culture / civilisation. They all have been getting influenced by the West - like the other people of the world as well -, but never been becoming a real part of the West.

Spengler assumed that there will be either no new culture anymore or perhaps one: a Russian one. But Spengler tended more to the conviction that no new culture will come, thus: the Western culture / civilisation ist the last one.

The demographic development is one of the most importanrt „historical existentials“.

If a culture does not have enough children to rejuvenate itself, then the history of this culture ends. And if this culture has already become the culture of all human beings, then the history of all human beings ends.

According to the German cultural philosopher Oswald A. G. Spengler we know 8 historical cultures, according to the English cultural philosopher Arnold J. Toynbee we know 19 historical cultures. I think Spenglers theory of 8 historical cultures is right. Currently we have 4 „dead“ historical cultures and 4 historical cultures which are still „alive“. Maybe there will come a new one (perhaps Russia, Spengler said), but we do not know, and we also do not know whether the one and only culture has really existed and whether the one and only culture will exist. Institutions like World Bank, IWF, United Nations, ... and so on ... do not mean one culture. The fact that only one culture - the Faustian culture (also called: Western culture) - was able to discover, conquer, capture the whole planet Earth and in addition other parts of the universe is also no proof for the existence of one culture, a so called „universal culture“.

An „universal culture“ is merely an ideology, a new-religion.

If there will be merely one culture of the human beings, then all historical cultures of the human beings will have to be eliminated. But today the 4 historical cultures of the human beings are still „alive“.

But if that „one culture“ as the „universal culture“ will come, then the history will probably be eliminated.

Hear what rulers and their politicians have been preaching since 1989: „One world, one civilisation (culture), one religion, one financial system of course, one economy, one language, one media, one science, one technology, one ecology, one art, one city (no country), one sex / gender, one state (or no state), one education, one rule (leadership); and no nobility, no class, no state (or one state), no great war, no country.“ That means: No history!

Capitalism as the thesis (cp. Hegel) and communism as the antithesis (cp. Hegel) are now integrated in the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). It is important to find the new antithesis (cp. Hegel) to the new thesis (cp. Hegel) which is set by the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). What could that new antithesis (cp. Hegel) be?

If there will be no new antithesis (cp. Hegel), then that new thesis (cp. Hegel) will probably be the „eternal thesis“ as the so called „universal culture / civilisation“ of the „Last Men“ and the end of history.

The „post-modern“ era is not really a post-modern era, but merely a late-modern era. The postmodern era will come later, maybe even in this centrury or later. Why am I saying this? I think that the postmodern era will be very much similar to the era after the end of history, perhaps it's a prestage or even the same stage, and this era (postmodern and/or era after the end of history) will, if it really will come, be an „eternal era“ of the „Last Men“.

The late-modern era leads to the postmodern era, and in the late-modern era you can already notice the increasing of e.g. gang systems (cp. late-modern) which lead to feudal systems (postmodern).

“Good“ will be „evil“, and „evil“ will be „good“. „Truth“ will be „lie“, and „lie“ will be „truth“. „War“ will be „peace“, and „peace“ will be „war“ .... And so on.

Partly it has already been realised, and it will be completely realised. That's not new, and it appears again and again.

Both capitalistic system and socialistic system are not able to afford what is needed for them. The capitalistic systsem has always to fear the socialistic system, and the socialistic system can not exist without the capitalistic system. It's Hegel's „Dialektik“. So this is merely possible with a „Synthesis“ of both capitalism as „Thesis“ and socialism as „Antithesis“. There is no other solution in order to „manage“ that - as long as history lasts.

We live in an age of globalism which is a system of both capitalism and socialism.

Humans had had their very, very long time without any history, so it is also possible that in the future humans will again have no history, and therefor the androids will help them very much.

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 can but does not necessarily mean the end of development, the end of nature, the end of evolution or the end of planet Earth ... and so on.

Look at the „house of change“ again:

| History |
|___ Evolution ___|
|______ Development ______|
|_____________ Change _____________|

History, evolution, development are change, but change is not always development or evolution or history, and development is not always evolution or history, and evolution is not always history. So history is conceptually embedded in evolution, both are conceptually embedded in development, and this three are conceptually embedded in change , but change is conceptually not embedded in anything at all, it seems to be an universal. Howsoever, the hypernym of „history“, „evolution“ and“development“ is „change“. Change is measured by time, the other three can also be measured by time but not as a whole, because they are not only characterized by change but also by their own properties and features (each of them has the more of them the more it goes into the direction of history, so history has the most properties and features, especially the historical existentials [**]).

The end of history means the end of historical existentials.

This historical existentials are about 6000 years old. So, human history (not human evolution) is also about 6000 years old.

The end of development at all includes necessarily both the end of evolution and the end of history; the end of evolution includes necessarily the end of history; but the end of history does not include the end of development or the end of evolution.

So the „end of all human beings“ includes the end of history, because the end of all human beings means the end of the human evolution (which includes - of course - the end of history). History, as far as we know, is merely a human history or just a history of those humans who make and/or are involved in human history.

According to Spengler the „Zivilisation“ is a late part of the „Kultur“, and in the West this part began in the end of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th century (b.t.w.: this is also the time when, according to Hegel, the history perhaps ended - but that is not important for the understanding of Spengler's theory), and leads into a more and more non-historical time, a cultural / civilisational „winter“, a kind of senility. The West („Abendland“ = „Eveningland“) will reach this time of cultural / civilisational „winter“ in the 21st, or the 22nd, or the 23rd century, approximately in the year 2200. When this time will be reached it will be possible that the end of history will also be reached because there will probably be no new „Kultur“ anymore.

According to Hegel's Dialektik there has to be a Synthesis of the Thesis „capitalism“ (especially successful in the 19th century) and the Antithesis „communism“ (especially successful in the 20th century). What kind of Synthesis can it be? Merely something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical times.

If the „new world order“ is really „as ideologically necessary in today's world“ (**), then this new world order can merely be - llike I said - something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism, which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical times.

The „Hundred Years’ War of ideological conflict“ (**) was the epoch where egalitarianism (socialism, communism etc.) were stronger than liberalism (capitalism etc.) because it had undercut and threatened all liberalistic (capitalistic) systems. But now we are living in a different epoch: capitalism is weak, communism is not as strong as in the last epoch, and globalism - as the Synthesis of capitalism and communism (cp. Hegel's Dialektik) - is the strongest. That means that both capitalism and communism still exist, but as a mix in which capitalism dominates as a communism.

Referring to the fact that globalism is a Synthesis of capitalism (Thesis) and communism (Antithesis) the end of history will be reached when this Synthesis has changed to such a New Thesis whithout any historical existence. Merely something like globalism or its contrary: localism / regionalism, which will lead to the pre-historical times resembling post-historical times.

According to Huntington history will not end in the next time because there will be a clash of civilisations (cultures); according to Fukuyama history will end because the occidental civilisation (culture) has won.

Please look at the following pictures:

Now please imagine, there is not a spiralic, but merely a cyclic „way“. What do you see and think then? I guess you see and think that there is an action replay, an iteration, a recurrence, a reapeat, a repetition, a rerun ... and so on. That's the relation to the cyclicity - in any case (for example: physical, chemical, biological, economical, semiotical [incl. pscholgical/sociological], lingustical, philosophical, mathematical]). And now please imagine, there is not merely a cyclic, but also a spiralic „way“ - then, of course, the cyclic „way“ becomes a more relativised cyclic „way“, but that doesn't matter, because it is just an impression. I think that devolopment (incl. evolution and history) is certainly a spiral-cyclic „way“ which merely perhaps follows the time arrow - the former and not the latter is important for my theory.

The „house of change“:

| History |
|___ Evolution ___|
|______ Development ______|
|_____________ Change _____________|

History is merely the „roof“ of the „house of change“.

Time and the „house of change“:

| History |
|___ Evolution ___|
|______ Development ______|
|_____________ Change _____________|

------------------------------------------------------------------------
_____________________ Time ______________________

History is merely the „roof“ of the „house of change“.

So: History is always part of the evolution, of development, of the change; and evolution is always part of development, of change; and development is always part of change; but change can be, but does not have to be development, evolution or history; development can, but does not have to be evolutuion or history; and evolution can, but does not haves to be history.

Change > Development > Evolution > History.

You probably know the meaning of „hyperonym“ (“superordination“) and „hyponym“ (“subordination“). My interpetation of „change“, „development“, „evolution“, „history“ in their structural relations to each other is the following one:

1) “Change“ is the hyperonym of the hyponyms „development“, „evolution“ and „history“.
1,1) “Development“ is a hyponym of the hyperonym „change“ and the hyperonym of the hyponyms „evolution“ and „history“.
1,1,1) “Evolution“ is a hyponym of the hyperonyms „change“ and „development“ and the hyperonym of the hyponym „history“.
1,1,1,1) “History“ is merely a hyponym, namely of the hyperonyms „change“, „development“ and „evolution“.

That consequently means: if history ends, evolution or development or even change do not have to end simultaneously; and if evolution ends, history ends simultaneously, but development and change do not have to end simultaneously; and if development ends, evolution and history end simultaneously, but change does not have to end simultaneously. So in that relation merely change is independent. Development depends only on change. Evolution depends on change and development. History is the most dependent, because it depends on change, development, and evolution.

You may compare (1) change with our universe in time, (1,1) development with our sun, our planet, or our moon ... etc., (1,1,1) evolution with a living being (for example an alga, or a snake, or a human being without history ... etc., and (1,1,1,1) history with a - of course - historical human being.

They all belong to 1 (change), and merely historical human beings belong to 1,1,1,1 (history).

The history of cultures (civilisations) is also a spiral-cyclic move - psychologically (I prefer the word semiotically) cognizable, because cultures have something like a soul or psyche ans their own original symbolics.

History conceptually depends on evolution, development, change; evolution conceptually depends on development and change; development conceptually merely depends on change. So change is probably eternal because it is universal or cosmic; but development, evolution and a fortiori history are not eternal - they can end.

An analogy:

| Culture-Nature |
|_______ Culture _______|
|_________ Nature-Culture _________|
|_________________ Nature __________________|

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________ Time _______________________________

So nature (compare: physics and chemistry) is probably eternal because it is universal or cosmic; but nature-culture (compare: biology and ecology/economy), culture (compare: seniotics and linguistics) and a fortiori culture-nature (compare: philosophy and mathematics) are not eternal - they can end (because neurons, brains, extensive and complex brains, mind, especially in a sense of „Geist“, are needed). Unfortunately most of the scientists and even philosophers neglect the latter, although it is the highest level. In the case of scientists, it does not surprise me, because they have, especially at present, the task to serve the rulers. But in the case of the philosophers, it surprises me a bit. If humans really were free (they are not!), they would not neglect the culture-nature (compare: philosophy and mathematics) because they would more try to transport it in reality and in their everyday life.

If there is no awareness of change, then no development can be observed; if development can not be observed, then evolution can also not be observed; if evolution can not be observed, then history can also not be observed. Backwards: If history can be observed, then evolution, development and change can also be observed; if evolution can be observed, then development and change can also be observed; if development can be observed, then change can also be observed.

What does that mean?

Space and time are probably eternal, so nature and change are probably eternal. Our capability of observing nature and change depends on space and time on the objective side and on our senses and brains on the subjective side. Without these preconditions we would not exist; so there would also not be any human answer to the question why space and time can also be observed and interpreted as nature and change, as nature-culture and development, as culture and evolution, as culture-nature and history. So if there is not only nature but also nature-culture (trannsition between nature and culture), culture and culture-nature (trannsition between culture and nature), then it is possible to find change in all four realms and to find nature in all four kinds of events.

If history is lost but human development not lost, then you can see the real Eloi or the „renaissance“ of the Stone Age life.

If the sense of history will be lost, then it will make no sense to have history at all, because there will be no one who knows anything about both the sense of history and the history itself. There will be no historian, no one who knows what history and ist sense is, probably even no one with a sense for the meaning of the past for both the present and the future.

If history will totally become also a part of a modern ideology like any other cultural phenomeneon, then it will be merely part of a religious system, although a modern one, and no longer be its own system - provided that some other historical existentials (**|**) will also be lost -, so the ideological (modern religious) system and its language (media) will be able then to „sweep“ history under the ideological (modern religious) „carpet“ and afterwards nnihilate it. That will be done, if the chance will be there - certainly. We have been seing this bad development because it has been becoming more and more obvious. Interestingly it has been having a correlation with the modern development of the machines (**|**|**) and all the other modern developments. Thus: amongst others the machines are strongly involved in that process.

There are quite a few signs that suggest that states will disappear. I have already spoken of these signs. States are indeed amongst the historical existentials (**|**). Globalism, super organisations, organisations like UNO, nongovernmental organisations (NGOs), and many other organisations and institutions replace the national states - that is already obvious -, and will replace states at all.

If there will not come up a new culture, which is not global, then the history will probably end. The globalists will bring the last historical epoch - the globalistic epoch - to its end.

A globalist trend necessitates the end of history of a culture (in this case: the Western culture) via civilisation of that culture, and the last epoch or phase with history in this sense is always globalistic. In the case of the Western (Occidental) culture it even refers to the whole globe because the Westerners have discovered and captured the whole planet Earth - and even more of the solar system. I don't see another culture which will be able to be born „soon“. So this time it is possible that there will be no culture anymore, which means there will be only cosmic developments and evolution but no history. That trend is cognoscible.

So, not the globalist trend itself necessitates the end of history, but the „life“ of a culture, and the globalism is merely a phase of a culture, a globalistic phase of a culture, the last historical phase of a culture.

“Liberal democracy“ is merely one of the (last) Western forms of governement. All „liberal democracies“ content an antagonism, a contradiction, similiar to all „liberal equalities“ or all „capitalistic socialisms“. And liberality without democracy or democracy without liberality are one of the worst forms of society or government because they serve the purpose of exploitation and are not of long duration.

It is difficult to justify that the „liberal democracy ... is ... the West's penultimate representative form“. It is not so difficult to justify that the liberal democracy could be the West’s last representative form. But is it also right? I don't think so.

History is a kind of development, although it will perhaps end, and then there will merely be cosmic development and evolution but no history. So the human life will then be like animal life again.

If (1.) the global phase of a culture will have reached its end and (2.) there will be no other culture, especially a young culture (and currently there isn't any), then history will end. Note: „Global culture“ is (represented by) the Western culture, especially its modern times, but the Western culture has not yet reached its end. I think we have to wait, so the times will become even worse, and I don’t know when the time for better forms will come, because anything and everything on this planet Earth (and in addition already other parts of our solar system) depend on this global culture, the Western culture. That doesn't mean that every Westerner is somehow „guilty“, but the upper class is guilty, and this upper class is everywhere, not only in Western countries. There is no real resistance, and there will not be any real resistance because of the lack of a young culture. Nearly all human beings have been becoming Westerners, tributaries of the Western globalists (note: in this case of the globalists „Western“ doesn't always mean that they are original Westerners, but they are Westerners because of the fact that they are globalists, and globalists are a product of the Western culture).

Terms like „change of evolution“ or „development of history“ are tautogical, because evolution (as well as development and history) is always a change, history (as well as evolution) is always a development. History is a kind of evolution (namely a cultural one), a kind of development, a kind of change. It is the „roof“ of the „house of change“ (**|**|**).

Do you know how powerful the rulers of this globe already are?

Maybe, if history will end, the humans will have to start where our ancestors once stopped (about 6000 years ago, when history started).

Or maybe, if history ends, the humans will feel happy in the dictatorship of the machines.

Or maybe, if history ends, the human evolution will also end.

The forms of history repeat till the point in time when it ends, if it ends at all.

It is normal, typical for humans and their cultures to forget their technologies. For example: the technologies of the Mesopotamian culture, of the Egyptian culture, of the Apollinic (Greek/Roman) culture, and of the American (Maya/Inca) culture were forgotten after the „death“ of this cultures. So I predict that the technologies of the Occidental culture will be forgotten after the „death“ of the Occidental culture. Relating to the forgetfulness, it makes only a little difference that the Occidental culture is the only one which has conquered and captured the whole globe and parts of the universe.

On average it is posible that it takes merely three or four generations, until cultural affairs are forgotten, if nothing is done against that forgetful development. You don't believe that? Remember the Roman history. When the Germans conquered Rome and the Roman territory the Romans had already forgotten many of their own technologies. Or remember the Aztecan history. When the Spanish conquered the Aztecan territory the Atztecs had already forgotten how to build their pyramids.

If there were no time, then you would not be able to measure any change. Change can only be measured by time and be represented also as development (the most cases), or evolution (many cases) and history (few cases). What I make is a kind of linguistic classification. If you don't know which change is meant - change itself (100%) or development or evolution or history -, you should just say „change“, because it is a superordinated word.

When some people talk about „nature“ or about „universe and time“, they don't make any difference and say for example „»history« of the nature“, „»history« of the universe“, ... and so on, or „»evolution« of the nature“, „»evolution« of the universe“, ... and so on. That’s not necessarily wrong, but to me the adequate word for the describing of the natural or universal „change“ - thus as a general meaning - is the word „change“ itself, whereas the words „development“, „evolution“ and „history“ should merely be used in special cases.

I say that history will perhaps end in the relatively near future.

We have an effect on the way of the future progresses, but who is „we“? The main effect comes frome about 1% of all humans, the effect of about 19-20% of all humans is still considerable, but the effect of about 79-80% of all humans is quite inconsiderable. The latter do what the former want them to do. Basical is the effect of the 1% of all humans, regardless wether the form of government is monarchy/tyrannis, aristocracy/oligarchy, or democracy/ochlocracy. Who decided, decide, and will decide wether or not there is war, for example? 1% of all humans! The other humans (99%) can not change very much. And if there will be no war, no historical existentials (**|**), no history anymore, then that will probably be the time of the „last men“ (“letzter Mensch“ - Friedrich W. Nietzsche).

What should the historian do? If the historian wanted to change something according to his feelings (for example), this historian would not be a real historian. Historians have to know and fix the hoistorical facts without any feelings and disturbance which comes from outside their bodies.

The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies, philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture. The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture a „Faust“ came to the idea to interpret the dynamics (and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the cause of this dynamics.

Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories, although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton.

History has not ended yet, although it seems to sink, to go down, to decline, to shrink.

History can’t have ended yet because the „historical existentials“ (**|**) haven’t ended.

There is no doubt that some of those examples of historical existentials have been shrinking, while other historical existentials have been expanding.

So the historical existentials state (=> 5.), city and country as contrast (=> 7.), education, especially in schools and universities (=> 8.), science (=> 9.), order of sexulality / demographics, economics (=> 10.), and last but not least historiography / awareness of history (=> 11.) will probably disappear during the next future, provided that humans will be alive then. But we still don’t know whether the historical existentials religion (=> 1.), rule (=> 2.), nobleness (=> 3.), classes (=> 4.), graet war (=> 6.) will end as long as humans are alive.

A modern society is velociferic (comes from: „velozifersich“ - Goethe), accelerated in any case, expanded in any case, greedy in any case, too fat, too ugly ....

The hubris seems to be unstoppable. It’s a „veloficeric“ development.

Newton was a scientist and theologian while his German „Zeitgenosse“ (“time accomplice“, coeval, contemporary) Leibniz was a scientist and philosopher; so theology and philosophy make the crucial difference. Newton had political power, Leibniz had no political power. Calculus was invented by Leibniz. Wether calculus was also, simultaneously and independently of Leibniz, invented by Newton too is doubtable because of Newton’s political power.

“Goethe ... war in seiner ganzen Denkweise, ohne es zu wissen, ein Schüler von Leibniz gewesen.“ (Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918, S. IX **).
Translation:
„Goethe ... had been in his whole way of thinking, without knowing it, a disciple of Leibniz.“

What has been found and brought in a formula by Newton could also have been found and brought in a formula by another person. It was Newton's political power that made him and his „laws“ famous. If he hadn't had this political power, he and his „laws“ would probably not have become famous. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. The history of Western science would have remained a Faustian one anyway but been written in a different way and probably never mentioned Newton. So without any doubt, Newton was also a Faustian scientist but he gave a very special form to the Faustian science. And what I just said about Newton, applies similarly for Einstein. So Newton and Einstein are not the most typical Faustian scientists but nevertheless also Faustian scientists. Their relativity theories are not as absolute and dynamic as other Faustian theories but nevertheless also Faustian theories.

The other Faustian theories are all the other Occidental (Western) theories. They are so many that I didn't want to list them in my last post. In this case, it doesn't matter wether they are „right“ (“true“) or „wrong“ (“false“) because in this case it is crucial and essential wether they belong to the type, the form, the character of the Faustian culture, for example: dynamic, infinity, infiniteness, endlessness, everlastingness, boundlessness, illimitableness, force(s), dilatation, expansiveness, ... and so on.

The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different idea when it comes to undertand what „nature“, „physics“, „universe“, „life“, ... means. Humans at different places and times understood, understand, and will understand their environment differently, they even have their own „worlds“, and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how „science“ was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka/Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, ...). Merely the Faustian culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a) a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion, so that something which could be called „science“ nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions that prevented or prevent the developmet of a real science.

You may say (for example): „there were the constructions of the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)“. Alright, but they weren't like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has a concept of an autonomous „science“ and „technique/technology“. You may see what it means to have a more religious „science“ and „technique/technology“ when you look at thre current Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the so-called “enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“). It is comparable to humans personal development: the most scientific time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence; the era of the “enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too wise - for science as an „enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“), but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science.

Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of „relativity“, „gravitational force“, „electromagnetic force“, „strong nuclear force“, „weak nuclear force“, „speed of light“, „thermodynamics“, „quantum“, „big bang“, „inflation of the universe“, „black holes“, „dark matter“, „dark energy“, ....?

That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures had their best time in order to invent and form something like science and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution). The „scientists“ of the Non-Faustian cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense.

My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one could relatively freely study and research because the universities were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures. So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities.

In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which are related), „scientists“ or technicians were killed after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call „science“ lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and research. The universities as a system of science, thus of real science, is unique, is Faustian.

The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called „Middle Ages“ but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.

That is my firm conviction.

You have to know Goethe’s „Faust“, especially the second part (but also the first part), in order to understand what is meant with „Faustian culture“ and why all the other cultures are no specific or at least not as much science cultures as the Faustian culture is a science culture. But the Faustian culture is not only a science culture but just a Faustian culture, and as one of the most important parts it includes the part science. In any case, one has to read Goethe’s „Faust“ or Spengler’s „Decline of the West“ when it comes to really and well understand what „Faustian culture“ means. The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians.

The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except one which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture; all so-called „monotheisms" have their origin in this culture because in the territory of that culture are a lot of deserts, and the monotheistic religions have much to do with deserts.

Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more or less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most religious culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture.

It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be seen are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood, the unresponsible politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the lies, and as the next goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian science and nothing else, and one can easily guess what it means when it becomes a new religion.

Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with his „Faust“, but also predicted the future of the Western man.

In the near end of Goethe’s „Faust“, part II, an angel says to Faust:

„Wer immer strebend sich bemüht, // Den können wir erlösen.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 376.)
Translation:
„Who strives always to the utmost, // For him there is salvation.“

And amongst others this is what the „Chorus mysticus“ sings when Faust is in heaven at last (... fortunately!):

„Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 383.)
Translation:
„All perishable is only an allegory.“

that the state has been becoming a more and more powerless Institution; so the state has been shrinking, and probably it will disappear (**|**|**).

The great cultures are city cultures, and world history is city history and megacity history.

That is is very depressing. The future looks bleak.

Peter Sloterdijk wrote in his diary on the 11th of May 2009:

„Woran würde man das Ende der Geschichte erkennen? Vielleicht am Aufhören der Sorge.“
- Peter Sloterdijk, Zeilen und Tage, 2012, S. 197.
Translation:
“By what would one recognise the end of the history? Perhaps by the cessation of the care.“

I hope I translated the German word „Sorge“ correctly because philosophically it is a bit difficult to translate: „Sorge“ means „care“, „concern“, „trouble“, „anxiety“, „worry“, „solicitude“, „sorrow“, ... and so on. The words „besorgen“ (verb), „versorgen“ (verb), „Vorsorge“ (noun), „umsorgen“ (verb), „fürsorgen“ (verb), „Fürsorge“ (noun), ... and many others are derived from the words „Sorge“ (noun) and „sorgen“ (verb), and this has not only a special meaning in the German language but also in the German philosophy - since Heidegger also in the worldwide philosophy.

So we have i.e. the nouns „care“, „concern“, „trouble“, „anxiety“, „worry“, „solicitude“, „sorrow“, „forhandedness“, „precaution“, „prevention“, „aid“, „ministration“, „providence“, „provision“, „welfare“, „relief“, „supplying“, ..., and many others and i.e. the verbs , „to (take) care“, „to prevent“, „to provide (for)“, „to look (ahead)“, „to attend (to)“, „to obtain“, „to procure“, „to secure“, „to find (something)“, „to fix (someone) up (with something)“, „to look (after)“, „to supply“, „to accomodate (someone with something)“, „to shepherd (soemone)“, ..., and many others. No one of that words really means to 100% what one of the words „Sorge“ (noun), „sorgen“ (verb), „besorgen“ (verb), „versorgen“ (verb), „Vorsorge“ (noun), „umsorgen“ (verb), „fürsorgen“ (verb), „Fürsorge“ (noun) means.

In the case above the word „care“ fits the most, I think. I am pretty sure that Sloterdijk really meant his words like I translated them.

If the cessation of the care is a sign of the end of history, then the end of history is not far away any more.

This so-called „Eurovision song contest“ is merely one part of the stupidest Eurodecadent horror show.

Can we slow down the modern velocity? **

The modernity seems to be a the accelerated mobilisation, the accelerated change, the accelerated time. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe called the modern velocity „das Veloziferische“ which is composed of the first four letters of thje Latin noun „velocitas“ (“speed“, „hurry“, „rush“) and the last five letters of the German noun „Luzifer“ (“Lucifer“) respectively the last four letters of the German adjective „luziferisch“ (“luciferic“, „luciferious“) and with an „e“ because that adjective is nominalized to the neuter noun „Veloziferisches“ (with the neuter article: „das Veloziferische“).

Remember the stupid sentence of Karl Marx: „Die Philosophen haben die Welt nur verschieden interpretiert; es kommt drauf an, sie zu verändern.“ (“The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point however is to change it.“) I say (with Peter Sloterdijk): „Die Philosophen haben die Welt immer nur verschieden verändert; es kommt drauf an, sie zu schonen.“ (“The philosophers have only changed the world in various ways; the point however is to save [conserve] ]it.“)

Since the beginning of the industrialisation by the steam engine there was a resistance against it. At first in England, then in Germany, and later in other European countries and in the United States of America too.

Let’s think about Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism?

But is Luddism, Neo-Luddism, and Neo-Neo-Luddism a solution?

Perhaps (!) the humans will be so stupid that they will don’t know or have forgotten how machines work and slow down the modern velocity; and then it will depend on the developmental stage of the machines’ intelligence whether they will be able to accelerate the velocity again or slow it down, and whether they will keep the humans alive or not.

Small parts in Amazonia, Central Africa, Papua New Guinea and a small part of the aborigines in Australia will probably be the places where humans wil survive the global holocaust; and due to the fact that these places are really small parts and the human groups are small groups, the probability that these human groups will survive is even higher.

If their jungles will not completely be cut down, then they will probably have the best chances to survive the global holocaust.

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 „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?

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.

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?

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 can't really believe that history in the narrower sense has ended.

According to the fact that I am merely asking whether history 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.

History is not dead. At least: Not yet.

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 it 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 struggles (war) remain.

The conclusion must be either (a) the trial to finish history or (b) the search for other solutions. Ending history is theoretically possible. Maybe the machines, the genetic engineering, and the cyborgization will lead us to the capability of ending history practically in the future. At the moment there is more war than ever before.

Those „modern“ guys who say „religion is opium for the people“ want to give them their religion, a modern religion (examples: „liberalism“, „egalitarianism“/„communism“, „fascism“, „humanitarianism“/„globalism“), which has always to do with the elimination of the old religion and with antitheism (with slogans like „religion is opium for the people“, „God is an impossibility“ ...). The main problem ist that the new, the „modern“ religion is even worse than the old one.

Do not buy the modern opium!

Tiernan Morgan and Lauren Purje wrote:

„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).“ **

Arthur C. Danto wrote:

„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 w ill 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.

....“ **

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

So, we should not claim that nobody is making art any more, but that a certain history of western art has come to an end, in about the way that Hegel suggested it would. The „end of art“ refers to the beginning of our modern era of art in which art no longer adheres to the constraints of imitation theory but serves a new purpose. But what exactly serves this new purpose?

A sign or omen for the end of states in the relatively soon future could be the following impression:

„The more I look at the modern state versus anarchy or anarchism I am coming to the conclusion that they are essentially the same thing. This might of not been the case with states of the past (especially our ancient past) but again certainly can be said of the modern ones. Modern states are becoming more chaotic, disorderly, unorganized, self destructive, and socially conflicting internally. These are the kind of things you would expect in an existence of anarchy and not that of a governed state of society that prides itself on social order.“ **

It will likely take time before this description will become reality. But the thing is that some certain indicators have been being perceptible for a relatively long time.

And for example: Is a welfare state with billions of debts still a well working state? If so: For how long will this last? A huge crisis - and this state is really bankrupt!

The crash is only a matter of time.

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.

- Register -