At the end of history...

it seems like the only difference between any of these answers is the size of the groups with power....who gives a shit. either we'll all be empowered and enslaved by the markedt, or groups will be empowered, and we'll be enslaved by them! oh well. just don't get noticed and it's all the same!

 

my btother thought history had already ended, but i didnt. then came september 11. i dont think history will ever end. thast jsut my opinion though.

 

the world will be run by giant squid-like beings from some undisclosed origin who will set up a benifecent dictatorship over humanity.

 

a bird flu will knowck out the entire population but pot will make you immune to the bird flu adn so evceryone left ill be us and we will live in peace and harmony buit eventually all die of stds

 

nevah mind!

 

this thread is scaring me.

 

What do you mean, the end of history? I don't think that will ever happen, not for a very long time. Whatever the future may bring, *some* people will survive, and will still be recording things. People are very good at surviving, and it will take a cosmic event or a major geological event to wipe us out entirely.

 

much like now.. so nothing much changes ?..


Persoanly i think we just goes in cycles.. so where ever the cycle is in 6 billion years time (or whenever us mere mortals pass on)....thats going to be how history ends..

 

I didn't mean "The End of History" as in the end of human beings, or an end to recording events in history. I meant "The End of History" in the Marxist sense... where all of society has reached an equilibrium and no more salient changes are happening.

 

You still aren't making any sense, as that will never happen.

 

"The End of History" is a concept that originated in the Writings of Hegel and Marx, more recently it has been popularized by the book, "The End of History and the Last Man" by Francis Fukuyama

Wikipedia entry for the book/theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_history

 

I never liked Fukuyama, and now I think he's just out of date. He saw the collapse of Marxism as the victory of capitalism, something he saw as established beyond doubt - a capitalist utopia.
This seems to be challenged by the rise of Islamic terrorism etc on one hand, the lack of development in the third world, and the question of the sustainability of Industrial capitalism in the face of diminishing rescources and environmental concerns.
Plenty of material there for 'future history'.
I really don't like Fukuyama as I say - really, his whole view is based on a kind of 'crowing' attitude over the decline of Marxism. The 'history' he says has ended is really only the cold war, and it's ideological conflicts. No shortage of new one's to replace them though.
To speak of the end of history seems very pre-mature.

 

I dont think that there will be an end to human history.Any way after say 2000 years the goverment will be commie.Yes...as the world gets worse Anarchy will not be (unless we do something) possible. The best way to keep people down will be though Commiunism. It has enogh freedom to allow people to do bad things but it really persvers a system to ensure athoer hippie movement is not possible.


Then I think it will all go under and we will have a Therocriy

 

Yeah, I find fukuyama to be somewhat spurious and his philosophy to be contrived to support what he believed in. But I still believe that a proper use of the Hegelian dialectic can tell us answers about "The End of History"

 

nothing as yet immagined.

(and both capitolsim and marxism will be long since forgotten any no one will have the sightest idea what you are talking about if you were to go there and ask them about either of those names, or anything resembling either of their descriptions either)

=^^=
.../\...

 

HAAHAHHHAHAHHAHA

'Hegelian dialectic' What a load of crap.. The end of history? what a load of crap..
History ends when reality ends... Hegel predicts when this will happen?
LOL. Hegel is nothing but a man with little knowing.No wiser than u.

Occam thinks 'ash' u need another 20 years of living under your belt
And less reliance on the apparent acuity of others

hehe

Occam

 

it may be nice to be able to remember people's names and schools of thought. i don't know. but i find it a good bit more interesting to remember thoughts that interest me. far more so then identifying them with whoever may have first given them to the rest of us or been credited with doing so.

history ending is a phrase i'm having a hard time getting my mind arround attatching any rational meaning to. granted if there is no sentient awairness in a place, then there is no such awairness noting and remembering events.

i really don't see how squabbles over perspective can have that much to do with the end of anything other then one or several conditions that sentiend awairnessess experience. and even those 'endings' no more perminent then their begginings.

by end of history of course, sentient awairness is specificly aluded to. ok that's fine.
but social movements and perceptions?

their endings are only the endings of themselves. others invariably come and go, likewise, each in its own time.

the greed incentive vs a more altruistic sort of self interest is an egotistical conciet of our own time. a time that is only long when measured in units no longer then centuries, themselves only 1/1000th of a millinia. and while we teach and remember the history of only two or three of those, there are hundreds if not more of THEM in both our past and probable future.

that we each live, few of us as much as a single century, let alone longer, is in a sense double edged. it may make a few centuries seem like for ever, but it also means that momentous events, involving more signifigant time fraims, are unlikely to be witnessed by any single, currently living, one of us.

these social movements, to which such weighty moment is proclaimed, are but the blinking of an eye, their comming and going, on the scale and scope of the trajectory of an entiere sentient species such as our own. on that time scale, they are each, however profound their effects in their own time, no more then passing fads.

=^^=
.../\...

 

As long as there is government, there will be history.

 

Very True my man, captured well by Martin Scorsese, in the film Gangs of New York, when the Tamany family representative says proudly "we must uphold the appearence of the law!, especially while we are breaking it!"

 

It must be anarchy, or society would not fall.... except for a reckless nueclear war, then we would be communisticly