Fukuyama for a dummy
Mir Harven
In 1989, The National Interest published ``The End of History?'' by
Fukuyama, then a senior official at the State Department. In that
comparatively short but extremely controversial article, Fukuyama
speculated that liberal democracy may constitute the ``end point of
mankind's ideological evolution'' and hence the ``final form of human
government.'' Now Fukuyama has produced a brilliant book that, its
title notwithstanding, takes an almost entirely new tack. To begin
with, he examines the problem of whether it makes sense to posit a
coherent and directional history that would lead the greater part of
humanity to liberal democracy. Having answered in the affirmative, he
assesses the regulatory effect of modern natural science, a societal
activity consensually deemed cumulative as well as directional in its
impact. Turning next to a ``second, parallel account of the historical
process,'' Fukuyama considers humanity's struggle for recognition, a
concept articulated and borrowed (from Plato) by Hegel. In this
context, he goes on to reinterpret culture, ethical codes, labor,
nationalism, religion, war, and allied phenomena from the past,
projecting ways in which the desire for acknowledgement could become
manifest in the future. Eventually, the author addresses history's
presumptive end and the so-called ``last man,'' an unheroic construct
(drawn from Tocqueville and Nietzsche) who has traded prideful belief
in individual worth for the civilized comforts of self-preservation.
Assuming the prosperity promised by contemporary liberal democracy
indeed come to pass, Fukuyama wonders whether or how the side of human
personality that thrives on competition, danger, and risk can be
fulfilled in the sterile ambiance of a brave new world. At the end,
the author leaves tantalizingly open the matter of whether mankind's
historical journey is approaching a close or another beginning; he
even alludes to the likelihood that time travelers may well strike out
in directions yet undreamt.
Mladen Gogala
There is always bungee jumping, the same as for all other adrenaline
junkies. Personality that thrives on competition has more then plentiful
opportunity to compete in the field of art,technology and science. Those
insufficiently evolved specimen of "master races" all over the world which
would like to compete using brawl instead of brains can always become prize
fighters and test their skills and abilities against the likes of Tyson
and Lennox Lewis. Using the term "sterile environment" for a society which
has eliminated the basic perils such as hunger and war is a sign of bad
taste. What kind of "creative society" can be built on death and suffering?
>. At the end, the author leaves tantalizingly open the matter of
> whether mankind's historical journey is approaching a close or another
> beginning; he even alludes to the likelihood that time travelers may well
> strike out in directions yet undreamt.
Good for the author, but it still doesn't motivate me to get the book and
read it. So far, my impression is that the book was written by somebody who
took the sword and sorcery genre a bit too seriously and laments about the
need to implement it in the modern society. Pathetic.
--
Mladen Gogala
Za Feral Spremni!
Tony
"Mladen Gogala" <mgo...@adelphia.net> wrote
[]
He, he, good answer! Really funny too. Somehow I doubt that Marven would
like bungee jumping - he leaves impression of somebody who run away from
dangers and risks of living in the village in Herzia and moved to more
comfortable politcal activity in our metropolis.
Tony
Robert Jerin
engineers never want to be without a flock following them, baaaa
Excellent article.
"Mir Harven" <mha...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:3cd588c...@news.tel.hr...
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0380720027/qid=1020626850/sr=8-1/ref=
Mladen Gogala
> And the dummies have responded and still don't get it! But hey social
> engineers never want to be without a flock following them, baaaa
>
> Excellent article.
>
And, I have to confess, I still don't get it. What exactly are you trying
to tell us? Who are the social engineers? What exactly do you agree with
and what do you disagree with? I have to give you credit for convincingly
imitating a sheep. It probably comes naturally.
Tony
"Mladen Gogala" <mgo...@adelphia.net> wrote
> I have to give you credit for convincingly
> imitating a sheep. It probably comes naturally.
Yes, I noticed in the past that just mentioning the world 'liberal' affects
him so. Happily, after each Republican screwup, war and recession, there
come years of peace, liberalism and economic prosperity.
Tony
Mladen Gogala
Which is exceptionally strange having in mind that we both live in a
liberal emocracy. During the course of my life, I have lived in a
different system and I know the difference. I doubt that he can say the
same.
Mir Harven
As always-good ole ignoramus. Fukuyama's arguments center
on Platonic notion on triple division of soul, especially thymos-
which is not translatable nor reducible to the glands physiology.
It's as futile as Moleschott's and Engels' idea of mental life
being just a brain's physical "exudation".
> Personality that thrives on competition has more then plentiful
>opportunity to compete in the field of art,technology and science.
Tyhmos is defined as "pride", "assertive self" ,"will to be" or
"unbound freedom". It cannot "get a satisfaction" in any preordained
role in a nicely ordered society.
By the way- these quasiobjections miss the point since Fukuyama
simply questions the possibility of global homeostatic harmonious
society based on liberal democracy in the future. In short, he deals
with utopian projections.
>Those
>insufficiently evolved specimen of "master races" all over the world which
>would like to compete using brawl instead of brains can always become prize
>fighters and test their skills and abilities against the likes of Tyson
>and Lennox Lewis.
Jabber that has nothing to do with the book.
> Using the term "sterile environment" for a society which
>has eliminated the basic perils such as hunger and war is a sign of bad
>taste. What kind of "creative society" can be built on death and suffering?
Looks like Fukuyama and some others think that
society without "fair share" of suffering (of course, complete
elimination of pain is technically impossible-not to mention death)
generates only frivolous specimen. Or, as Isaiah Berlin agreed-
frivolous societies are anthropologically incapacitated for
great undertakings.
>>. At the end, the author leaves tantalizingly open the matter of
>> whether mankind's historical journey is approaching a close or another
>> beginning; he even alludes to the likelihood that time travelers may well
>> strike out in directions yet undreamt.
>
>Good for the author, but it still doesn't motivate me to get the book and
>read it. So far, my impression is that the book was written by somebody who
>took the sword and sorcery genre a bit too seriously and laments about the
>need to implement it in the modern society. Pathetic.
Well- I doubt Fukuyama will be much concerned, since his
today's preoccupation is more with impact of biotechnology than with
philosophy of history.
Anyway- it's good that this poster has spitted out his confusions,
because:
- Fukuyama's 90ies bestseller is something entirely different
than this buffoon's distorted vision would have it. It is a futurist
work in philosophy of history, not a geopolitical or sociological
analysis of contemporary societies.
- also, Fukuyama's many weaknesses (his reliance on second-hand
interpretation of Hegel based on Kojeve's influential book, complete
disregard of a variety of factors (ecological, religious, demographic,
technological,...) that would necessarily undermine any possibility
of global liberal democracies (the existing ones subsist more on
elaborate network of financial & economic exploitation than expansion
or creativity) are not dealth with here.
EOD
>
>
>--
>Mladen Gogala
>Za Feral Spremni!
Dumb@ss.
Vladimir Dananić
> Looks like Fukuyama and some others think that
> society without "fair share" of suffering (of course, complete
> elimination of pain is technically impossible-not to mention death)
> generates only frivolous specimen. Or, as Isaiah Berlin agreed-
> frivolous societies are anthropologically incapacitated for
> great undertakings.
>
Well, they always have good old "thinker" E. Bloch, who made a
promise to abolish death on behalf commie ideology. Don't know
how far did he get--perhaps something has left of him in his grave.
Mladen Gogala
>
>
> As always-good ole ignoramus. Fukuyama's arguments center on Platonic
> notion on triple division of soul, especially thymos- which is not
> translatable nor reducible to the glands physiology. It's as futile as
> Moleschott's and Engels' idea of mental life being just a brain's
> physical "exudation".
Now I am really starting to like the guy. Metaphysical soul, nothing less.
Well, there's a different school of thought which claims that love is
chemistry, sex is physics and that soul doesn't exist. Using such
entities as a foundation for a highly political book does not seem very
rational to me.
>
>> Personality that thrives on competition has more then plentiful
>>opportunity to compete in the field of art,technology and science.
>
> Tyhmos is defined as "pride", "assertive self" ,"will to be" or "unbound
> freedom". It cannot "get a satisfaction" in any preordained role in a
> nicely ordered society.
Why don't you say so! These characters which you are talking about are
criminals with a fancy label originating from the ancient Greek! Yeah,
right, we should really make some room for those in our society. I mean,
they are suffering in a nicely ordered society. Marven, are you on drugs?
Can you share? It looks like a potent stuff....
> By the way- these quasiobjections miss the point since Fukuyama simply
> questions the possibility of global homeostatic harmonious society based
> on liberal democracy in the future. In short, he deals with utopian
> projections.
You mean like Fourier, Saint Simon and Owen? Or maybe even Thomas Moore
whose political philosophy was rally appreciated by Henry VIII? He must be
a very relevant author, then. I'm still awaiting your quotes from the Turner
Diaries.
>
>>Those
>>insufficiently evolved specimen of "master races" all over the world
>>which would like to compete using brawl instead of brains can always
>>become prize fighters and test their skills and abilities against the
>>likes of Tyson and Lennox Lewis.
>
> Jabber that has nothing to do with the book.
>
>> Using the term "sterile environment" for a society which
>>has eliminated the basic perils such as hunger and war is a sign of bad
>>taste. What kind of "creative society" can be built on death and
>>suffering?
>
> Looks like Fukuyama and some others think that society without "fair
> share" of suffering (of course, complete elimination of pain is
> technically impossible-not to mention death) generates only frivolous
> specimen. Or, as Isaiah Berlin agreed- frivolous societies are
> anthropologically incapacitated for great undertakings.
Oh, "frivolous specimen", that's the danger! No more heroes, glorious
leaders, warriors and alike, we get scientists, lawyers, teachers and
artists instead! A bad trade indeed! How lucky was Russia to have Stalin,
Molotov and Brezhnjev! And the Russians even dare not to appreciate those
heroic characters! We can even go one level below, to the glorious
warriors like Zhukov, Konjev, MacArthur and Chester Nimitz. They are
really necessary for everyday's life! Well, let me fill my somach and care
of my family and you go and play war some else! Shooo, shooo!
>
>>>. At the end, the author leaves tantalizingly open the matter of
>>> whether mankind's historical journey is approaching a close or another
>>> beginning; he even alludes to the likelihood that time travelers may
>>> well strike out in directions yet undreamt.
>>
>>Good for the author, but it still doesn't motivate me to get the book and
>>read it. So far, my impression is that the book was written by somebody
>>who took the sword and sorcery genre a bit too seriously and laments
>>about the need to implement it in the modern society. Pathetic.
>
> Well- I doubt Fukuyama will be much concerned, since his today's
> preoccupation is more with impact of biotechnology than with philosophy
> of history.
That was the right decision, if I ever knew one!
> Anyway- it's good that this poster has spitted out his confusions,
> because:
> - Fukuyama's 90ies bestseller is something entirely different than this
> buffoon's distorted vision would have it. It is a futurist work in
> philosophy of history, not a geopolitical or sociological analysis of
> contemporary societies.
> - also, Fukuyama's many weaknesses (his reliance on second-hand
> interpretation of Hegel based on Kojeve's influential book, complete
> disregard of a variety of factors (ecological, religious, demographic,
> technological,...) that would necessarily undermine any possibility of
> global liberal democracies (the existing ones subsist more on elaborate
> network of financial & economic exploitation than expansion or
> creativity) are not dealth with here. EOD
The term "liberal democracy" describes a system of goverment, not an
economic foundation. Theoretically, you can have an extremely poor state
with liberal democacy, but in practice, there is none. That should also
tell you something.
Denis Misevic
> The term "liberal democracy" describes a system of goverment, not an
> economic foundation. Theoretically, you can have an extremely poor state
> with liberal democacy, but in practice, there is none. That should also
> tell you something.
Not possible. Theoretically yes, but in reality a liberal democratic state with
a poor economy becomes a corrupt one. Can a corrupt state have a 'liberal
democratic' attribute?
Mladen Gogala
Well, this discussion is highly hypothetical because I don't know any
state that would even remotely fit the description. I am inclined to admit
that you're right.