Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 5:01 pm Post subject: Francis Fukuyama
Well, I will start off by saying this reading did succeed in making me angry. Also, Francis Fukuyama's definition of history and mine must be very different since he believes History ended just over 200 years ago. I think he sees History as political changes, as in really really big political changes.
I believe his thesis is "While it is impossible to rule out the sudden appearance of new idealogies...principles of socio-political organization have not advanced terribly far since 1806." (pg. 174) Even if this is true, I still disagree that History ended in 1806. In my opinion, History encompasses much more than just politics- it includes everything. Fukuyama is only seeing the big picture, and not the detail. He should talk to some microhistorians!
His arguements were definitely solid, but since I disagree with what he sees as History, they do not convince me.
On another note, I know there were a lot of typos in this reading, but did the use of History vs. history have any meaning?
(will finish this post later!)
Last edited by Knaideface on Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
his thesis seems to be that history is ending from a combination of universlalism and a gravitation towards capital like governments in even comunist countries, and teh fal of comunism. which makes sense.
his ideas are veyr clear to me and i like what he says, i'm not enraged by what he says, in fact from what i've read of his stuff i don't see why he'd be so agravting. i think h's wrong though. there's obviously going to be more history in the world, even if every country has the same economic structure. but don't think he's so much talking about history as History, which i suppose following his reasoning makes plenty of sense. if all people in the world just worked as hard as they could in capitalist gov and made their best then people will make good money and all will be equal. the problem being(and he mentions this) bigotry (he specifically says racism) but he's saying that these are not the fault of the system of capitalism, its the fault of slavery and oppression, of the past, of History.
i don't dissagree with him, but i think i would want to ponder more first. i think that he has a litle too much faith in his system, but i think he's right to a point. i think that keeping with the system is all fine and dandy but (and maybe he said this and i missed it) i think that there is obviously room for improvement, he didn't really talk about the greed factor in capitalsm that has a lot of affects on the economy (recent history anyone. (i know it's been argued a hundred times, doesn't make it less true)).
at the same time i see what he says about the fact that there's no where to go towards than that of capitalism, cause religion, nationalism have their major problems (history) and fascism and communism are also not too good, so there;s only capitalism to go towards (i would say socialism could have a shot though)
i like what he said about the end of hisotry, every point he makes is dead on and i really appreciated it. i'm still uncomfortable with his ideas of big country controll over small countries. i think he's a little too right wing for me, but i like a lot of what he said. i'm 80% with him on his points.
also i thionk there will be more history to be made when we expand to space colonization, it is in human nature to find new ways to apporach things, i don't think (like he seems to)that humanity will allow itself to degrade into this motionless thing without any progress or art or anything. i think gthta humanity always finds a way.
but i wanna meet this man he makes a good argument.
Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2011 7:14 pm Post subject: shari's Reply
To me, it seems like Francis is saying that the end of history is the point where we've reached our limits in government and have been so highly affected by material forces that we start to revert back to old ways and borrow from one another. If this is what Francis means, then I disagree about the end of history. History is ever changing whether we physically see it or not - it's happening. To say that we've reached an end to history is impossible from my point of view.
One thing that I don't really understand is the materialistic views that is mentioned on pages 167-168. If someone could extrapolate on that idea, that would be great! I find it difficult to comprehend the ideology that choosing leisure over pay is from consciousness. I think that the materialistic want is driven by social influence and what was "in" at that time, in that specific area of the world.
I just made a connection to Hegel, so I'm going to start with that. It's pretty clear why Fukuyama thinks history is over: he doesn't know any better. This is so similar to Rachel's example of why Hawking doesn't think there's life on other planets. Hawking says everything is so far away we'll never know it, and therefore it doesn't exist. (or something like that) I think Fukuyama says history is over because he can't imagine the world changing from its present state, so therefore it must not change.
maybe.
The Marx stuff I got out of the reading was Fukuyama's money thing. On the other thread, Sonya made a really good point about a possible thesis from the reading. She said that Fukuyama basically thought history was done because nothing could be further improved politically. To take this a step further, Fukuyama also said that anything major that will happen from now on will be monetary. ..."life for part of the world that has reached the end of history is far more preoccupied with economics than with politics or strategy." (176) Marx was also concerned with money, as it was one of his major divisions of society. (77) Fukuyama seems like Marx's and Hegel's brain child.
The thesis I found from the reading is very Hegelian, and is on page 173. It's basically saying once progress stops, history is over.
"But at the end of history it is not necessary that all societies become successful liberal societies, merely that they end their ideological pretensions of representing different and higher forms of human society."
I think this will help with my definition of history the most, and I'm now thinking including Hegelian ideas of progress will be really helpful.
one clarifying question that maybe someone can answer is the significance of the term "realm of consciousness". This gets mentioned throughout the reading, sometimes interchangeably with ideology.
A connection I made to it, which may be in the totally wrong direction, is the idea of theory vs. practice. I feel like this relates to Fukuyama's thesis. He believes that politically, we are done coming up with new theories. He argues that we have already come up with the major ideas behind forms of governments (communism, fascism, marxism, democracy). But he leaves room for change and growth in how these forms of government are carried out or practiced.
But is History only about politics? I think if you talked to Darnton and other Microhistorians they would disagree. They look at the small parts of
the past, and the individual. Fukuyama is only looking at history from a political point of view, and not a personal one.
This reading definitely got me thinking about the definition of history. It made me realize how much microhistory plays into my definition of that.
Another idea I want to bring up is the idea of the knower effecting the known. "But while man's very perception of the material world is shaped by his historical conciousness of it, the material world can clearly affect in turn the viability of a particular state of conciousness." (pg. 169)
I'm not exactly sure how this fits into everything, maybe it will help me in thinking about Truth?
Ill start off by saying that I TOTALLY agree with Kinade. To me history cannot end, and though he makes solid arguments that it did end. There is nothing that anyone could do to make me believe that.
In a way I think he is kind of like Darwin because he proves himself over and over. If i had to argue with him it would end with me saying, "just because". That annoys me because now I know where my definition of science is going but I am not sure how to back mine up. ...great reading to lead up to the final project....
I also agree with Dylan because I got so confused between Marx and Hegel at points. But there were some areas where he made Hegel's ideologies more clear to me. So he stupefied it to a point where everyone is on a level of understanding, therefore making it easier for him to claim his thesis. But not for me!
What Fukuyama proposed is, based on what I understand so far, is that according to Hegelian dialectic method, human race has been progressed, and current economic/social status (democracy?) is the finest point where more progression cannot be made. Primitive stages, compare to present stages, have numerous errors and ineffectiveness for prosper of human. Sounds like cliché but anyway, over the history, those problems had been solved, and we are at the point that no more problems exist to be solved, according to Fukuyama. He thinks major historical event will not occur in future, but I think that is not what we can judge of. We are living in present, the on-going rail of change. There will be mere difference between today and tomorrow that we can find, however, if we step back and compare now and decade before, we still can find historical shifts, such as drastic rise of China, wars, and unstablized America(?).
The general shape of what Fukuyama said of 'the end of History' is quite similar with my idea of truth. We challenge to the truth constantly, redefining and refining it until we believe no more ‘more-truthful-truth’ can be made. We who cling to ‘current truth’ think we have ‘the truth,’ but even a month ago, nothing can be faster than light. Now we know the existence of nutrino, which travels faster than light. The process of achieving the ‘more-truthful-truth’ is getting harder and slower, because we are approaching to more sophisticated truth. But I don't think we will ever stop to find ‘more-truthful-truth.'
I feel that Fukuyama's thesis is that the final form of government came with the introduction of Western ideas, which ended history. I definitely do not agree with his views about history. Like what Shari said, history is happening all around us, constantly. There is no end to history. I think that Fukuyama, by claiming this is the end of history, that he was just trying to make sense of the Cold War. I have a question about the material world part, what did he mean when he said, "the ideal that will govern the material world in the long run"?
As far as I can figure, Fukuyama believes that history consisted of the evolution of human thought, actualizing itself as a political system. He, like Kojeve, thinks that history would end at the last pivotal point in political ideals. What Fukuyama goes on to say is that conflict is what generates new pivotal points, but since our ideology (aka "western liberalism") encourage assimilation over confrontation, there wont be another "vanguard of humanity" there wont be any more or Hegel's heroes, or romanticizing ideas or art.
1. Is it true that "Hegel believed that history culminated in an absolute moment - a moment in which a final, rational form of society and state became victorious." ?
I think what makes me the most uncomfortable with reading this is that he believes that without conflict, we wouldn't grow culturally. If there were world peace, we'd all become economists.
I thought Fukutama's thesis was mankind's ideological evolution has reached it's max and that liberal democracy is the final step in the evolution and that it will be accepted by all as the most human/best form of governing, (not completely my own words, some were quotes from him...). I think he proves history has ended, assuming you accept his definition of history, which I think is written into his thesis.
I do not agree with his definition of History, I think History has far more to it than the ideological advancements of humanity and how these ideas are accepted. Or I at least think the ideological advancements are far more specific than different forms of government or human organization.
In response to Niko, I think that he meant the ideal that is most believed or more true will create the material world for humanity. Humanity will shape it's world based on it's beliefs. Thats my take on it.
The purpose of Fukuyama's article is to "look at underlying trends in the sphere of ideology and consciousness."(p.172) I believe his thesis is interwoven within this purpose and involves the advent of Western liberal democracy signaling the end point of humanity's sociocultural evolution and the final form of human government.
Although Fukuyama definitely had some solid arguments, his definition of history wasn't clear enough for me to fully agree with him. Some of his points seemed a bit contrived.
At first I was confused because Fukuyama kept talking about the end of history and I wasn't sure how that could be possible. As long as our world keeps moving forward into the future, won’t we always have a history? But then I looked back closely into the text and found that he didn't literally mean the end of history but "the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government." (p.165)
I disagree with the people who have said that Fukuyama thought history was over. Although he did discuss the end of history in depth (what it would involve and the repercussions) he did not state that he, in fact, thought history was done. He declared; "The end of history WILL be a very sad time." (p.177) Key word “will.” I love Gyonghee's connection of Fukuyama's points on the end of history to the concept of truth. This reading definitely gave me a lot of ideas to think about for my definition of truth. I feel that each time I come up with a definition of truth, we have another reading that changes the definition entirely. Perhaps my definitions will continue to evolve and change just like the discipline of science
[/i]
I agree with a lot of what other people have already said and got a lot of the same ideas from this reading. I'll start with Knaide- I agree that Fukuyama was very interested in macrohistory and he saw History as large, political changes that then he applies to everything making it entirely the History of that time. He definitely looked at things in the big picture. Ever since the lesson on microhistory my definition has been heading in that direction so reading something like this was a bit unsettling.
During the reading I was also following the huge Hegelian connections but was having a hard time wrapping my mind around it because I don't think history is over whatsoever. So when I read Dylan's post using Hawking as an example, it seemed to click, so thank you for that Dyl. Even though I'm not in agreement with Fukuyama's views that history is over, I do agree that he believes it is because he "can't imagine the world changing from its present state, so therefore it must not change" (dylan).
For this reading I think to agree with Fukuyama you must agree with his definition of History which I do not. I think History is more than the political system and the big changes in the evolution of humanity. I also don't think we are at the end of that evolution.
I agree with Sonya and Dylan (I think) that his thesis/hypothesis is that history will end when whatever political system that is established as a 'universal homogenous state'. His arguments are very convincing and well founded in my opinion, and this may come solely out of my strong connection to Hegel and his view of history. If we had read this earlier in the mod I'm sure that I wouldn't have agreed with his points, but I'm also pretty sure that right now knowing what I think I know (ehehehe) I agree with him. Some of his points that I agree or maybe was just more surprised by for example the idea that post war existentialism comes form Hegelian principles . Also Fukuyama's idea of contradiction that he adapts from Hegel seemed like plenty of convincing evidence. "For hegel, the contradictions that drive history exist first of all in the realm of human consciousness" and also that Hegel "did not believe that the real world conformed or could be made to conform to idealogical preconception of philosophy professors in any simpleminded way, or that the 'material' world could not impinge on the ideal." From this same page I came across his idea that war was a materialistic thing, along with other actions... even though they come out of the ideals of someone. hegel's whole obsession with the French Revolution never really made sense until I read the passage about the bullet and the trigger and material vs. ideal. THe idea that the consciousness is the cause and then the material is the effect supports his thesis strongly. (p.167). When Fukuyama talks about Western vs. other countries I couldn't help thinking of Herodotus's 'hard vs. soft' culture idea (p. 166). I could keep pointing out his convincing points but I would take too long
When I was reading this I couldn't help getting a bit panicked about hoe my definition of history might be completely overturned after reading this. If history has an end, what do think of that? Is the end in a sense a sort of truth even with its flaws? How does that tie into truth? And also, do I now consider science to continue on long after history because science of what Douglas said in the seminar about living science.... would we only live science and never history?
Okay well I an no where near finishing this reading yet, but I am going to post now anyways.
First of all, Fukuyama makes a very good argument. I believe his hypothesis is that history ended in 1806 with the French and American Revolutions. I think he does make a very convincing case, with a lot of supporting evidence that makes sense, I am just not sure if I agree with him. And also, he seem to be contradicting himself a lot. For example, he says that “all prior contradictions are resolved and all human needs are satisfied.” (pg.167) but later he says that “All human behavior in the material world, and hence all human history, is rooted in a prior state of consciousness...” (pg.167) In the first quote he says that there is no priori knowledge because it is all known and understood, but then he goes on to say that all human behavior is rooted in a priori knowledge... did anyone else see that?
This article is extremely prevalent to our final project because in what i’ve read so far, it has just talked and talked about what Hegel and Fukuyama and Marx all think about what history is, which is a third of our project. So it will either help us or confuse us with our definition of what is history.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
