“The state that emerges at the end of history is liberal insofor as it recognize and protects through a system of law man’s universal right to freedom, and democratic insofar as it exist only with the consent of the governed.” Fukuyama makes a well proven case.
[quote]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.[quote]
To answer that question (I’ll try) Those are the contradictions in human life that Fukuyama saw throughout history. To Fukuyama, it doesn’t matter what people within a small community think but what truly matters is, “the common ideological heritage of mankind (p. 169).”
Firstly, it’s important to note that Fukyama did not explicitly endorse the ideas of Hegel, but he believed that his thesis could be best represented under the framework of Hegel's beliefs. “The issue was not whether Hegel’s system was right, but whether his perspective might uncover the problematic nature of many materialist explanations we often take for granted (169).”
For Fuckyama, acts of terrorism and insurgences cannot continue history, only “large scale conflicts involving world powers can control that, and to him, it had ended. Lastly, It is important to note that he looked at trends through the lenses of ideology/consciousness.
I’m troubled knowing that the reading made many of you uncomfortable. From this, my question is what makes you uncomfortable when reading The End of History?
I missed the deadline which really is unacceptable. I fell asleep while reading Fukuyama and woke up just a few minutes ago. But I'll just add that his analysis of East vs. West relations is startlingly accurate, whatever his own view of history may be. His logic is a pragmatic extension of the Hegelian school of thought, and deals in large part with a 'world spirit' of sorts. This is less materialistic than Marx, but equally as idealistic. The will or ideology of all people, he argues, is the primary force which shapes history.
His argument, although it is well written, did not convince me entirely. There seems to be something inherently limiting with the belief that liberalism is the end state (for the most part). I think it is well attuned to the sentiments of some Americans and some economists, but it's too extreme for me. Even if he's saying that democracy is the best possible government and capitalism the best possible economic system, I bet the situation will eventually arise where they are no longer the best choice. Although, he hasn't been proven wrong yet. The pros of liberalism outweigh the cons for those with a voice in things. (The thing about small countries not really mattering in the long run made me a little sad)
The tone of this article lulled me to sleep, with its cumbersome vocabulary and some very drawn out sentences. Having said that, I'm still glad to hear a viewpoint which I disagree with, that will hopefully narrow down my definitions of history and truth. _________________ "We have two ears and one tongue so that we would listen more and talk less." - Diogenes of Sinope
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
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
