Did Nietzsche warn against the end of history? Absolutely not, he reported it as fact, modernity holding the knife.
These days, I lack the patience reading about Saint Karl's thought. Darwin not Marx, that's the history of this species and planet from which it evolved and that's a 4.5 billion year old story.
Darwin's much more correct and radical than Marx, much less understood, and been even more badly propagandized for various powers to wrongly justify their positions over the last century and half.
we need to understand that we in all fundamentals of our selves stand on the shoulders, not of giants, but of single cells floating in the primeval sludge: what chance routes we took then made us what we are. Humans aren't a few hundred thousand years old, but a few billion
Without knocking Darwin, I'd say the Marxist (scientific socialist) canon deserves more credit in this comparison. Dialectical materialism is a really broad theory, broader even than natural selection in my view. I'm inclined to think it encompasses stuff as fundamental as matter and antimatter.
If you're tired of Marx, would I be right to guess that you don't think too highly of contemporary China?
(If you don't want to pursue this, if it's tedious or if it distracts from what you want to be focusing on, no offense taken.)
We do both have to grapple with global warming/climate change in the coming years. Aside from that, I'd say their problems are rather minor compared to ours. They seem to have capital on a leash, whereas capital has us on a leash.
Is Fukiuyma a hack? Yes.
Did Nietzsche warn against the end of history? Absolutely not, he reported it as fact, modernity holding the knife.
These days, I lack the patience reading about Saint Karl's thought. Darwin not Marx, that's the history of this species and planet from which it evolved and that's a 4.5 billion year old story.
Darwin's much more correct and radical than Marx, much less understood, and been even more badly propagandized for various powers to wrongly justify their positions over the last century and half.
we need to understand that we in all fundamentals of our selves stand on the shoulders, not of giants, but of single cells floating in the primeval sludge: what chance routes we took then made us what we are. Humans aren't a few hundred thousand years old, but a few billion
Without knocking Darwin, I'd say the Marxist (scientific socialist) canon deserves more credit in this comparison. Dialectical materialism is a really broad theory, broader even than natural selection in my view. I'm inclined to think it encompasses stuff as fundamental as matter and antimatter.
If you're tired of Marx, would I be right to guess that you don't think too highly of contemporary China?
(If you don't want to pursue this, if it's tedious or if it distracts from what you want to be focusing on, no offense taken.)
Right, Darwin's evolution isn't dialectics. China's just the latest to the industrialization game, most of their problems are the same as ours.
We do both have to grapple with global warming/climate change in the coming years. Aside from that, I'd say their problems are rather minor compared to ours. They seem to have capital on a leash, whereas capital has us on a leash.
I'd be curious to hear your take on a piece that came to mind after reading this. It's somewhat in line with, somewhat divergent from, your pov here. https://redsails.org/whos-afraid-of-the-end-of-history/