Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The society was crystallized in the time of the first cities in Mesopotamia ) But this does not mean that in this crystallized society one cannot improve one's material or social status. And you can also make it worse.
Someone's consciousness must have crystallized, too… Although I'm much more likely to encounter people and situations when it hasn't even awakened yet )
And it makes more sense to agree with those postulates and maxims that add something to the situation.Your life and contribute in some way toIn our interests. Beautiful metaphors of various kinds, which are invented exclusively for showing off and attracting attention, it is better to simply evaluate from an aesthetic point of view, without agreeing…)
The same thing was thought a hundred years ago by a Russian peasant, when he was brainwashed by communism – after all, according to the ideology of that time, communism is the crown of human life and there is nothing better and can not be (spoiler: straight believers of some kind). On the contrary, the history of ideas is not over and, moreover, the most interesting thing is still ahead. The 20th century gave humanity a technological and scientific breakthrough, even in the 20th century, a large number of science fiction writers (Wells, Orwell, Strugatsky, Lem, Lukyanenko) digested only the smallest part of all that man has achieved. Two thousand years ago, a small Jewish sect believed (or rather some part of it) that the material world was about to come to an end. So many centuries have passed, and we still exist. Of course, you can agree with this statement, but it is not reasonable.
To be more precise, we left the post-history and entered the meta-history. Now, as modern philosophers write, the era of metamodernity, and therefore, along with it, the philosophy of dualistic concepts. Roughly speaking, previously any idea had to have clear outlines, with clear and, as is now considered, primitive boundaries that separated it from any other idea. Everyone knew where in a particular idea “yes” and where “no”. Now, with the rethinking of most ideas during the postmodern philosophy, people have understood and felt the illusory and artificial nature of these clear boundaries, their subjectivity. We realized that everyone still understands the idea in their own way, but this does not make it disappear, but only complements and expands. We realized that any idea is “comorbid” in its own way and is always part of some other idea, that is, its boundaries always do not just touch, but interpenetrate with the shaky boundaries of other ideas and concepts. We realized that the clear boundaries of any idea brought to insanity lead to its inevitable profanation, because losing complexity, the idea within these clear boundaries crystallizes, turns into a simulacrum and dies. But fueled by other ideas and opinions (which is very well supported by neural networks and pluralism of opinions on the Internet), the idea expands, fills up and smoothly passes into other ideas, its boundaries are blurred, and there is only a certain percentage that separates one idea from another. This is the meaning of the prefix ” meta-“.
So no, no crystallization has occurred. Finally, only sprofanirovannye ideas crystallized, not rethought, but there are very few of them. The feeling of crystallization can only arise from the unsteady boundaries of modern ideas, in which it is now very easy to get lost. But over time, this effect will also be smoothed out.
There is no such science as history. There is only someone's interpretation of events. As far as it corresponds to reality, there is no way to check, from the word absolutely. Just as it is impossible to see the trail of a bird that has flown away.�
A clear example is our modernity, at least the same events in the Donbas. And what will our contemporaries read about it in 100 years?
The events of the past are presented to us on the basis of some chronicles, eyewitness accounts, which are taken as a basis and presented as the truth. And it is impossible to do any verification or rechecking. But simply you are presented with someone's opinion, someone's idea.�
The idea is beautifully designed, in a neat logical sequence. And in the end, you get a beautifully packaged lie – after all, it is not possible to live without history, it must be present in our society. The idea of being bound by one lie cements it with mutual responsibility. Because the idea of living in the present moment allegedly threatens society with uncontrollability. Whether this is good or bad, judge for yourself. But that's how we live.
I invite you to plunge not into non-classical industrial philosophy, but to look into psychology. If you put an equal sign between history = past, then an interesting picture appears here. We read your phrase for, say, 8 seconds. According to Broad's research in his book Scientific Thought (1930), we are only 2-3 seconds into the present. That is, when we finish reading your phrase, its beginning is already in the past, that is, in our history.�
History can only end when there is no one left on earth, living or non-living, who has a memory. It doesn't matter if there are changes in the present or not, we are all happily in the past. And only 2-3 seconds live in the present.�
As for the definition of what history is, in my opinion, no one has ever said better than Nietzsche:
As long as one of the three historical figures-the muralist, the antiquarian, and the critic – lives, history will continue to exist.�
Nietzsche, free translation from English.
No, you can't. It is not history that has ended, but the evolution of one ideology, specifically the ideology of liberalism. All possible types of evolution of liberalism in modern times – social liberalism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, neoconservatism, right-wing social democracy (Eurosocial democracy), liberal and intersectional feminism, anarko-capitalism, liberal nationalism, and so on. they were described and had nowhere else to go. The economic system that liberalism defended-that is, the capitalist system-also became global and took on a final, complete form. This is why technocrats and liberals claim that we have entered “post-history”, because it is clear that liberals cannot imagine that history did not end with the victory of liberalism and capitalism all over the world, and that social contradictions and political contradictions of a new type in a global consumer society can exist (and do exist), and their problems are insoluble within the framework of this economic system and its ideological superstructure. But in the same way, the ideologists of the Roman republic could not imagine that there is anything better than Rome's power over the Mediterranean peoples and the slave system, and the ideologists of the Western Middle Ages could not imagine that there is anything more just than feudalism and the primacy of the Roman Church, which gives rise to the Holy Roman Empire. This is the old cultural disease of Europe in its various guises-to declare a particular form of culture and civilization the highest, to consider that history is over.
But it's really strange to hear that “the history of ideas is over.” There are ideologies in the world that have never been able to complete their ideological evolution: left-wing ideologies (libertarian socialism, world communism, Christian socialism, anarkommunism, anarchocollectivism, etc.), national-cultural ideologies (in Russia – Eurasianism, in Spain-the concept of a single Latin American-Spanish cultural space), right-wing ideologies (fascism and Nazism continue to develop, alas, change their form, they were suppressed, but far from obsolete, like the conditions. who generated them). But even within the framework of modern liberalism, there are trends such as mondialism, isolationist neoconservatism-which are far from having completed their evolution, and even more so have not brought their projects to fruition, although these are rather post-liberal projects, but still incomplete.