/philosophy/ - Philosophy

When everyone is dead and no on can record or remember history

Hegel's end of History "thesis" was regarding the end of philosophy as such. Hegel believed that he had arrived at Absolute Knowing by the end of the Phenomenology, i.e. he had figured out every possible philosophical epistemic formulation (form of consciousness) and no other new epistemological frameworks past him would come about. History would still happen, obviously, but the end had already been reached and all that was left was for the repetition of the forms of consciousness until everyone one day wises up and accepts Hegel's meta-epistemology/philosophy was right.

>>1465

Thanks.

>>1462

That depends on what you mean by "history". If you are simply referring to the past, then at the end of time, if such will ever occur. If by history you mean a known past, then at the end of sentient, self aware life's existence.

Fukuyama?

You could arguably say that History ends when we stop recording it- at that point we can only refer to what has happened as "the past", the difference being that when we consider past events to have contributed conceivably to the current state of affairs we call it history- ie, the Berlin wall. Without historical record to compare and contrast with our current state of affairs in order to consider how the former might have affected the latter, we cannot know if the past has influenced anything and thus it is not history, merely the past which will gradually be forgotten.

The end of historical documentation in all its forms will likely come with the death of mankind.

Probably wrong but fuck it.

>>1493

>The end of historical documentation in all its forms will likely come with the death of mankind.

This is a very interesting statement. Not sure I'd be willing to go along with it, though, unless you understand mankind to be inherently progressive and progression to be reliant on documentation.

Situations that don't involve change would not require documentation and could thus qualify. But it doesn't have to mean death of mankind. If a stable situation (e.g. that of a blissful, genetically-triggered permanent state of happiness) even allows for the possibility of change (which, in a universe not 100% under our control is always the case), then there can be grounds for a notion of historicity. Though I suspect the problem here is whether it is "history" if it is not percieved as such.

From a Bromheadian perspective, it's the point at which humanity has the capability spread our existence, or whatever we've evolved into at that point, over multiple universes, thus eliminating all but the faintest possibility of racial annihilation.