We won’t comment on the multiple issues in this essay and instead will simply reiterate our views on the ‘end of history’ meme. The title of our blog is the ‘end(s) of history’ and we have tried to place the whole discussion in terms of real history and the consideration of teleology.
The question of the ‘end of history’ is not so simple as the parties to the debate might think: it is a queer discussion based on teleology while denying what is being said.
An older post: the ‘end of history’ confusion and its ideology
February 28th, 2017 Continue reading “Implying teleology while ‘mum’s the word’”
The strangest part of the ‘end of history’ confusion is that it points to something real but in a form that has suffered hopeless confusion of terms. From garbled hegel to leftist then rightist meme juggling the crypto-teleological term that came into being has courted pseudo-science, ideological tug of war, and neo-liberal apotheosis. Continue reading “Kant, origins of ‘end of history’ meme, and the place of free agency”
archive: marxism can’t handle teleology: why not the macro model of WHEE?
July 12th, 2017 ·
The marxist canon is in many ways confused, but the ‘end of history’ memes are also in a hopeless state.
A careful study of WHEE can help to see where the confusion arises, and to provide a model of a teleological system. Conventional scholarship can’t deal with this, so the confusion continues. Conventional scholarship can’t interpret Hegel properly, and so it goes.
I think that marxism is one of the earliest casualties of the Iron Cage and needs to be recast. Why not the macro model of WHEE?
The issue of teleology is orphaned from science but its place in world history is fundamental, yet elusive. Marxists reject teleology and yet Marx’s theories adopt it in disguise, while religionists take a biblical view of it which distorts their thinking.
The eonic effect shows the way it emerges in world history in a complicated and tricky way: the real thing, so to speak, is at first confusing because it is not quite what we expect…
The issue of teleology is confounding to darwinists, but it is likely to prove confounding to its own proponents, for example, the ID group and the Discovery Institute.
Since the marxist left both condemns teleology and yet tacitly adopts a teleological historicism it might be helpful to consider the advice offered in this post at Darwiniana, and approach the issue of historical teleology with the method, and caution, of the study of the eonic model.
The question of the ‘evolution of freedom’, a slippery subject, enters directly into socialist historical thinking.
Marx’s reductionist scientism has crippled the left. You would think that after Kant and Hegel the left could have produced a more intelligent framework than historical materialism. But that’s just the point: the obsession with Hegel in the era of the 1840’s was so extreme that an equally dubious positivism took root and has probably done more to undermine the path to socialism than any other ideological idee fixe.
Continue reading “Scientism in the era of the anti-hegelian movement…”