[lit-ideas] Re: Fukuyama and the end of history
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2006 07:35:24 -0400
More and more it sounds like Fukuyama is a total idiot. All he's doing is
justifying why people should act like barbarians. Truly a step backwards
for civilization with this guy at the intellectual helm.
> [Original Message]
> From: Andreas Ramos <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 4/22/2006 2:53:44 AM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Fukuyama and the end of history
>
> Lawrence,
>
> Be careful of reviewers of F's book. Either a) they didn't read the whole
book b) they
> didn't understand the Hegelian arguments c) they're not familiar with
Continental philosophy
> (and very few American academics are) or d) they're Realists who are
arguing against F.
>
> F writes in an ironic tone. When he says that liberal democracies are the
best and final
> form of government, he is being very ironic. He is setting the reader up
to hold a belief,
> which he will then demolish. After getting you to openly admire the
apple, he has you take a
> bite, so you will see for yourself how it is infested with worms.
>
> Read the last two lines of chp. 27. For 27 chapters and 300 pages, he has
explored all the
> aspects of liberal democracy, showing why it will assurely win. Now,
finally, he turns to
> why democracy is a bad idea. The real danger is...
>
> "the greater and ultimately more serious threat comes from the Right,
that is, from liberal
> democracy's tendency to grant equal recognition to unequal people. It is
that to which we
> turn now."
>
> Here is the Hegelian dialectic: the very essense of liberal democracy is
poison. Useless
> weakings take over the planet and heroes lose.
>
> P. 311: "The end of history would mean the end of wars and bloody
revolutions. Agreeing on
> ends, men would have no large causes for which to fight. They would
satisfy their needs
> through economic activity, but they would no longer have to risk their
lives in battle."
> (Several sentences, in which F denounces citizens of democracies as mere
dogs.) "Human life,
> then, involves a curious paradox: it seems to require injustice, for the
struggle against
> injustice is what calls forth what is highest in man."
>
> Thus: While mindless fools applauded the collapse of the USSR as the
victory of democracy
> and the end of history, F sees the world enters into meaningless
stagnation. What we need is
> war, glorious war.
>
> You write that F rejected neocons. Not at all! F creates the moral
foundation for neocon. He
> is deeply neoconservative. F is possibly the most brilliant of the
neocons. F sees the
> necessity for moral battles, where brave warriors risk their lives to
defeat evil empires.
> Those warrors are natural aristocrats and stand far above trivial and
quaint nonsense, such
> as laws, treaties, the Geneva Convention, rules against torture, and so
on.
>
> Although F supported the invasion of Iraq (as I wrote previously, neocon
is the moral
> obligation to topple evil governments), he is unhappy with the way the
war has been carried
> out. It turned into a mess. He is trying to rescue neocon and get it back
on the path
> towards moral victory.
>
> yrs,
> andreas
> www.andreas.com
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
