• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Any Fukuyama Fans?

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
5,198
Reaction score
608
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I've read three Francis Fukuyama books, though only his breakthrough work, THE END OF HISTORY AND THE LAST MAN, really offers a philosophical view of historical process.

He has a new book coming out about the roots of identity politics in the current milieu, but I may wait on that till I see a few more reviews.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
5,198
Reaction score
608
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I copied this Fukuyama nugget from another blog; see what it does for you, if anything.

For Nietzsche, there was little difference between Hegel and Marx, because their goal was the same, a society embodying universal recognition. He, in effect, raised the question: Is recognition that can be universalized worth having in the first place? Is not the quality of recognition far more important than its universality? And does not the goal of universalizing recognition inevitably trivialize and devalue it?
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
5,198
Reaction score
608
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Sure. What is "recognition?"

Recognition is a term borrowed from Hegel, connoting the idea that human beings in society desire to be recognized as having worth by other members of the society.

Thus, if we are a society in which "universal recognition" does not exist, it is because some people are stigmatized and/or disenfranchised. Hegel and Marx both believed they had ways to eradicate the old hierarchies of disenfranchisement.
 

davidhume

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
255
Reaction score
72
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Recognition is a term borrowed from Hegel, connoting the idea that human beings in society desire to be recognized as having worth by other members of the society.

Thus, if we are a society in which "universal recognition" does not exist, it is because some people are stigmatized and/or disenfranchised. Hegel and Marx both believed they had ways to eradicate the old hierarchies of disenfranchisement.


I don't think there needs to be universality. Hegel only meant that just as I am a conscious person so are others. And since Nietzsche died before Marx was born he could not have read him. And I don't think Nietzsche ever mentioned Hegel. So not sure what your quote from Fukayama is supposed to be about.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
5,198
Reaction score
608
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I don't think there needs to be universality. Hegel only meant that just as I am a conscious person so are others. And since Nietzsche died before Marx was born he could not have read him. And I don't think Nietzsche ever mentioned Hegel. So not sure what your quote from Fukayama is supposed to be about.

I gather you're going by memory, because even a quick check of Wikipedia can verify that Marx was born in 1814 and Nietzsche in 1844.

I can't say how thoroughly FN read Hegel and Marx, but both were very popular in European intellectual circles, so FN could and did talk about what he considered the flaws in their systems. He believed that simply having across-the-board respect/recognition wouldn't change anything, one had to be attuned to the quality of recognition.
 

davidhume

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
255
Reaction score
72
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I gather you're going by memory, because even a quick check of Wikipedia can verify that Marx was born in 1814 and Nietzsche in 1844.

I can't say how thoroughly FN read Hegel and Marx, but both were very popular in European intellectual circles, so FN could and did talk about what he considered the flaws in their systems. He believed that simply having across-the-board respect/recognition wouldn't change anything, one had to be attuned to the quality of recognition.


Oops, yes. Bad memory; thanks for the correction. Nietzsche never mentions Marx and I do not think he ever mentioned Hegel. Nietzsche was no fan of socialism, to be sure.

As far as the concept of "recognition" I am not sure why you or Fukayama brings it up as Nietzsche never mentions the concept.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
5,198
Reaction score
608
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Oops, yes. Bad memory; thanks for the correction. Nietzsche never mentions Marx and I do not think he ever mentioned Hegel. Nietzsche was no fan of socialism, to be sure.

As far as the concept of "recognition" I am not sure why you or Fukayama brings it up as Nietzsche never mentions the concept.

Since FN didn't like Hegel, he doesn't mention him often, so it's not surprising if most people don't remember the one or two direct references.

Here's what Quota says on the subjectL

Nietzsche very curtly deals with Hegel early in his writing career, in one of the Untimely Meditations, On the Uses and Abuses of History. In this essay Hegel’s philosophy is exposed to be a barrier to an authentic approach to the past, the present and the future. Hannah Arendt explains in The Life of the Mind that what Hegel does, and what Nietzsche take serious issue with, is that Hegel treats the future as if it were the past: determined, and exerting causal pressure upon the present and the past. Hegel’s philosophy, from the Nietzschean perspective, annihilates the authentic tense of both the future and the present, interpreting both from the way in which the past continues to presence itself, but not in the manner that the future makes itself appear to humankind. Hegel’s philosophy denies the power of the will to predict and choose the future: instead, the world is inevitably progressing towards some final state. The eternal recurrence is opposed to any kind of final state, be it of geist or of human beings. Even the last man will return indefinitely. The overman is no final state of humanity, if it is a possible state of human being at all.

As for Marx, another site says:

Clark and Leiter write in Nietzsche: Daybreak, "there is no evidence, however, that Nietzsche ever read Marx". He was aware of socialists and Young Hegelians more broadly, like Strauss, Stirner and Feuerbach, and yes, his individualism and emphasis on the historical role of "exceptional individuals", was antithetical to socialism and historical materialism, and his philosophy of life was antithetical to everything rationalism, especially Hegel.

[/QUOTE
The crux of Fukuyama's argument is to examine first the proposition that we may have reached the "end of history" that Hegel talks about, at least in the political sense, and then to relate that proposition to Nietzsche's general aversion to the idea of any sort of "final state." Nietzsche doesn't mention the philosophical term "recognition," but he's talking about many of the same problems that arise from the way human beings place value on events, things, and other people. Fukuyama may not be as averse to "final states" as is FN, but he's extrapolating from what FN wrote to question whether a "final state" of human affairs would be desirable, in the various ways Hegel and Marx present the idea.

Your earlier remark about not needling a universality is key to Nietzsche's take, insofar as he can be said to state, as Fukuyama says he does, that humans need to pay more attention to the quality of recognition, rather than quantity (my rewording).
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
155,985
Reaction score
54,792
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I copied this Fukuyama nugget from another blog; see what it does for you, if anything.

"Trust" was a very good book. But, that was written back in the 90's. Since then, his stuff has mostly focused on American politics.
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,108
Reaction score
17,706
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Fukuyama is a grade A hack. First he claimed that liberal democracies were the wave of the future, and every country would end up being one. When that didnt happen, he did a 180 and blamed all the neocons (when he himself was a neocon) for their warmongering (considering he signed a manifesto urging for war in Iraq- he's a hypocrite too). That guy has lost all credibility imo.
 

davidhume

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
255
Reaction score
72
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Since FN didn't like Hegel, he doesn't mention him often, so it's not surprising if most people don't remember the one or two direct references.

Here's what Quota says on the subjectL



As for Marx, another site says:

Clark and Leiter write in Nietzsche: Daybreak, "there is no evidence, however, that Nietzsche ever read Marx". He was aware of socialists and Young Hegelians more broadly, like Strauss, Stirner and Feuerbach, and yes, his individualism and emphasis on the historical role of "exceptional individuals", was antithetical to socialism and historical materialism, and his philosophy of life was antithetical to everything rationalism, especially Hegel.

[/QUOTE
The crux of Fukuyama's argument is to examine first the proposition that we may have reached the "end of history" that Hegel talks about, at least in the political sense, and then to relate that proposition to Nietzsche's general aversion to the idea of any sort of "final state." Nietzsche doesn't mention the philosophical term "recognition," but he's talking about many of the same problems that arise from the way human beings place value on events, things, and other people. Fukuyama may not be as averse to "final states" as is FN, but he's extrapolating from what FN wrote to question whether a "final state" of human affairs would be desirable, in the various ways Hegel and Marx present the idea.

Your earlier remark about not needling a universality is key to Nietzsche's take, insofar as he can be said to state, as Fukuyama says he does, that humans need to pay more attention to the quality of recognition, rather than quantity (my rewording).


I never read quotes of other people talking about other people talking about other.....Sorry.
 

davidhume

Banned
Joined
Aug 21, 2013
Messages
255
Reaction score
72
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Fukuyama is a grade A hack. First he claimed that liberal democracies were the wave of the future, and every country would end up being one. When that didnt happen, he did a 180 and blamed all the neocons (when he himself was a neocon) for their warmongering (considering he signed a manifesto urging for war in Iraq- he's a hypocrite too). That guy has lost all credibility imo.


The times I tried to read Fukuyama left me confused and distracted. I don't think he knows anything about Hegel and is just a name dropper.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
5,198
Reaction score
608
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Fukuyama is a grade A hack. First he claimed that liberal democracies were the wave of the future, and every country would end up being one. When that didnt happen, he did a 180 and blamed all the neocons (when he himself was a neocon) for their warmongering (considering he signed a manifesto urging for war in Iraq- he's a hypocrite too). That guy has lost all credibility imo.

I would agree with this much re END OF HISTORY: the author did not foresee how powerful an opponent Islam would be to the aims of liberal democracy. He makes scant mention of the Islamic problem in the book and it does date the work in terms of being predictive. However, it's still a deeper philosophical work than the majority of poli-sci books, and raises questions that the current generation can't even begin to answer.

As for changing his opinions on Iraq and neoconservatism, it's a lousy philosopher who backs one horse throughout the whole of his life. Here's his statement from this interview:

Fukuyama: Iraq happened. The process of distancing myself from neo-conservatism happened four years ago really. I had decided the war wasn't a good idea some time in 2002 as we were approaching the invasion of Iraq.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
5,198
Reaction score
608
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,108
Reaction score
17,706
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The times I tried to read Fukuyama left me confused and distracted. I don't think he knows anything about Hegel and is just a name dropper.

Fukuyama is confusing because he changes his position on just about everything. I have no idea why people still listen to him.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
5,198
Reaction score
608
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Fukuyama is confusing because he changes his position on just about everything. I have no idea why people still listen to him.

Depends on what you mean by change. If he's changed five or six times, fine. If he simply changed from a neocon to a more liberal position, that's not an indicator of fickleness.
 

Ouroboros

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2018
Messages
5,198
Reaction score
608
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I thought I'd heard that the new Fukuyama book was pro-identity politics, but it seems not so.
 
Top Bottom