Cite this

The End of History: Views of the Philosophers Response Essay


Summary of the article

The world history has been portrayed in diverse ways by a number of political philosophers. In this article, the author presents the arguments of a substantial number of philosophers. The paper brings out the views of the philosophers on the world history, particularly the political and economic developments and their implication on the existence and relations between human beings in diverse political and economic landscapes.

The author tries to present an end of the world history by bringing out the main arguments from the major philosophers and the implication of the arguments as portrayed by the contemporary organization of the world.

The author draws a comparison of the history of the political and economic course as it is founded in the arguments that are posited by a number of scholars, who include Hegel, Karl Marx, Max Weber, Paul Kennedy, and Kejeve among others.

The critical question in the article concerns whether there is a cofounded explanation in the political philosophies that are advanced by the scholars, which depict an end to the political and economic order of the globe whose search has been depicted in a number of political and economic courses like the three main world wars.

The author makes an analogy of the current developments in the concept of governance by drawing from the ancient philosophical theses by Hegel, Kejeve, Karl Marx and Max Weber. The aim of the author is to draw a relative comparison of the current structures of governance from the theses that were advanced by the ancient scholars as a way of determining the relative factor of governance and its foundations in the philosophies.

As it comes out in the article, there are a number of contradictions in the explanations of historical events and the linkage of the events to the contemporary developments in governance, which according to the author, mark the end of the world history (Fukuyama n.p.).

Different political and economic philosophies like capitalism, socialism, Leninism, and democracy among others are brought out in the article. The author brings out all these philosophies in his bid to explain the pros and cons of each ideology and their impacts on governance in the present environment.

The competitive and comparative scales of these philosophies is also brought out in the article, where Fukuyama tries to explore the foundations of each philosophy by mainly focusing on the level of reception in the regions or states in which the philosophies were exercised.

An example is the explanation of how Leninism was exercised in the former Soviet Union and how it impacted on the political and economic organizations of the region. The ideologies come out as competitors in the sense that each of them has a different impact on governance when it is used.

While liberalism seems to come out as the main philosophy that is widely embraced in contemporary governance, Fukuyama presents a critique of liberalism by relating it to other attributes of governance in states like nationalism. The socio-political and economic foundations are subjected to criticism in the article.

Finally the author presents the symbolism of the contemporary political situation in the world, which is marked by the struggle between the developing and the developed world. Whether the conflict between the developed and the developing world about issues of governance will ever come to an end remains to be a rhetoric topic (Fakuyama n.p.).

Analysis of the views in the article

In the article, the author argues that western civilization has been fully universalized, which marks the end of the historical developments that have been depicted in political battles such as the three main world wars: the First World War, the Second World War and the Cold War. What ought to be asked is whether the western civilization has been universally accepted as argued by the author.

Most people, especially from the non-western world, still hold the western civilization with contempt. They base on the modalities that have been used by the western nations to ensure that they popularize the western civilization at the expense of other civilizations across the world.

While it cannot be denied that the western civilization is dominant in the world, it remains critical to note that most people from the non-western nations oppose the means through which such a civilization is enhanced by the western states.

The contemporary global political economy still denotes the battle between other civilizations, for example the Asian civilization and the western civilization that still appear dominant (Burdyuzha 353).

The author makes a comparative exploration of how different authors relate the interplay of politics in the contemporary world. The argument that the ideal of Hegel that the behaviors of all human beings are founded in consciousness has lost stance in the hands of later thinkers is quite unheeding.

All the explanations of the political, economic and social relations as brought out by late thinkers like Karl Marx have elements of human consciousness. The concept of utilitarianism as expounded by Marx and other political concepts that have been developed by other scholars like the definition of the industrial society are based on the views of human beings on how political order is attained.

The rationalization of the interplay between politics and economics and the basis on which a set of political and economic actions are taken by nations in the contemporary political economy invoke a lot of thinking. This implies that human conscience, which was the main idea and an area that was highly explored by Hegel, is also founded in the concepts of political economy that came later after him.

Political priorities and actions often raise questions and debates, for instance the action by the United States to attack Iraq. Such an action elicited diverse reactions from people across the world, which implies a founded explanation in human conscience (Fukuyama n.p.).

Liberalism has been explored by a substantial number of political scientists in the sense that one cannot base on the argument of a single scholar to justify the essence and interplay of attributes of liberalism in the current political state of the world. The 19th century saw two main challenges to the concept of liberalism. These are fascism and communism. Fascism lost its essence in the course of the Second World War.

Communism was promoted at this time due to the focus of the world on anomie and the set of political and economic structures that could ensure political, social and economic security for citizens in different states since an ideology in the Western world was only prevalent for a limited period of time. This was prevalent in a number of political parties in communist states in Eastern Europe.

However, as it is today a substantial number of changes have been put in place in the western world, especially in Eastern Europe. Communism has slowly faded, with most countries in Western Europe giving up the communist philosophy as a way of fitting into the seemingly liberal Western Europe community (Fukuyama n.p.).

Has communism really faded in the western world or is it just a tactic of the countries that used to embrace communism to fit into the economic order of Western Europe, which is depicted in the functioning of the European Union? This is a critical question that is asked when talking about the issue of economic order in Europe.

It is argued that most of the Eastern Europe countries have been forced to adapt to liberalism and shun communism to fit and benefit from the European Union. This is one of the indicators of the influence of ideology on governance in contemporary governance.

A look at the attributes of autocracy in the Asia reveals that the Asian nations like China that used to embrace democracy have had to minimize the features of communism. This move has enabled them to transact in the global economic order. Again, it is argued that the Asian countries still uphold communist dimensions in their countries.

They drop most of the elements of communism while managing their economic activities in other parts of the world. This is another critique for people who see western liberalism as an ideology that has been widely accepted in modern governance across the world (Paul, Miller and Paul 41-43).

Fukuyama argues that the issue of balance of power in the international political scene is dictated by the emerging issues between the developed and the developing world. This is a candid observation. The modern political economy highly revolves around the status of political and economic development between the developed and the developing nations.

Is there a chance for the developing world to overtake the developed world and dictate the course of socio-political and economic development in the world? While the author recognizes that China and Russia have transformed their politic and economic stature, he only sees this as a threat to the developed world (Fukuyama n.p.).

Fukuyama argues that China and Russia will take a relatively longer time to join the developed states of the west as liberal states. This, according to the author, is based on the fact that the states embrace a different ideology from that which is upheld by the developed states of the west.

These countries embrace Leninism and Marxism as the core pillars of transformation in socio-political and economic governance, while the western states fully embrace liberalism and democracy. These forms of governance are used to manipulate the developing states. As opined by the author, the difference in the ideologies is likely to remain as a factor of competition between the developing and the developed states.

Therefore, in no point will the west accept to be grouped with the developing states from Asia, Latin America or Africa in as far as they still uphold political ideologies that are different from those that they uphold. The author also denotes that competition in the contemporary political world is slowly shifting from mere ideologies to the quest and pace of technology adoption and incorporation in production (Inozemtsev and Dutkiewicz 89-90).

Technology is seen as a crucial parameter for improving the lives of the citizenry. The pace at which technology is being adopted and improved upon in countries like China depicts a new set of competition between the developed and the emergent economic powers in the world. The increased rate at which technology is being embraced denotes movement away from the traditional ideologies.

Order in the contemporary and future world is bound to be shaped by technology; the search for newer and more efficient technologies and the solving of problems that emanate from technology. These include environmental pollution and the change in the socioeconomic order owing to the full embrace of technology in discharging economic and social functions (Fukuyama n.p).

Whether political ideologies can be fully killed is a question that is subject to debate. The rationale behind this concern is that the world is already witnessing a problem concerning the embrace of technology and its resultant impacts. Instead of cooperating to foster oneness in solving the contemporary problems facing all nations, there is still a drift between countries as portrayed by finger-pointing.

The observation in the article is that a new dynamic of conflict is again emerging in the world; this time it will not be centered on political ideologies per se, but on the problems and challenges of technology. Therefore, cycles of socio-political and economic events in the world are not likely to come to a rest.

This is why the author argues that the end of history will mark the beginning of history. This, in its deepest sense, implies that the global history cannot easily come to an end since the end depicts the acceptance of a common course by all states in the world, a situation that is quite overwhelming to attain (Stunkel and Sarsar 2).

Works Cited

Burdyuzha, Vladimir. The Future of Life and the Future of Our Civilization. Dordrecht: Springer, 2006. Print.

Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History? 2003. Web. http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm

Inozemtsev, Vladislav, and Piotr Dutkiewicz. Democracy versus Modernization: A Dilemma for Russia and for the World. New York, NY: Routledge, 2013. Print.

Paul, Ellen F, Fred D. Miller, and Jeffrey Paul. Liberalism and the Economic Order. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Print.

Stunkel, Kenneth R, and Saliba G. Sarsar. Ideology Values and Technology in Political Life. Lanham, MD: Univ. Press of America, 1994. Print.

This Response Essay on The End of History: Views of the Philosophers was written and submitted by user Kason W. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly.

Cite This paper

Select a referencing style:

Reference

W., K. (2019, June 17). The End of History: Views of the Philosophers [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-end-of-history-views-of-the-philosophers/

Work Cited

W., Kason. "The End of History: Views of the Philosophers." IvyPanda, 17 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/the-end-of-history-views-of-the-philosophers/.

1. Kason W. "The End of History: Views of the Philosophers." IvyPanda (blog), June 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-end-of-history-views-of-the-philosophers/.


Bibliography


W., Kason. "The End of History: Views of the Philosophers." IvyPanda (blog), June 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-end-of-history-views-of-the-philosophers/.

References

W., Kason. 2019. "The End of History: Views of the Philosophers." IvyPanda (blog), June 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-end-of-history-views-of-the-philosophers/.

References

W., K. (2019) 'The End of History: Views of the Philosophers'. IvyPanda, 17 June.

More World History Paper Examples