Hegel Was Wrong

Do catastrophes have a positive impact on the development of history, similar to their impact on the development of evolution? Is migration - detachment from the mother culture in favor of mating with a new culture - good for cultural development as it is for the development of species? Heretical thoughts against the concept of the growth of good from evil, and about the perceptual illusions that cause it

Minerva's owl completes its flight in the spiritual world only at the end of the day - because it flies in its sleep in a dream (Source)

Does history progress through catastrophes? Seemingly yes, but in fact, they only create a new order that reveals previous potential, which could have been revealed no less quickly, albeit in a less dramatic and more gradual manner, because the catastrophe mainly creates a milestone, and we don't know in which areas it actually caused regression. Can the establishment of a world government only occur following a global catastrophe, nuclear, climatic, cyber, alien, pandemic, etc.? No, it can also develop gradually from the transformation of the network into a brain, it just takes time and people don't have the patience to follow a continuous development. The economy is always preferable to politics, only that its revolutions are quiet and maligned and not idealistic. The illusion of catastrophe is an optical illusion in the dimension of time when looking back, and stems precisely from it being a catastrophe, meaning that suddenly we don't see the gradual progress of things before the catastrophe, and everything seems new.

The Holocaust wasn't worth it. It takes generations to create cultural and intellectual depth, and intellectual migrants like the Jews succeed despite their migration and not because of it, they succeed because of a creative ethos, and if they were at home they would have been more successful. It's not the migration and mutation and disturbance itself that creates progress, but its prominence creates the impression that this is what creates progress. And this can be seen in the fact that the great Jewish geniuses were already well-integrated into the culture in which their genius was expressed, and not their parents and grandparents who had recently immigrated were the boom generation. Their lack of rootedness did cause a certain superficiality in their work, as Wagner diagnosed, even among the greatest we have none greater than them, but they could have been in the next generation in Europe if not for the Holocaust. The illusion of migration and the romantic myth behind its creative powers stem from the fact that geniuses migrate to the cultural center from all over the world. This is a spatial optical illusion of those who are at the center. Migration only makes it harder for geniuses, who succeed because of their genius and despite their migration, which is detrimental to their creation.

The superficiality of American culture stems from immigration, contrary to the constant search for immigrant literature as deep and meaningful literature, but American culture will improve, contrary to what people think, as time passes. The Romans improved too. The decline was not related to a lack of catastrophes, but to a lack of creative ethos, to old age. Would catastrophes have renewed Rome? There were many and they didn't renew it. Did exile create the Bible? No, it revealed it. And it's also responsible for the premature consolidation of the less successful parts in it. The end of something is responsible for the very cessation of its formulation, not for its quality, which accumulated, contrary to the illusion created as if the end created the quality, and the crisis the creation. Usually, it flawed it. The Holocaust didn't create the geniuses before it. It did cause them to be a golden age because after them there wasn't a more golden generation.

And perhaps the golden age is simply because we decide that a certain period is the beginning and then everyone who wrote in it is remembered and given importance? While countless similar networks are forgotten. After all, in the end, the decision to paint the past like a barcode and choose which periods are dark and which are golden ages is in the eyes of the present, and actually its choice of cultural DNA - a declarative and educational choice, not from an objective study of the past but from learning for the future, what is worthy. And then many generations later, when things around the golden age are forgotten, it appears in isolated and radiant memory - something from nothing, a new creation. When in practice it was a continuum, or sometimes a formulation of an unformulated past, hence the importance of the first alphabetic formulations - in Greek and Hebrew (as opposed to formulations in non-alphabetic governmental writing on behalf of the government - alphabetic writing and writing in it grew from below in two particularly literate cultures). Therefore, the gold is an optical illusion that stems from writing and its linearity (and from the linearity of learning and storytelling) - you always need a beginning of the book. Or at least of the chapter.