Does Hegel believe the "end of history" to be merely possible, or a necessity?

Is this view justified, by Hegel's logic? Would we say it is impossible, possible, or a necessity?

I remember reading in Giorgio Agamben's The Open about a view that, when history ends, philosophy ends and man ceases to be a rational animal and reaches some kind of "stability," if I remember what I read correctly.

What do you think? Can you summarize what Hegel says about it in your own words?

It's probably not a good idea to just post questions without any of the background here, since it looks like you're either trolling for answers to homework questions, or expecting others to work harder than you.

You're right. I'll try to get something better written up later.

Hegel, if I understand him correctly, requires history to end so that he can achieve his absolute knowledge and become the 'Wise man'. My question is: Has Hegel obviously (or clearly) errored? He seemed to believe that the end of History was already achieved at the time of the French revolution (for various precise reasons).

This may be a totally naive (or ill put) question. What does it mean for Hegel's "anti-transcendence" system (that seeks to know Truth) if the End of History is not possible and Absolute Knowledge is inaccessible? Is it then like the thought of the pre-Socratics?

My framework for this question is the notion that Plato in his search for Truth posited the 'infinity' (transcendent or Eternal) placement of the so called Concept (Logos, meaningful conversation or in Hegel the human consciousness itself..) without which one has only the always changing river of Heraclitus of which Cratylus could not step in "even once" and so no access to Truth.

To my mind the End of History was the Ethical idea for the literal approach of God achieving His presence with Man at the duty with each other. Man or the other Man, was first of all, according to Kant, to be at the applicable Maxim: we are at the assumption of doing from ever improving Action and accomplishable responsibility for all of Mankind. We thereby perform the Duty of Man; but so often We fail; trusting the fellow Human Being was more within oneself to mean that we cannot operate in such overwhelming Maxims of realizable Life of the family and Nation-society.To the Kantian common Good Willed way we are bifurcated somewhere between the Duty for God and the Duty for the temporal Man. Surely even if Kant only believed in the extra=transcendental, extra=temporal existence of God He Still employed our definitions of the noumenal content for His reality, as of His Ideality. We can't know God, the creator, but still we act as we do in considering Him as realizable for the future of Man.

Thereby, the End of History is a humanistic enterprise of that Ideality, the self-realizable for Men. Our faith in the Duty performed for Man is, at once, for Hegel, our faith in the Duty preformed for God. Essentially we Make ourselves in God's Image. We all each one of Us are implicitly existent in and by our Historical situations. What to Kant was a humanistic promise or concern for following the changes of time in the state and religious Conscience: Time at fulness never quite being taken into Control, is Now and Here taken control of,is now and here the Enterprise of Idealism (after-all in the real time of History, for and against materialistic changes).

To Hegel, history is Subject of research and has various objective specialisms: the history of sciences, the history of wars, the history of religion, the history of aesthetics, and so forth. In many ways the Preface of historical time He believed could be re-written to accommodate the new discoveries of these different fields. All in all, history was and nevertheless continues to be a shift in the present moment for -objective spirit reflecting upon everything up until Now (and Here).