If there is no thymos but only eros, then there is
no harmony between this two foci of the ellipse named human soul.
For being successful in e.g. science, technique (technology), economy,
intelligence (brainpower), there must be a very good cultural system,
be it a culture itself (like the Occidental one) or a nation (like
the German one) or a person, and this must be based on good and
thus advantageous nature conditions.
I give you an example for the almost proved fact that southern
people are not made for philosophy, science, technique (technology),
industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower), but made for religion
and idolatry: the climate in the south makes the people more
passive, lazy or even motionless (think of the Indian culture with
its meditative people), but receptive to religion, but the climate
in the north makes the people more active, busy, ..., etc.. The
cause or reason therefor is a logical phenomenon which can easily
be proved by science. We are endotherm animals, and endotherm animals
produce their temperature by themselves (in their bodies). So if
the ambient temperature is hot, endotherm animals get more passive,
lazy, or even motionless, and if the ambient temperature is cold,
endotherm animals get more active, busy, ..., etc.. High temperature
means lazy endotherm animals, low temperature means busy endotherm
animals. The logical implication for this eaxmple is:
And we have the syllogistic form:
|If the climate is hot, then the endotherm animals are lazy.
This could still be continued, although it gets more and more difficult
when it comes to proving the thesis that northern people are made
for philosophy, science, technique (technology), industry, economy,
intelligence (brainpower), while southern people are made for
religion, but in all probability this thesis is true. Exceptions
prove the rule. And the history has also shown that this thesis is
|1.premise (propositio maior):
||Endotherm animals are lazy in hot climate zones.
|2. premise (propositio minor):
||Human beings are endotherm animals.
||Human beings are lazy in hot climate zones.
Some people are interested in making the other people stupid. And
because of that they want the mass of people to have less or even
no more knowledge, no more wisdom etc., because this mass of humans
can easily be replaced by machines (e.g. robots and androids) which
are lovely slaves because this servants never rebell, if they are
well constructed by their constructers (architects). This is and
will be not a game, but this are and will be scientific,
technical, engineering (also social engineering), economical, political,
social, and, last but not least, cultural / civilised (more: civilisationised)
facts! Faustian it is, and that means in terms of Kultur:
Occidental it is, and that means in geographical terms: Northern
and Western European it is, and that means in historical
terms: German it is. Shall we complain about its advanced
decline after thousands of years? In the meantime the facts are
going on. For this and the following century, or even the entire
future there are two or even three possibilities of human development
||Extinction of all human beings (and even more beings) in this
or the following century.
||The world of the last men (die
letzen Menschen [Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche]) will be
totally installed and last forever.
||A new regional Kultur will arise (but I don't believe in this
although it wouldy be the best of this three possibilities).
If the mass of humans had, have, or will ever have a knowledge
of that and a free will or a free decision,
than this mass of humans would not have decided, would not decide,
or will not decide to become slaves.
The word culturehas different meanings, and unfortunately
the history of the English language elimintated some of this different
meanings. Nowadays the word culture merely means education
and the state allocation of literature, music
theater, science and so on, but not literature,
music theater, science on
their own (by themselves!), and also not religion. In the German
language the word Kultur is used in both ways, so when
I use the word culture, I mean both (a)
education and the state allocation of literature,
music theater, science a.s.o.,
and (b) literature,
music theater, science on
their own (by themselves!) and religion.
Cultures come and go. Maybe that the time will come for a new kind
of human culture - similar to that time when that kind of human
culture started which we have been knowing for about 6000 years,
namely as different cultures, not as one human culture. Maybe in
some years, decades, or centuries a new kind of human culture will
appear as merely one human culture, probably after a very strong
My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic
motions - almost all changes and developments, also all evolution
Let's look to Japan in order to see what will happen also in North
America and Europe soon. How man more people will than become redundant,
unemployed. The maintenance area, the area of caretakers, which
is currently booming in Europe, will then be mechanised.
Gauß contributed significantly to many fields, including
number theory, algebra, statistics, analysis, differential geometry,
geodesy, geophysics, electrostatics, astronomy, and optics.
Sometimes referred to as the Princeps mathematicorum or
the foremost of mathematicians and greatest mathematician
since antiquity, Gauß had a remarkable influence in
many fields of mathematics and science and is ranked as one of historys
most influential mathematicians.
Carl Friedrich Gauß was the greatest mathematician of all
For 2150 years Euklid had been the greatest mathematician of all
time, but then - at the end of the 18th century - Gauß replaced
Euklid on his throne, because Gauß became the greatest mathematician
of all time!
We have the subject-object-dualism (**).
In order to overcome the subject-object-dualism Martin Heidegger
(1889-1976) established his existence-philosophical concept In-der-Welt-Sein
(To-be-in-the-World) as an existential of human beings
as a human existence in the world. **
I think the subject/object dualism is one of the fundamental problems.
Heidegger as the last great philosopher tried to overcome the problem
with his Existenz(ial)-Ontologie
(existenc[e]ial ontology), also called Fundamentalontologie
(fundamental ontology), especially with his concept
(To-Be-in-the-World) as an existential of human beings'
as a human existence in the world. (**).
I really don't know whether Heidegger succeeded in that case. Probably
it is not possible to resolve that problem.
I think that the subject/object dualism is one of the greatest
philosophical problems - perhaps even the greatest.
How can we and especially each of us ever experience whether the
subjective or the objective side is the truth?
What makes me sure that I and the experiences I make with myself
reallyexist, or the world and the experiences I make
with it reallyexist? And especially: Which of both sides
is true, or are both true? Which? (1.)
The subjective one? (2.) The objective
one? (3.) Both?
Do I think, or does the world think in me, or are both sides true?
Is the world my will and my representation / idea (cp. Arthur Schopenhauer,
Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung [The World
as Will and Representation], 1818), or merely nothing but
my thoughts, or both?
Phlilosophemes or theories can be right or true without any solution
of the subject/object problem because we human beings merely decide
and say this or that is true/right or false/wrong, but we probably
do not know what is true/right or false/wrong. That decisions always
change, but also repeat or recapitulate somehow, and only sometimes
there is a moment of more wisdom. Maybe that this moment of more
wisdom (of some philosophers or other thinkers - of course) can
resolve the problem of the subject/object dualism, but it is possible
too that this moment of more wisdom also indicates that the problem
of the subject/object dualism can probably not be resolved.
Please dont forget: We - the human beings - decide or say
that this or that is true/right or false/wrong. And we believe in
that - more or less. Ask some members of this forum, whether they
really believe in logic or not. Most of them would say: Yes,
but ..., and with their but they actually
say No(, but ...), because they would rather
believe in religious things, especially the so called atheists.
So there ist merely a small group of human beings who search for
a solution for the problem of the subject/object dualism. And currently
the average IQ of the human beings is declining. What does that
mean? In any case: It also indicates that the most human beings
do not want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them
stupid. Or, in the orther case, they want wisdom, but are not wanted
to want wisdom, but religion and other things which make them stupid.
But the greatest barrier is the human Geist itself. How
can we really know that a subject is and that a object
is without thinking that they are always different or
even not existent?
Technology or technique by itself is a temporary progress,
because in the very long run it is also something that comes and
Look at the evolution ....
Oswald Arnold Gottfried Spengler was a superb writer, superb thinker,
a man of the facts who wrote down the historical facts in his books.
Influenced by Heraklit, especially by Goethe, and by Nietzsche,
he was a life philosopher, precisely a culture philosopher.
In his main work he said that he owed almost everything Goethe
Zum Schlusse drängt es mich, noch einmal die Namen zu
nennen, denen ich so gut wie alles verdanke: Goethe und Nietzsche.
Von Goethe habe ich die Methode, von Nietzsche die Fragestellungen,
und wenn ich mein Verhältnis zu diesem in eine Formel bringen
soll, so darf ich sagen: ich habe aus seinem Augenblick einen Überblick
gemacht. Goethe aber war in seiner ganzen Denkweise, ohne es zu
wissen, ein Schüler von Leibniz gewesen. - Oswald A.
G. Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1917, S. IX.
In conclusion, it urges me to once again give the names, which
I owe almost everything: Goethe and Nietzsche. From Goethe I have
got the method, from Nietzsche the questions, and if I should bring
my relationship with this in a formula so I can say I have made
of his moment an overview. But Goethe in his whole way of thinking,
without knowing it, had been a disciple of Leibniz. - Oswald
A. G. Spengler, The Declinig of the West, 1917, p. IX.
In Spenglers theory as well as in the German language there
is a difference between Kultur (culture
[civiliation]) and Zivilisation (civilisation)
- b.t.w.: this difference has more or less disappeared in the English
language. Unfortunately the German Kultur is often translated
with both culture and civilisation, and
merely Zivilisation is always civilisation.
What you call civilisation is not always Zivilisation
in German, but often Kultur and merely sometimes also
Zivilisation. That is very important when it comes to
understand a Kulturphilosophie (culture philosophy
/ civilisation philosophy).
According to Spengler the Zivilisation is a late part
of the Kultur, and in the West this part began in the
end of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th century (b.t.w.:
this is also the time when, according to Hegel, the history perhaps
- but that is not important for the understanding of Spengler's
theory), and leads into a more and more non-historical time, a cultural
/ civilisational winter, a kind of senility. The West
(Abendland = Eveningland) will reach this
time of cultural / civilisational winter in the 21st,
or the 22nd, or the 23rd century, approximately in the year 2200.
When this time will be reached it will be possible that the end
of history will also be reached because there will probably be no
new Kultur anymore.
The average intelligence is sinking - that is a fact. This fact
can be proven, although merely by statistics, but that doesn't matter,
because the statistics are an indicator, and an indicator is adequate
enough for such trends. You need intelligence, if you want to resist
against such a dictatorship we are living in. Becoming smarter is
Humans have no free will, but only a relative
The will, how Schopenhauer defiend it (as Kant's Ding an
sich - thing in itself / thing as such),
is a free will, but not the will of the human beings because human
beings depend on the will. Since God has been murdered - at the
end of the 18th century - his free will have also been murdered.
Since then human beings pride themselves to be like God, to have
a free will, but that is a false conclusion.
Interest (=> will) is the most important thing (perhaps
it is really Kant's Ding an sich - thing in itself
/ thing as such). A good example is the sexual
selection that I would prefer to call reproductive interests
when it comes to get ressources (including offspring / children),
namely either by (a) dominance
or by (b) will to appeal. If
a female can't reproduce herself and doesn't want a male or children,
because she is kidded - for example - by feminism or other nihilisms,
then she is no longer part of the evolution. End.
Who benefits from that?
Free will is not what human beings or other living
beings have, because they are part of the evolution. For example:
As a human you can't decide your origin, your genetic program, your
birth, your death. And if you can't decide about the most important
phenomenons of your life, then you have no free will.
Market propagandists say that you can decide about your way of
life by choosing or selecting articles, consumer goods, products,
so that you may think you have a free will, but what
you have is merely a relative free will. Political
propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by
choosing or selecting politicians, their parties (homonym!), their
ideologies (modern religions), so that you may think you have a
free will, but what you have is merely a relative
free will. They say that you can decide about your way of
life by choosing or selecting your sex, gender, so that you may
think you have a free will, but what you have is merely
a relative free will. You can merely choose in
a relative way. God, the nature, or Kants Ding an sich
(thing as such / thing in itself) may have
or be a free will, but humans don't know who or what
they really are and have killed them, either absolutely (God) or
partly (nature, Ding an sich).
Human beings who think that they have a free will are:
Ding an sich (thing as such, thing
Human beings have no free will.
It depends on the philosophy, especially the metaphysics and its
ontology, or the theory whether willingness differs live-matter
from non-live matter or not. For example: according to Schopenhauer
the will is Kants Ding an sich ( thing in
itself / thing as such).
My theory is based on analogies. For example: Sun and technique
(technology), planets and cultures, moons and economies, other bodies
and art. The precondition I make is that the problem of the dualism
between nature and culture can be overcome by analogies. In addition
to the great dualism between nature and culture there
are three other dualisms; so actually there are four
dualisms, thus one quadrialism - four realms,
and each realm has two subrealms; so I've got eight subrealms (little
worlds), and this eight worlds are: (1)
physical, (2) chemical, (3) biological, (4) economical, (5) semiotical
(incl. psycholgical/sociological), (6) linguistical, (7) philosophical,
(8) mathematical. We can combine them: I (1 and 2), II (3 and 4),
III (5 and 6), IV (7 and 8 ); or: A (1,2,3,4 or 1,2,3,8) and B (5,6,7,8
or 4,5,6,7). We can also combine them in this way, which makes the
quadrialism clearer: (1 or I) natural, (2 or II) natural-cultural,
(3 or III) cultural, (4 or IV) cultural-natural; and the eight worlds:
(1a or Ia) physical, (1b or Ib) chemical, (2a or IIa) biological,
(2b or IIb) economical, (3a or IIIa) semiotical, (3b or IIIb) linguistical,
(4a or IVa) philosophical, (4b or IVb) mathematical. But the principal
point is the analogy by itself, just in principle.
Please look at the following pictures:
Now please imagine, there is not a spiralic, but merely a cyclic
way. What do you see and think then? I guess you see
and think that there is an action replay, an iteration, a recurrence,
a reapeat, a repetition, a rerun ... and so on. That's the relation
to the cyclicity - in any case (for example: physical, chemical,
biological, economical, semiotical [incl. pscholgical/sociological],
lingustical, philosophical, mathematical]). And now please imagine,
there is not merely a cyclic, but also a spiralic way
- then, of course, the cyclic way becomes a more relativised
cyclic way, but that doesn't matter, because it is just
an impression. I think that devolopment (incl. evolution and history)
is certainly a spiral-cyclic way which merely perhaps
follows the time arrow - the former and not the latter is important
for my theory.
The house of change:
| History |
|___ Evolution ___|
|______ Development ______|
|_____________ Change _____________|
History is merely the roof of the house of change.
Time and the house of change:
| History |
|___ Evolution ___|
|______ Development ______|
|_____________ Change _____________|
_____________________ Time ______________________
History is merely the roof of the house of change.
You probably know the meaning of hyperonym (superordination)
and hyponym (subordination). My interpetation
of change, development, evolution,
history in their structural relations to each other
is the following one:
1) Change is the hyperonym of the hyponyms
development, evolution and history.
1,1) Development is a hyponym of the hyperonym
change and the hyperonym of the hyponyms evolution
1,1,1) Evolution is a hyponym of the hyperonyms
change and development and the hyperonym
of the hyponym history.
1,1,1,1) History is merely a hyponym,
namely of the hyperonyms change, development
That consequently means: if history ends, evolution or development
or even change do not have to end simultaneously; and if evolution
ends, history ends simultaneously, but development and change do
not have to end simultaneously; and if development ends, evolution
and history end simultaneously, but change does not have to end
simultaneously. So in that relation merely change is independent.
Development depends only on change. Evolution depends on change
and development. History is the most dependent, because it depends
on change, development, and evolution.
You may compare (1) change with our universe in time, (1,1) development
with our sun, our planet, or our moon ... etc., (1,1,1) evolution
with a living being (for example an alga, or a snake, or a human
being without history ... etc., and (1,1,1,1) history with
a - of course - historical human being.
They all belong to 1 (change), and merely historical
human beings belong to 1,1,1,1 (history).
The history of cultures (civilisations) is also a spiral-cyclic
move - psychologically (I prefer the word semiotically) cognizable,
because cultures have something like a soul or psyche ans their
own original symbolics.
History conceptually depends on evolution, development, change;
evolution conceptually depends on development and change; development
conceptually merely depends on change. So change is probably eternal
because it is universal or cosmic; but development, evolution and
a fortiori history are not eternal - they can end.
| Culture-Nature |
|_______ Culture _______|
|_________ Nature-Culture _________|
|_________________ Nature __________________|
______________________________ Time _______________________________
So nature (compare: physics and chemistry) is probably eternal
because it is universal or cosmic; but nature-culture (compare:
biology and ecology/economy), culture (compare: seniotics and linguistics)
and a fortiori culture-nature (compare: philosophy and mathematics)
are not eternal - they can end (because neurons, brains, extensive
and complex brains, mind, especially in a sense of Geist,
are needed). Unfortunately most of the scientists and even philosophers
neglect the latter, although it is the highest level. In the case
of scientists, it does not surprise me, because they have, especially
at present, the task to serve the rulers. But in the case of the
philosophers, it surprises me a bit. If humans really were free
(they are not!), they would not neglect the culture-nature (compare:
philosophy and mathematics) because they would more try to transport
it in reality and in their everyday life.
If there is no awareness of change, then no development can be
observed; if development can not be observed, then evolution can
also not be observed; if evolution can not be observed, then history
can also not be observed. Backwards: If history can be observed,
then evolution, development and change can also be observed; if
evolution can be observed, then development and change can also
be observed; if development can be observed, then change can also
What does that mean?
Space and time are probably eternal, so nature and change
are probably eternal. Our capability of observing nature
and change depends on space and time on the objective side and on
our senses and brains on the subjective side. Without these preconditions
we would not exist; so there would also not be any human answer
to the question why space and time can also be observed and interpreted
as nature and change, as nature-culture and development, as culture
and evolution, as culture-nature and history. So if there is not
only nature but also nature-culture (trannsition between nature
and culture), culture and culture-nature (trannsition between culture
and nature), then it is possible to find change in all four realms
and to find nature in all four kinds of events.
The synthesis becomes a new thesis (cp. Hegels Dialektik).
Life with no synthesis would be very boring, merely acting (thesis)
and reacting (antithesis), no qualitative change. There would be
no qualitative development without any synthesis (and further: no
new thesis). Humans changed their lives - compare the humans of
the Stone Age and the humans of the last 6000 years.
Without any synthesis life would be merely a ping pong game, because
it would merely consist of thesis and antithesis, for example: action
Different cultures/civilisations interpret or even construe the
reality in a different way than other cultures/civilisations.
Many people don't think very much, but if (if!) they
really think that something exists, they do it in two different
ways: (1) subjectively, so they think
existence has merely to do with the thinking subject, and (2)
objectively, so they think existence is something which has nothing
to do with the thinking subject. If people think they can perceive
the object, they actually have to ask themselves, whether that object
exists without any subject or because of the existence of the perceiving
subject, so that the object does not exist. I am speaking about
the subject/object dualism (**).
Is subjectivity or objectivity that what we call reality
or is it both, so that there is no solution for the subject/object
If you think that all around you - everything except you - merely
exists because of the fact that you are perceiving and
thinking, then you can also say that there is nothing that exists
except you, so you are either merely a subject without any object
or both subject and object (or even: there is no subject and no
object - because there is no difference between them).
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz once asked:
Do you know the answer?
Or think about the Indian culture/civilisation - the so called
Hinduism - and its concept of nirvana. Do
you exactly know what is meant by that? Non-Indian and Indian people
have a different understanding of nirvana.. Is it nothingness,
nonentity? (That is the way how Western people understand nirvana.)
What is it?
What do you think when you are anxious and don't know the reason
- the cause - for that fact? What or who affects you
then? Is it the nothingness? And if so, then the nothingness also
affects, but is it then really nothingness?
We can think the nothingness and the difference between subject
and object. Is this difference the nothingness? Or is it even the
affectance? Or both? Are they the same (see above) or
at least similar? If so, then we can't know anything of them because
it is the definition - the linguistic convention or the lingusitic
laws - of the word nothing to be nothing at all, and
the noun for that is nothingness.
You can't just brush aside our ability for thinking the nothingness
and the subject/object dualism (**).
Nothingness has no affect, else it would be no nothingness. And
if nothingness were no nothingness, then we would have to find another
word for nothingness, and we soon would have find one because we
can think nothingness. Nothingness has no affect, but exists, at
least in our thoughts, and our thoughts exist as well. That all
depends on the definition, so your definition has to be a different
one - and is a different one (I know) -, but if your definition
is right, then you have to exclude nothingness from your definition
Remember that I am philophising, and the philosophy has not resolved
the problem of the subject/object dualism. The science can't resolve
it anyway, and I think the philosophy probably neither.
It is possible that the nothingness is God, or the unmoved mover,
or the unaffected affect.
The thought of nothingness is in our mind.
So we must consider the irrationality and not give up the rationality.
Nothing of the rationality, logic. Nothing!
We should do what mathematicians do!
Nothingness is a special case. One can compare it with the number
0 (it is a part of the realm called whole numbers
and [either] not [or sometimes even also!] a part of the realm called
natural numbers). Both natural numbers and
whole numbers belong to the realm called rational
What does a mathematician do with the word nothingness?
Mathematically nothingness is 0. But do
mathematicians say that 0 is not a number because it
is nothing? No, they do not.
Willpowerdoes not mean will to power.
Willpower means a kind of power, namely a power
of will, but will to power means
a kind of will, namely a will which tends to power.
So both willpower and will to power are
more different than many people think.
If you have the phenomenons A and B, then
A can be homogeneous or similar
to B, but not identical to B (because A
can merely be identical to A). In German the words (der/die/das)selbe
and (der/die/das) gleiche stand for the English
word (the) same, but the former means identical,
same in an identical way, and the latter means homgeneous,
equal, similar, same in a homogeneous
I know the meaning of the English identical, but in
this case I interpreted it as self (selbst
in German because the German word identisch and the
English word identical have exactly the same meaning
and can be interpreted as self and as same),
although I know that it also can be interpreted as same
(for example: of two or more things). But you shouldn't change the
word identical because in the English language it is
not possible to have one of those two meanings in merely one word.
It is possible in the German language but not in the English language.
In English one has always to decide whether x or y
is meant (because both can be meant), in German one can use
the word selbig or selbst (cp. the English
self, although it can't be used in this way) for the
meaning of x, and the word gleich (cp. the
English same, although it is used in both ways) for
the meaning of y. Whereas x means same
of one thing and y means same of two things
or of one thing, if it has changed very much (cp. the
ship of Theseus).
The error of Zenons paradox Achilleus and the Tortoise
is the failure to recognize the fact that the only mathematically
infinite divisibility of a line or a length of time does not mean
anything against their concrete finiteness.
The concrete line and time length of Zenons paradox
Achilleus and the Tortoise is finite, although
the mathematical divisibility is infinte. Therefore it is a paradox.
Joining information theory and economy makes sense, but I don't
think that everyone who calles himself an information theoretician
or an economist is really an information theoretician
or an economist.
Mathematical impossibility and physical impossibility are not
always the same, are not always consistent. What is mathematically
possible does not always have to be also possible in reality,
and what is possible in reality does not always have to be
also mathematical possible.
The mankind should not allow the annihilation of the difference
between truth and reality. In Europe it
is already practically forbidden to speak of truth.
There is no truth at all is often said as soon as one
speaks of it. Ridiculous. It is so important that the difference
One of the least understood concepts is that of the psyche.
Formerly the word psyche was used mythological and religiously
and actually relatively well understood, since modernism it has
been going through the propaganda mills, and no one can really say
what it could be or even is. Misunderstood words or concepts are
especially well suited for the propaganda and the establishment
of new religions.
Originally - in Ancient Greek - psyche had the meaning
of breath, breeze, soul, than
it had remained as soul for about 2000 years. Since
modern times it has been changing to everything you want, and that
is very much different from the older meaning.
Our current (modern Western) understanding of psyche
is entirely wrong. Psychehas changed from a mythological,
religious, and idealistic word and concept to a purely (idealistic)
ideological, propagandistic word and concept.
In any case, the meaning of psyche has changed because
the zeitgeist and especially the social general environment by industrialisation
/ mechanisation / automatisation have changed. There is a correlation
In general I use psyche in the sense of not
really organic and also not really spiritual (geistig).
Psychology can be found somewhere between sociobiology, or mere
sociology, and philosophy. I often prefer semiotics
especially when I put the focus on the signs or characters - they
give nore information.
Starting from the phenomenology Heidegger developed his existential
philosophy, which became the first and the only real existential
philosophy and conquered the world.
Who is really thinking? God?
When you think that you think, what do you then think about the
question who is really thinking?
Ich bin ein Teil von jener Kraft, // Die stets das Böse
will und stets das Gute schafft. // .... Ich bin der Geist, der
stets verneint! // Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht,
// ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht; // Drum besser wärs,
daß nichts entstünde. // So ist denn alles, was ihr Sünde,
// Zerstörung, kurz das Böse nennt, // Mein eigentliches
Element. - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I),
1790 / 1808, S. 64-67. **
I am Part of that Power which would // The Evil ever do, and
ever does the Good. // .... I am the Spirit that denies! // And
rightly too; for all that doth begin // Should rightly to destruction
run; // Twere better then that nothing were begun. // Thus everything
that you call Sin, // Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent
- // That is my own, real element.
Psyche is not defined. Psychology
has no object at all.
One of the least understood concepts is that of the psyche.
Formerly the word psyche was used mythological and religiously
and actually relatively well understood, since modernism it has
been going through the propaganda mills, and no one can really say
what it could be or even is. Misunderstood words or concepts are
especially well suited for the propaganda and the establishment
of new religions. Funny, isn't it? No, that's not funny, that's
fateful, isn't it?
Psyche is not defined. Psychology has no object
There is no psychological object (for research and so on). So it
is not true if someone says that psychology is the scientific
or objective study of the psyche (**).
It is not proven that psychology is the scientific or objective
study of the psyche (**);
and as long as this is not proven one can say that the definition
of psyche is unproven and probably false.It is also
not true that the word psyche is one of the fundamental
concepts for understanding human nature from a scientific point
of view (**),
since there is no psychological nature, because there
is no psychlogical object.
No other words or concepts are more misused for power, control,
propaganda, agitation, oppression, elimination etc. than (1.)
psyche (incl. psychological, psychology,
psychiatric, psychiatry and so on), (2.)
social (incl. sociological, sociology
and so on), (3.) eco (incl.
ecological, ecology, also economic[al],
economy, economicsetc.) and (4.)
Greed is very bad, unhealthy, and homicidal.
Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?
- Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.
Translation: Why is there being
and not rather nothing?
So that sentence is Leibniz sentence. Later Heidegger were
also very intensively busy relating to that sentence. Heidegger
meant, inter alia, that in situations of fear nothingness becomes
In der hellen Nacht des Nichts der Angst entsteht erst die
ursprüngliche Offenbarkeit des Seienden als eines solchen:
daß es Seiendes ist - und nicht Nichts. Einzig weil das Nichts
im Grunde des Daseins offenbar ist, kann die volle Befremdlichkeit
des Seienden über uns kommen und die Grundfrage der Metaphysik:
Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?
- Martin Heidegger, Was ist Metaphysik?, 1929.
Translation: In the bright night
of nothingness of anxiety the original openness of being as such
only arises: that it is being - and not nothing. Only because the
nothingness is apparently on grounds of the existence (»Dasein«),
the full strangeness of being can come upon us and the fundamental
question of metaphysics: Why is there being rather than nothing.
Leibniz, Wolff, Kant - that's the line from Leibniz to Kant (with
some more philosophicalstations and persons between
them, for example Martin Knutzen) which leads to many other lines,
amongst others to Wilhelm von Humboldt. Why I am mentioning Wilhelm
von Humboldt? Because of the fact that you mentioned Chomsky. Chomsky's
linguistic theories are based on the philosophy and especially on
the ideas of Leibniz and especially of Wilhelm von Humboldt (Neu-Idelaismus
- New-Idealism). Generally it may be right to say that he is at
first a Kantian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Humboldtian, but
in some aspects (see above: linguistics) it is reverse: at first
a Humboldtian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Kantian. Let's say
he is a rationalist and idealist.
There is no free will, but merely a relative free
Technology does not necessarily mean an eternal progressive development
because technology can be reduced, for example by humans (politics
etc.) or by nature itself (catastrophes etc.).
Human beingss are living beings of luxury. Therefore they
have such a brain, such a mind, such a language, etc.. Machines
don't need luxury. They are merely beings of logic, reason, rationality.
But they are able to know what luxury really is.
Knowledge depends on genetics, because intelligence is mostly based
on genetics, and on education, thus on a relatively long time; so
it is not primarily a question of a market, or of capitalism versus
communism, but a fortiori of culture. Knowledge can be used in several
ways; so it is also important to keep knowledge by selecting the
right people with their achievements and trustworthiness, and that
(of course!) is also not primarily a question of a market, or of
capitalism versus communism, but a fortiori of culture.
When it comes to speaking about knowledge, the meaning of knowledge,
and the importance of knowledge for a society and its
economy, then it is primarily important to do it in connection (1.)
genetics and evolution of intelligence, (2.) education and history
of culture (cultural evolution), (3.) information (including all
kinds of communication that leads to knowledge, e.g. all
sciences, semiotics, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics, if they
are in fact no sciences). That does not mean that economy is somehow
unimportant. No. That only means that knowledge is firstly a genetic/biological
and cultural issue (remember and see above: long time)
- and guess why this issue is a taboo in the Western societies
-, and secondly an economical issue, but then (and only then), if
such knowledge is well arrived in economy, then there is such a
great feedback that the West had in the past, still has in the present
(although the negative trend shows clearly in the other way!), but
will not have anymore in the future.
So first of all a society has to have people with knowledge
and a trustful will to work, thus intelligent people with a trustful
will to work, and only then it can also enjoy the advantages of
this people because they have enriched the economy and via economy
also the society.
Human rights are to be read only on paper
and are because of merely one right: 1%
of the humans is allowed to exploit and destroy the
Earth and 99% of the humans.
Maybe you are not alive! Maybe we all are not alive! Maybe only
philosophy is alive! Maybe only thinking is alive!
Can this be true? Can it be a fact? Can we know it? Can it be
objective? Or is it just subjective?
Maybe we can never overcome the subject/object dualism (**).
There is only one fundament of religion and science: the belief
- belief in truth. B.t.w.: philosophy has this fundament too.
Belief as the belief (or faith) in truth is the fundament, and
then it goes:
THEOLOGY (DIVINITY) => PHILOSOPHY/SCIENCE => NEW THEOLOGY
(NEW DIVINITY) => NEW RELIGION.
The result is a new beleif (or faith) in truth.
The Occidental culture is a Faustian culture, a culture of science
and has a very long history. To me this Faustain culture is the
most interesting and the most likable culture of all times. But
nevertheless: also this Faustian culture has two sides: a good one
and a bad one. After this culture had eked out its science it reached
the top of its history - science seemed to be free -,
then it created a new theology (new divinity) because science was
regarded as a kind of deity, but then, when the first serious enemies
of science emerged, it had to change its new theology (new divinity)
into new religion. Today the Westerners are still on this way of
changing science from a new theology (new divinity) into a new religion,
but they are already very close to the goal of this way: a new belief
(or faith) in truth.
What does that mainly mean?
The Faustian culture has been defending its science more and more
due to the fact that it has been getting more and more enemies.
One of the consequences is that science has been becoming a part
of the rulers, thus its former enemies.
An Occidental scientist of the Occidental culture's modern times
can never be an atheist, or an areligious one, or an disbeliever
- that has been being imposible since the Occidental science started
its way from a new theology (new divinity) to a new
religion and its goal: a new belief (or faith) in truth.
There is no doubt that science is a success story of the Occidental
culture, perhaps the most successful story of all times, so I am
proud and grateful. But this is also not a never-ending story, and
perhaps it will end very badly.
The next time you visit the scientific church (universiy)
or a a public discussion of the so-called scientific experts
(priests and preachers), you may be reminded of the two sides of
Once science was an enemy of the rulers, today it is almost entirely
under the control of the rulers.
Isms are forms of ideological systems, not forms of
government, and both are not the same. But those isms
are included anyway, because forms of government and ideological
systems like or even love each other very
much, especially in modern times, the times of isms.
Ich bin ein Teil des Teils, der anfangs alles war, // Ein
Teil der Finsternis, die sich das Licht gebar,
Das stolze Licht, das nun der Mutter Nacht // Den alten Rang, den
Raum ihr streitig macht. // Und doch gelingt's ihm nicht, da es,
so viel es strebt, // Verhaftet an den Körpern klebt.
- Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, S.
But I'm Part of the Part which at the first was all, // Part
of the Darkness that gave birth to Light, // The haughty Light that
now with Mother Night // Disputes her ancient rank and Space withal,
// And yet 'twill not succeed, since, // strive as strive it may,
// Fettered to bodies will Light stay.
Was Du ererbt von deinen Vätern hast, // Erwirb es,
um es zu besitzen. - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust
(I), 1790 / 1808, S. 39. **
What you have inherited from your fathers, // Acquire it in
order to possess it.
Jeder Grieche hat einen Zug von Don Quijote, jeder Römer
einen von Sancho Pansa - was sie sonst noch waren, tritt dahinter
zurück. - Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes,
1917, S. 50 (**).
Each Greek has a trait of Don Quixote, each Roman has a trait
of Sancho Panza - what they were otherwise, recedes behind that.
Who could be a Don Quixote today? Who could be a Sancho
Humans have no free will, but only a
relative free will.
The reasons why beliefs, thoughts, theories, metaphysical ontologies,
philosophies of physics are different refers to the difference of
cultures. Two examples of that much different that they are antipodes
are the Apollonian culture and the Faustian culture.
The humans of the Apollonian Culture always interpret physical
bodies staticallly, the humans of the Faustian culture
dynamically. So it is no wonder that in the Faustian culture
a Faust came to the idea to interpret the dynamics
(and no longer the rest position, the statics) as the normal
state of a physical body and to postulate forces as the
cause of this dynamics.
Newtons physcal theory is one of these Faustian physical theories,
although there had been many more Faustian physical theories before
Newton, especially those of Johann(es; Georg) Faust himself, or
of Galileo Galilei, or of Johannes Kepler, and also after Newton.
Philosophy has many facets and aspects. And you dont have
to have read any book in order to be a philosopher. Having read
books can be an advantage, but also a disadvantage; in any case
it is not necessarily important in order to become or be a philosopher.
In any case:
One has to have electric transmitter, for example: nerves.
Without logic consciousness makes no sense because there must be
a construction of a logical relationship for the consciousness,
even also when it is merely an imagination. Without logic language
makes also no sense. But what about logic? Does logic make sense
without consciousness? No. Does logic make sense without language?
Probably yes. A very primitive bacterium somehow knows
what to do in order to survive, but probably does not need a language
(note: language does not necessarily always mean human language,
but also language for all beings).
If we consider the principle luxury, we come to other
results: in that case namely the language came perhaps first because
the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena
arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning
behind it because of the luxury of grunts.
Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. Das
Menschheitsrätsel, 1922) the German philosopher Peter
Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo - Wissen, September 1998, S. 43-47):
The human beings are descended from the throw (translated
by me) and human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore
because they are luxury beings (translated by me), no beings
of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but
on the contrary: beings of alienation, of insulation (cp. isles
and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions ...
etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general
We really do not know for sure whether Nietzsche wasnt against
Jesus. Nietzsche in his early times as a philosopher
was not against Jesus, Nietzsche in his middle times as a
philosopher was not very much against Jesus, and Nietzsche
in his late times as philosopher was against Jesus,
although not always. It is really difficult to find the truth about
Nietzsche's relationship with Jesus and Christianity because the
whole Nietzsche has to be considered.
The Birth of Tragedy - for example - shows Nietzsches
early times as an adult philosopher, and his early
times as an adult philosopher are one of the well closed
periods of Nietzsche`s philosphical life, and because of that Nietzsche
in his early times as an adult philosopher is not difficult
to understand. The problem is the whole Nietzsche, his four or even
five philosophical periods, not each of them because each of them
are a well closed and well known single period, and, if combinded,
probably also not two of them. The problem of understanding Nietzsches
philosophical life is his problematic life itself, especially after
he broke with Wagner (and The Birth of Tragedy belongs
to the period before Nietzsche broke with Wagner).
Nietzsche in his middle and late time of an adult philosopher admired
the original Christianity mainly just because of its historical
success. And who was the one who historically brought the Christianity
to the success? It was Paulus.
Stopping change is good when the change itself has become a problem,
when every attempt of stopping it leads to more change ... and more
and more change ..., when the disaster has already become apparent.
I am not against change, but too much change is a problem. Unfortunately
it would take change to stop humans from making all these changes,
yes, and we have many examples for that - that was the reason why
I said stopping change leads to more change (because stopping change
requires change) and even more than more change (because stopping
change leads to reactions, thus more change). It's almost a vicious
There are mathematics, logic (philosophy), linguistics, semiotics
on the one side which is more spiritual than material, and there
are physics, chemistry, biology, economy (incl. sociology and others)
on the other side which is more material than spiritual.
So we have:
This is not merely meant in the sense of scientific disciplines,
but also and especially in the sense of existence at all.
There are two sides of existence: a more spiritual than material
and a more material than spiritual which are different concentrations
of the same thing, interconvertible, and that means that they are
similar to energy and mass).
Geben Sie Gedankenfreiheit! - Friedrich Schiller, Don
Give freedom of thought!
The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings.
Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island
of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation
to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the
For human beings luxury is not the exception but the rule.
The so-called revolutions are also and especially a
part of the luxury. They are a special kind of luxury for they occur
because the so-called revolutionary want the power and
thus the greatest possible luxury gratis, without any work, without
any effort, ... and so on.
Human beings are luxury beings.
The classes are merely a part of the consequences. Either there
are two classes (upper and lower) or there are three classes (upper,
middle, lower), and believe me: the higher the number of classes,
the better the society as a whole. A classless society
is no society but a primitive horde, often without real houses.
In any other case: a classless society is rhetoric of
those who want to become the upper class, thus the power, thus the
There are merely two kinds of human get-together possible: (1)
a modern one (with a middle class and modern luxury) or (2)
a non-modern one (without a middle class, but with non-modern luxury).
What remains? The power, the classes (either two or three), and
the luxury, but either as (1) a modern
one or as (2) a non-modern one. If
there will be no human luxury anymore, then the Earth will have
become an inhabitable planet.
For valuing one has to be able to estimate, for example of somethings
worth; in the case of self-valuing the selfs worth. But for
the ability of estimation and consequently of valuing one needs
awareness, and for awareness one needs something like a brain or
at least an electric transmitter like a nerve.
How can - according to the so-called Value Ontology
(VO) - an atom be a self-valuing?
Is it meant in the way that an electron is the electric transmitter
Mainly there were not books, but there was always the life. The
life was the most influence for my philosophy.
If you want to know at the least one book, then I say it was a
I dont think that Nietzsches texts are difficult to
understand - the revers is true: Nietzsches texts are easy
to understand. Nietzsche said this and that, there are some contradictions
in his texts, but they as such are not difficult to understand.
For Pythagoras, the world was a harmonious whole, an eternal, divine
being: the cosmos. The world harmony was musical for him. Pythagoras
had recognised that numerical relations arrange for the harmonic
series of tones.
If all humans had merely a bit more music in their souls (and not
in their supermarkets), they would be much more happy, peaceful,
Relating to the process of awareness / consciousness there are
two ways: (1) the way from
semiotical, linguistical operations to logical (philosophical),
mathematical operations, (2) the way
from mathematical operations to logical (philosophical), linguistical,
Some of the non-human living beings have consciousness,
but they have a very much smaller brain and less consciousness than
the human beings have. Only human beings have such very, very complex
conscious systems, especially the linguistical, the logical (philosophical),
and the mathematical system. Let's say that some of the non-human
living beings have a pre-consciousness because the diffrence betwenn
their consciousness and the consciousness of the human beings is
A lioness instinctively »knows«
how much cubs she has. When one or more of them are lost, she realises
it, but she can't count like humans can. At first the lioness goes
the conscious way 1 without
any linguistical and logical operations (see above), thus from the
semiotical operations (sign: lost cubs) to the mathematical
operation (all cubs missing cubs), and then she
goes the conscious way 2
without logical and linguistical operations (see above), thus from
the mathematical operations (for example: 7 2 = 5) to the
semiotical operation (sign= less cubs). The mathematics
in the brain of the lioness works but she doesn't consciously
»know« that it works.
A predator must be able to calculate the worth of attacking
a prey. If it is not profitable or even too dangerous, it is better
to protect oneself and to gather forces. A predator with a broken
leg can hardly catch a prey; a predator with a broken lower jaw
can hardly eat a prey: a predator without a tongue can hardly drink.
Predators must instinctively »know«
much about their environment and their skills, their risks, what
is possible and what is too dangerous.
In order to survive the non-human living beings don't need
such a complex brain, such a complex awareness / consciousness,
especially such complex systems of language (linguistics) and logic
(philosophy), as the human beings have. Human beings are luxury
Human beings can say: I don't want to eat today because tomorrow
or later I am going to eat a Sacher torte. The evolution of
the luxury beings means the process of winning more and more luxury
at the cost of losing more and more instincts, means becoming less
and less beings of adaptation to the environment but more and more
beings of alienation, of insulation. Nevertheless, human beings
are also predators, but they are luxury predators because they are
You are not free.
Anything and everything that is consistent and coherent within
a comprehensive ontology is necessarily true (**),
yes, but nonetheless the question is: is it true because of your
thoughts (subjectively true) or because of reality (objectively
true) or because of all (subjectively and objectively true).
As long as there are conscious beings, there is truth.
Do you mean that truth is only in the consciousness? If so, then,
please, answer the following two questions:
A) Is the consciousness true?
B) If yes: Is consciousness subjectively true (thus according to
one's consciousness) or objectively true (thus according to the
consciousness[es] of all, for any and every consciousness)?
There is only »reality« outside. (**).
This sentence means or should mean that the objective world is true
and called reality, but it doesn't say anything about
the inside, about the (brains of the) subjects, the truth of them.
Truth is the accurate internal map inside a mind. (**).
This sentence says something about the inside, about the (brains
of the) subjects, but it doesn't say anything about the outside,
the so-called realitiy or world, the truth
of them. The underlined word accurate does not prove
that the internal map maps the outside realitiy.
As long as there are conscious beings, there is truth.
This sentence underlines what I said, but does also not answer the
question where the truth is represented: only in the consciousness
of one (the subject), only in the world (the object), or in both.
If one says that there is only truth in the (brains of the)
subjects , then one does not say whether there is also truth
outside of the (brains of the) subjects, whether the brains are
true or not, and, if (brains of the) subjects are not true, whether
there is truth outside of them, and, if the (brains of the) subjects
are true, whether they are only subjectively true, or only obejectively
true, or both subjectively and objectively true.
) The objectivity (reality, world) and the subjectivity (self,
consciousness) depend on each other.
) Each conscious entity forms a proposed truth to match that
But who decides whether it matches or not? Okay, you would say:
the reality as an affectance ontology. But reality (objectivity,
world) and consciousness (subjectivity, self) depend on each other.
A says: X is true.
B says: X is not true because I have experienced that Y is
Y says: Y is not true because science has proved that Y is
not true. So X must be true.
B says: That's nonsense, because I have studied logic, and
my friends call me »the God of logic«.
Who or what decides what is true? God? Or space and time, thus
development, evolution, history, thus something like a result of
a logical and/or imagined process? Or just ontology? But, if so,
which one? For example: Heidegger's fundamental ontology? Or RM:AO?
These questions are the point as long as we have no exactly corresponding
Reality is the only governor. (**).
Okay, but reality (objectivity, world) and consciousness (subjectivity,
self) depend on each other.
I need four (exactly four) seasons.
Humans were born in areas of merely two seasons and
developed into areas of four seasons and into areas of other two
seasons (namely in the polar regions). So originally, thus more
(not only) naturally, we are beings of the two seasons in warm or
hot areas, but being on our way, thus more (not only) culturally,
we are also beings of the four seasons, of the two seasons in the
coldest areas (polar regions), and in some sense even of the one
season in the outer space. We became beings that can
live in both the hottest and the coldest climate zones and in some
sense, as I said, even in the outer space. That's great and terrible,
fortune and fate, destiny. Isn't it?
In Europe, especially in West and West-Central Europe the average
winter-temperature is often higher than +2° Celsius (35.6°
Fahrenheit) - caused by the Gulf Stream.
The natural cause of the relative (!) independence of human beings
is their brain, and the cultural cause or reason of the relative
(!) independence of human beings is their huge consciousness, awareness,
knowkedge, language. So we owe our relative independence (relative
free will) to our brain.
The development of our brain is almost a miracle, a wonder.
The main aspect is the insulation (dissociation of nature) which
leads to luxury and is naturally caused by the brain. So we have
(1) the brain, (2) the insulation (dissociation of nature), (3)
the luxury and also the self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon
egoism and many other features, but it is more the luxury that leads
to the self-consciousness than it is the self-consciousness that
leads to luxury. Some animals have self-consciousness in almost
the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have,
but these animals do not have luxury in the degree that human children
in the age of 1 to 2 years have. And human children become egoistic
in that typical human way (you said: extreme) after
that age, usually when they are older than 2 years. Luxury is more
a communal than a personal matter.The human development is more
a communal than a personal (individual) development.
The human development is more a cultural than a natural development,
because the natural development of the humans is more (about 98%;
see above) an animal development than a human development.
Naturally you need a relative large and a very
complex brain, if you want to become a human being, but then, when
that brain exists, your further development is more a cultural than
a natural development. The huge consciousness (with its accordingly
huge self-consciousness), the huge knowledge, the huge and complex
language, ... were naturally caused by the brain but would be totally
useless, if their development were merely a natural development.
The humans are humans very much more because of their cultural development
than because of their natural development. Naturally humans are
98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.
Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.
Like I said (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**):
Human beings are luxury beings.
Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment,
but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about
the luxury islands.
Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves
from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have
to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They
can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also
have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in
their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not
able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living
creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have
the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the
less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living
beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful
and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful
and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would
immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded
in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it
does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence
of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends
on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human
beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature
which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as
their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.
So when I say human nature is human culture/s, then
I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals;
so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human
nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural
sense this relation is inversely proportional.
If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their
nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!
There is no native morality but a native system of values.
Babies do not have morality; morality requires that the child can
understand most of the language of those who have already morality.
The language of those who have already morality leads to the understanding
of morality, to a consciousness of morality, ethics, philosophy
of law, ... and so on. It is a question of a language-dependent
education. A baby understands baby talk and merely a very, very
little of the language of those who have already morality; so a
baby is not able to understand enough of the language with morality,
thus a baby is not able to understand morality.
A baby has values, is able to value; but a baby has no morality,
is not able to judge morally.
Please, do not confuse morality with values, norms, rules, laws.
The reasons why more and more people think beauty would exclusively
be in the ey of the beholder can be found in the nowadays art, politics,
religion, and almost all other forms of culture which express nothing
(nihilistic forms), have nothing to say, and expect that the beholders
have also nothing to say. The only exception of it is when it comes
to pay for it, thus to pay for nothing - then it is hypocritically
said: beautiful, good, true.
What do you think about a quadrialism?
I) natural (physical and chemical),
II) natural-cultural (biologic[al] and economic[al]),
III) cultural (semiotic[al] and linguistic[al]),
IV) cultural-natural (philosphic[al] and mathemathic[al]).
The concept natural-cultural (**)
already seems to indicate that biology and economics coukld be an
odd grouping (**),
but it simply means that living beings try to remain living beings,
thus try to do their self-preservation biologically and economically
- biologically by the processes in the organism (cells and so on),
economically by getting food (e.g. hunting and gathering), making
and getting goods, money, war, and so on.
What has really become new since the modern Occidental times
is the huge dimension, the technical development, especially the
enormous acceleration of the technical development, and - as a result
- the possibility that machines replace all human beings (**|**).
Humans have always tried to design a new religion, but this time
the designers will probably either integrate or exterminate all
humans of this planet, and this will probably include a huge reduction
of the number of the humans.
The word progress is a bit problematic, because the
development is spiral cyclic, not simply linear or even exponential.
So the so-called human grogress is merely in our thoughts
and not the real development, but we have to keep the process in
motion, and therefore we need such thoughts.
In a world of a society that lives in a foam (Peter
Sloterdijk), everything has merely little stability or even
Knowing and believing are not the same but similar - because of
their common source. Science and religion are not the same but similar
- because of their common source.
Look at the so-called human rights. They all begin
with the word one or the word everyone.
Do they work? Does individualism (extreme egoism) really work?
Party ideologues, priests, politicians, and other people in power?
Social criticism and sociology, thus nihilism.
I say: primarily philosophers should do it., and they should
not be allowed to get money for it.
Nihilistic philosophy can not be an entire philosophy and has to
remain something like criticism, skepticism .... and so on. I am
not complainin about this much but referring to the topic of this
thread and saying that philosophy is the better means than criticism,
skepticism .... and so on, but if we do not have any other possibility,
then we have to accept it.
Nihilism began in the end of the 18th century or the beginning
of the 19th century, thus, let's say, nihilism began about 1800.
A social critic or a nihilist nihilistic philosopher is not the
better philosopher but - perhaps - merely the better cocial critic
or nihilistic philosopher. It's simple.
I do not need to, but I can dispose of it alltogether,
to create space for something new. If all current humans would
create space for something new, then there were perhaps
already no humans anymore.
The more criticicsm or nihilism the less philosophy you have. You
have to accept the historical facts. You can not have both non-philosophy
That was not a characterisation but a statement that
you can not have both non-philosophy and philosophy.
That is logical, even tautolgical: A non-philosophy can not also
be a philosophy. That is impossible. Either it rains
or it does not rain - both is not possible.
And I am not saying that criticism has nothing to do with philosophy,
but I am saying: if criticism is merely nihilism or turns its
fury on philosophy, then it is not a part of philosophy anymore.
Modern criticisms are often advertised as philosophy, although
most of them are obviously not philosophy. That is the problem.
We do not have too much philosophy - we have too little philosophy.
No one of those skepticists has ever achieved and will never achieve
such a huge influence that Kant has achieved. And that belongs to
the answer of the question in the topic of this thread. I remind
you again: please refer to the topic. This little philosophers you
mean are dwarfs in comparison to Kant.
Trying to compare a nihilistic philosopher with a non-nhilistic
philosopher is difficult but not impossible.
There is realitiy, and so there is objectivity. There should be
science, thus there should be history too. Thers is still science,
thus there is still history too. We have logic, empirical evidence,
and history in order to know that a nihilistic philosopher can never
be the greater or better philosopher. Nihilistic philosophy has
merely a litte bit to do with philosophy.
Nihilistic philosophers may be more sympathic - and in nihlistic
times they mostly are, at least for other nihilists -, but they
can never be the greater or better philosophers.
It is the definition itself that makes it impossible to really
have a little philosophy as the greatest or better philosophy.
Philosophy does not mean love of wisdom. Philosophy
means love to wisdom.
The first definition would mean wisdom's love or that
wisdom loves, thus it would mean nonsense. The
second defintion is the right one and means that one loves
wisdom or one has the love to (have or/and get [more
and more]) wisdom.
In German this love to wisdom is called Liebe
zur Weisheit - you may compare it to Wille zur
Macht (will to power), if you know the
German nihilistic philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche.
Instead of the preposition zu (to) one
can alternatively use the preposition für (fo):
Liebe für Weisheit (love for
wisdom) - for comaprison: Wille für Macht
(will for power). But one should never use the
preposition "of" in this cases because the terms would
get an entirely different meaning.
The consciousness is neither identical nor reducible
to the brain. The argument that consciousness vanishes with the
death of its living being is not proven, and the argument against
it is not disproven - so it is possible that the consciousness does
not vanish with the death of its living being, and perhaps it will
never vanish. The consciousness exists, has affect, and therefore
it is possible that it exists for ever and ever - like that what
in former days was called psyche, soul;
but the consciousness is also neither identical nor reducible to
psyche or soul. The consciousness is part of the body (nervus system),
part of the mind or the signs (semiotical, linguistical, logical,
mathematical system), but most of all it is independent.
The problem is that the humans know merley a little bit of the
consciousness - probably because the consciousness is pretty much
As long as we humans do not know whether the consciousness is dependent
or independent, we can say that the consciousness is partly independent
or partly dependent but not that it is absolutely independent or
absoluetly dependent - similar to the will as a relatively free
will or relatively unfree will.
The need of the difference between males and females is to prevent
the extinction of homo sapiens.
And the free will is merely a relatively free will.
If humans will not have any difference, they will either create
differences or die out. Without any difference humans are not able
to win any fight.
In the following animation the different one is not an human but an
Human beings are very specific living beings: animal-not-wannabes
on the one side and god-wannabes on the other side. Humans
are pretty much animals, but do not want to be animals, and they
are not pretty much god(s), but want to be god(s). Humans are not
able to be real animals and not able to be real god(s) - they are
between the two, so a human being means a being between an animal
and a god.
The Ancient Romans said to someone who was as presumptuous as you
seem to be: Remember that you are a mortal being.
Gods are no mortal beings - this belongs to
the definition of god(s).
Some mllion years humans (including some ancestors of homo sapiens)
lived together with wild animals. Since about 6000 years humans
have been living together - more or less - with pets and other harmless
animals and not or hardly with wild animals. You personally have
never lived together with wild animals but merely with pets and
other harmless animals.
Humans are just not really perfect.
Since the date when humans became modern - whenever
it was - they have been following the idea that something
should do the work for them, but they have never been considering
that that also implies the possibility of their complete replacement
by this something. Human beings as luxury beings have
been considering mostly the comfort but rarely the danger of this
Who of the humans is really able to decide in place of every and
any human being, especially those of the future?
I answer: No one of the humans. In that case the humans play God
Many philosophical questions are based on the
So also in this case. The question Is misanthropy unavoidable?
assumes that misanthropy exists. But does misanthropy
obejctively exist? Or is misanthropy merely a subjective
interpretation? Or is it both? And if it is both: Do we have to
Interpret misanthropy more objectively or more subjectively?
Is misanthropy a malicious assumption of those who are
really misanthropes or even misanthropists,
whereby misanthropy would be proven? Or is misanthropy
something like pessimism? But does pessimism
obejctively exist? Or is pessimism merely a subjective
interpretation? Or is it both? And if it is both: Do we have to
interpret pessimism" more objectively or more subjectively?
If it is true that existence is that which has affect
then we can determine that misanthropy exists, because misanthropy
has affect, regardless whether it is more obejectively or more subjectively
interpreted. But this does not answer the question whether humans
are misanthropes or even misanthropists or not. The Ancient Greek
said that their gods are like humans and that some of them are misanthropes.
What if merely the gods are misanthropes, so that we - the humans
- are merely the victims? What if merely we - the humans - are misanthropes,
so that the gods are the victims? If it is true that we can experience
misanthropy (because it has affect), then we can say, that we experience
it either by our doing (active) or by our suffering (passive). Children
are less powerful than adults. What can they do, if they want to
become powerful? They can love, believe, and hope that they will
be powerful in the future. And what can adults do, if they are not
powerful (enough) and what to become (more) powerful? They can love,
believe, and hope that they will be (more) powerful in the future;
but in addition they can something what children do not can: the
adults can try to overthrow the rulers. But therefor they have to
be angry, furious, irate, revengeful, eveil (from the viewpoint
of the rulers), and misanthropic, often while they project the misanthropy
on the rulers, regardless whether it is right (true) or worng (false).
They can say that the rulers are misanthropes, because e.g. they
let the other humans suffer, and now the rulers have to be those
who suffer. But the question is: Is it right to think and do this?
And the main question is: Does this lead to more misanthropy or
So if one human or even the whole humanity becomes older, this
can but does not have to mean more misanthropy. Schopenhauer - as
one example amongst many others - was probably a pessimist, a misanthrope,
or even a misanthropist, and when he lived the humanity was already
very old, and when he was old there was prabbaly more misanthropy
in him than ever before. But how should we value it? Is an optimist
a better human? I say: No, because it depends on. And please do
not forget: Most optimists are no real optimists. So
the question of optimism vs. pessimism has mainly become
a rhetorical one. And the question of misanthropy vs. philanthropy
So my answer to the question whether misanthropy is unavoidable
is: Probably yes, but there are many lies involved when it comes
to answer the question: Who is misanthropic?
Everyone IS always the FIRST interpreter. There is
no problem at all and will be no problem at all. The only problem
(not only in this case!) is that other humans try to manage
and control the life of all or nearly all other people, so as if
these other people were not able to live independently.
Should each adult person become a childlike person
or/and the species homo sapiens become the species homo
erectus or even one species of the genus australopithecus?
Of course: No.
Man sollte nicht überrascht sein, wenn sich zeigt, wie
mit fortschreitender Weltvernetzung die Symptome der Misanthropie
anwachsen. Wenn Menschenfurcht eine naturwüchsige Antwort auf
unwillkommene Nachbarschaft bedeutet, läßt sich angesichts
der erzwungenen Fernnachbarschaften der meisten mit den meisten
eine misanthropische Epidemie ohne Beispiel vorhersehen. Das wird
nur jene in Erstaunen setzen, die vergessen haben, daß die
Ausdrücke »Nachbar« und »Feind« herkömmlich
nahezu Synonyme waren. - Peter Sloterdijk, Im Weltinnenraum
des Kapitals, 2005, S. 220.
It should come as no surprise if it transpires that the symptoms
of misanthropy increase with the progressive interconnection of
the world. If fear of humans means a primal response to unwelcome
neighbours, an unprecedented misanthropic epidemic would be the
foreseeable result of the imposed long-distance vicinity between
most people and most others. This should only amaze those who have
forgotten that the words »neighbour« and »enemy«
were traditionally almost synonymous. - Peter Sloterdijk,
The World Interior of Capitalism, 2005, p. 141.
The internet is a digital modernity within the modernity. If you
know who did benefit, who benefits, and who will benefit from modernity,
then you also know who did benefit, who benefits, and who will benefit
from the internet as the digital modernity.
Untroubled existence (**)
is a loose concept. However, the reality shows us almost always
the opposite side of that what you call our need is untroubled
If humans have less troubles than they usually have, then they
invent troubles. Metaphorically said humans live on an island
of luxury, surrounded by an ocean of non-luxury and
Each culture is embedded in nature.
If it is not false that humans are naturally 98%-animals
and 2%-humans but culturally 98%-humans
and 2%-animals, then it is easy to find out that they
are not able to leave all troubles behind them (trouble equals
strength) and that they are nonetheless able to sublimate
troubles because of their culture.
So generally human troubles do not vanish.
See also: **
1) The prestage of the human luxury beings was the upright
walking which led to the possibility of using hands in many
other ways than walking which led to a more voluminous brain
with very much more capacity which led to the birth of the
2) The birth of the human luxury beings was the
use of fire which was associated with the use of language.
3) The youth of the human luxury beings was the sapientisation.
4) The adulthood of the human luxury beings began when
they were left alone, thus with the Neanderthal extinction
(since then there has been being merely one species of the humans).
4a) The early adulthood of the human luxury beings:
from the Neanderthal extinction to the transition (the
so-called Neolithic Revolution) to the agriculture.
4b) The middle adulthood of the human luxury beings:
from the agriculture to that probable date in the future
when machines will take over (**|**).
4c) The late adulthood of the human luxury beings: from
the probable date in the future when machines will have taken
over to the death of the last human.
The abilities of human beings are too complex, so if there are,
for example, two neighborly human groups (e.g. X and
Y) and the human group X does x
and the human group Y does y, then it is
very much probable that one of this two human groups will sooner
or later change its doing, unless these two groups are isolated
from each other. Huamn beings have far more possibilities of doing
or behaving, far more capabilities or skills than e.g. ants. Ants
are great specialists - but they do always the same.
Information is very important - naturally and culturally
(our current economy, for example, should be much more orientated
towards Information than towards energy).
Wisdom is more than knowledge, wisdom is the use of knowledge in
a wise direction. It takes knowledge to know how to use knowledge,
yes, and if one uses the knowledge in a wise direction, then this
one is wise, can be called a wise person or a
person with wisdom.
If knowledge is not always power, then one can hardly say
that knowledge is power; so one should rather say that
knowledge can mean power but is not power.
It is very probable that those with the most knowledge do not have
the most power, and it is also very probable that those with the
most power do not have the most knowledge (in order to remain powerful
they need merely an average knowledge and a few people with more
than the average knowledge who depend on them). For example: each
boss of a company does not always have more knowledge than the underlings
of this boss; the situation, especially in the long run, that some
underlings have more knowledge than their boss is more probable.
The brain is a part of the body, scintifically spoken: a part of
biology, especially neurology. Brain is not mind, and both are not
psyche. Brain is scientifically accessible, but psyche and mind
are scientifically not accessible, because they are scientifically
not objectifiable. So psychology is not a scientifical discipline.
Psychology has no scientifical object. It can merely be a part of
Nobody knows what psyche really is. That is the reason why it is
used for everything. It is no thing (=> no-thing
=> nothing), and if no thing is used for everything,
then you can be sure that that can never be a real scientifical
object and that those people who use it in that way are charlatans,
quacks, quacksalvers, and so on.
I am talking about a scientific object, and that is well
defined. Psyche is no scientific object.
It is not debatable. And my text is no critique.
No one can say what psyche really is.
Sociologists are as useful as a hole in the head.
The scientific object of physics is nature with its
bodies. There is no doubt about it. The word physics
is derived from the Greek word physika which means nature.
It is well known what nature and its bodies
If you know what psyche really is, then you would be
God or one of the Godwannabes who claim to know what it is, although
they do not know what it is. The word psyche
has always been an abstraction, a philosophical or/and religious
term without any concrete meaning, without any material aspect;
so psyche is merely an abstraction like a whiff (puff or tang),
thus no thing, no-thing, nothing.
The feelings and the thoughts are not what
psyche means. The feelings are feelings,
the thoughts are thoughts, and the psyche
is psyche. Why are you so stubborn when it comes to accept what
words, terms, and concepts mean? The natural base for thoughts is
the brain, and the brain science is called neurology which is a
part of biology. We know what that means. It has nothing to do with
psychology. The natural base for feelings is also the natural living
body, and the science of the natural living body is biology. We
know what that means. It has nothing to do with psychology. What
you are saying about feelings and thoughts
is hocus-pocus when it comes to bring them in a discipline which
they definitely do not belong to.
They invent, invent, and invent
more and more stuff (mental illness is merely
one of that nonsense stuff) in order to control more and more humans,
at last 99% of all humans (before all humans will be replaced by
Humans can never be 100%-animals but merely 98%-animals,
and humans can never be gods but godwannabes, although no 100%-godwannabes
but merely 98%-godwannabes.
There is a high probability that the well defined theory of a non-corrupted
human is more true than the theory of a corrupted human who is called
scientist and depends on the money of other corrupted
We need both thinking and observing. When it comes to an instinctual
banality (humans as animals), observing may be more
important than thinking, but when it comes to the human culture/s
and especially to science (science belongs to the Occidental culture),
thinking is more important than observing (this does not mean that
observing is unimportant), because it was the thinking that led
to the scientifical (again: scientifical!) observation. Humans
are humans because of their culture/s, naturally spoken: because
of their brains. Many animals are much better observers than humans.
What humans made to better oberservers was the enablement of the
universal use of their brains which enabled them to a specification
that led to scientification and at last to science itself. So the
cause of the scientifical observation is thinking, the typical human
thinking, caused by their brains and their culture/s - interactively.
If scientists are already corrupt and depend on other corrupt humans,
then the probability becomes higher and higher that they say that,
for example, »X« has not been proven false,
although it has been proven false.
If scientists are already corrupt and depend on other corrupt humans,
then the probability becomes higher and higher that they say that,
for example, »X« has not been proven false,
although it has been proven false.
x-coordinate <=> centuries (0 <=> the
y-coordinate <=> degree (magnitude)
y = (½)^x <=> philosophy
x = 2^x <=> nihilism
Currently (x = 2 ) the degree of nihilism (y = 4) is 16 times higher
than the degree of philosophy (y = ¼); the current degree
of philosophy (y = ¼) is 32 times lower than it was in the
year 1500 (x = 3 and y = 8), the current degree of nihilism
(y = 4) is 32 times higher than it was in the year 1500 (x = 3
and y = 0,125).
When mathematics and physics left philosophy they became scientific
disciplines. Contemporarily the degree of nihlism was very low,
almost imperceptible. Currently the degree of philosophy is as low
as nihlism was at the time when mathematics and physics left philosophy
and became scientific disciplines, whereas the degree of nihlism
is as high as philosophy was at the time when mathematics and physics
left philosophy and became scientific disciplines, - One can have
the impression that nihilism is an awful revenge.
If we want to save the philosophy, then we have to fight against
the nihilism. The nihilism is an enemy of both philosophy and science,
but nevertheless the number of nihilistic philosophers
has been exponetially increasing, followed by the number of nihilistic
Who can stop the nihilism?
The statement that there is an inifinite difference
between two sequenced numbers is similar to the statement that a
real physical contact between two bodies or particles is not possible
because of the charges of their electrons on both outside lanes
of both atoms: both charges are negative (each electron always has
a negative charge).
But we know that 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2, and so on, and we know that
we can have contact.
Maybe Galilei exaggerated when he said that mathematics is the
language of the nature. Anyway. We - the humans - have no other
choice than to use our language in order to explain the observed
nature (universe), because this explanation can only be done by
the use of the language we have (and we have no other), scientifically
spoken: by the use of linguistics and mathematics - and the intersection
of both is logic.
Humans are luxury beings; so if you want them to not have luxury,
then you do nothing else than the rulers do: make the 1% of all
humans (the rulers) richer and richer and the 99% of all humans
poorer and poorer.
The Brazilianisation of the world is a process of 3rd-world-isation
which will lead to a tiny, crowded, and very ugly islands
of the 99% of all humans with a tiny luxury and to a huge, sparsely
populated, and very beautiful island of the 1% of all
humans with a huge luxury.
The humans as the luxury beings are not able to stop the luxury itself
- what they get, if they try to stop it, is an unfairer and unfairer
distribution (allocation) of the luxury. So, for example, you can
eschew luxury, of course, but that merely makes the distribution (allocation)
of the luxury unfairer and unfairer, so that you consequently must
eschew luxury, whereas the 1% of all humans can get more and more
luxury, because your eschewal of luxury does not mean all humans
eschewal of luxury but the increase of other humans' luxury. At last
99% of all humans will have to eschew about 99% of all luxury (wealth),
whereas 1% of all humans will have that 99% of all luxury (wealth).
Your way of linguistics > objects > consciousness
must be considered as one way containing two ways:
1,1) Linguistics => objects => consciousness,
1,2) Consciousness => objects => linguistics.
Both ways (1,1 and 1,2) of the one way (1) are necessary - for
example: for language development and language acquisition, and
also for consciousness development and consciousness acquisition.
In our daily life we use the geocentric time (b.t.w:
this geocentric time would still be the cosmological
time, if the science did not prescribe another cosmological
time, although there is no proper definition for it).
In our daily life we use the geocentric space (b.t.w:
this geocentric space would still be the cosmological
space, if the science did not prescribe another cosmological
space, although there is no proper definition for it).
If one logic statement (for example: as a part of a syllogism)
contradicts another, then one has to check it again and to eliminate
the false one.
An example from the realm of physics and chemistry:
In the past scientists claasified all metals as being heavier
than water. So this was the syllogism: Major
premise: Gold, silver, ..., iron, ... and so on are heavier
than water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME
Minor premise: Metals are are gold,
silver, ..., iron, ... and so on.
Conclusion: Metals are heavier than
water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME
That syllogism had been true for a long time - until the potassium
was discovered. Since this discovery of the potassium the following
syllogism has been being true:
Major premise: Potassium is lighter
than water, although all other metals are heavier than water.
Minor premise: Some metals are potassium.
Conclusion: Some metals are lighter
than water, although all other metals are heavier than water.
You see: The first syllogism (see above) had to be corrected by
the second syllogism (see above), because scientist discovered the
Tweaking the definitions:
An example of a definition is the word theism. In order
to be a theist one has to be capable of (A)
believing, (Aa) believing in a god
or more gods (this makes you a believer in god or gods), and (B)
processing this in an intellectual / professional way (this makes
you a theist). If you are a theist, then you can become an antitheist,
and an atheist, if you fulfill some further preconditions. This
was - b.t.w. - what I meant when I said Mutcer was implicitly
saying that the effect is before the cause (**|**).
The theological cause is always the belief, and the succession of
this theological development is always: => (1)
belief => (2) godbelief => (3)
theological knowledge, for eaxmple as => (3a)
theism => (3b) antitheism =>
(3c) syntheism (synthesis of theism
and antitheism) or (3d) atheism.
So it is not possible for one to be a godbeliever, if this one
is not capable of believing. And it is also not possible
for one to have theological knowledge, if this one is not capable
of a god(s)belief. Furthermore it is not possible for one to
be a theist, if this one is not capable of the required theological
knowledge. In addition it is also not possible for one to be an
anthitheist, if this one has not been a theist before. And it is
also not possible for one to be an atheist, if this one has not
been an antitheist and a theist before. If you want to deny something,
you have to know this something. If you want to form
a synthesis out of theism and antitheism, you have to know what
theism and antitheism mean and be capable
of forming a synthesis out of theism and antitheism. But if you
want to be released from theism, antitheism, and syntheism, know
what they mean, and are sure you can ignore them, then (and only
then) you can honestly call yourself an atheist. So
in reality there are merely few or even no atheists.
If a man (or a woman!) wants to rape a child and to make the rape
of children legally, then the easiest way is that he
(or she!) tells again and again the lie that children
are atheists, because the probability that this will become
a law is not low, if the situation allows it. This was the
case in the so-called comministic countries (especially
in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia), because all people of this
societies had to be atheists. If all people are believed
(!) and have to be atheistic, then it is very easy for
the rulers and their functionaries to capture all children by removing
them from their allegedly theistic parents and all other
allegedly theistic members of their families in order
to legally rape this children. The definition of theist
is arbitrarily dictated by the dictators, and that means everyone
and anyone who does not conform to this dictatorship can be called
a theist and be punished by death because of being
a theist. So the rapists of children can - and do (!) - become
more and more.
This tendency exists, and it exists more than ever before.
The so-called free will:
The so-called free will is merely a relatively free
will. The whole history of philosophy is full of that topic.
According to it there have always been philosophers of determinism,
philosophers of indeterminism, philosophers of a mixture of both
determinism and indeterminism, and all of them have always taken
One can also do what Kant did: divide the world into two parts,
one for the senses and one for intelligibility. According to the
first part humans have an unfree will, thus no free will, because
they are slaves of the causality; but according to the second part
humans have a free will.
Kant also (**)
said that nothing is free from causality, thus also human beings
are not free from causality; but he said humans have an intelligible
freedom, thus they have a free will according to their intelligibility.
In other words: Kant was both a determinist and an indeterminist,
because he said humans have an unfree will because of the causality,
but they have a free will because of their intelligibility. Therefore
he demanded: You shall because you can! (loosely translated).
Let's say that they are embedded in causality, but beings like
the human beings tend to power, thus they want to dominate the nature
with its causality as well. The accent here is on the word tend,
because they never can be free from causality. But according to
their thoughts (=> intelligibility) they are capable of doing
anything what they will, although they are not capable of doing
anything what they will when it comes to causality.
Therefore the conclusion must be that humans have a relatively
The facts speak in the sense of Kant, at least more than in the
sense of the representatives of the total nihilism.
It is a fact that all human beings are not free from causality,
and it is also a fact that humans are spiritually or intellctually
free from everything they can think and imagine, because thoughts
and imaginations are also facts. We have two parts of the world,
at least for humans, and the first part is one of the unfree will
because of the causality, whereas the second part is one of the
free will because of the intelligibility. Because of the fact that
the first part dominates it is impossible that humans have a free
will; because of the fact that humans can partly control causality
it is possible that humans have at least a relatively free will
(you may also call it relatively unfree will). So the position
of determinism that includes an indeterminism is correct.
This means: The human will is determined, and this can never be
changed, and indetermined, and this can be changed.
Relatively free will means both detmerminism and
indeterminism. So the human life is not as much determined as you
think. It is determined by causality - of course (!) - but not by
spirituality (thinking etc.). The indetermination is an island
in the infinte ocean of the determination.
It is not true that the will can no longer be a representation,
and the lobby of the deconstructivists is not capable of changing
this fact. The deconstructivism is just another expression of the
There is fate (destiny), of course, but there is chance (opportunity)
too. There is determination, of course, but there is indetermination
Schopenhauer's Wille (will) is Kant's Ding an sich (thing
in itself / thing as such).
The German existentialism as Heidegger's Existenzphilosophie
(existential philosophy) was the basis for the French; when
Sartre started his philosophical career he was a Heideggerian, thus
a scholar of the German existentialism as Heidegger's Existenzphilosophie
(existential philosophy); and when the WW2 was over (!) Sartre became
more and more communistic, because it was opportune (!) at that
time. Sartre failed at last.
Imagine you have the will to be free from causality. To be free
from causality is impossible. Imagine a child in the phase that
Freud called the Trotzphase (defiant phase),
thus a child between two and four years old; many adults are of
the opinion that such a child would do anything what the strong
will of this child wants to do, if the parents allowed it; but the
truth is that, if the parents allowed everything, the will of this
child would at last fail because of the causality (perhaps this
child would fall into a fountain, hit by a car, straving to death,
... and os on). Or imagine those adult humans who are destroying
our planet. One can have the impression that they do what they want
/ what they will. But they are going to be stopped by nature itself,
The most comprehensive and strongest meaning of the word free
and the most comprehensive and strongest meaning of the word unfree
give us the sure hint that the will can merely be a relatively free
The complete freedom is impossible, and I used the example
of the causality to make that clear. No living being, thus also
no human being, is free from causality. If humans were free from
causality, then they would live as they want (=> will) to live,
or, for example, remain young, never be ill, never die, ... and
so on, thus they would live in a so-called paradise
with no causality or a causality that depends on huamn beings.
Humans are relatively free when they make choices. Some choices
show (them often afterwards) that humans are unfree, many choices
show (them often afterwards) that humans are relatively unfree /
relatively free, and some choices show (them often afterwards) that
hmans are free. A free will is not possible; an unfree will can
be disproved by living beings, especially - and in a relatively
high degree - by human beings; so the conclusion for human beings
can merely be that they have a relatively free will.
Humans are not perfect. They are not capable of being 100%-animals
and also not capable of being gods.
Science works like a selection system. The scientific results are
never complete, perfect, and correct; they are always merely the
results of the zeitgeist. This means that it is absolutely necessary
to be sceptical and to not let the scientists alone with the answers
to questions of us all.
Is an authentic dasein (existence, life) possible for human beings?
You can interpet it as you want: dasein, existence, life
(see above). It is up to you to interpret dasein.
The question includes e.g. the following question: Is it possible
to not lie, to not be insincere / hypocritical, to not be corrupt,
to not want to be like the others, but just to be oneself? I
am asking you, for example, whether you think that you live or can
live according to the imperative BE YOURSELF ! .
Is it possible to live identically, thus according to the
sentence: A is A (compare: A = A)?
The dasein / existence of the current machines is authentic. If
the machines will remain as they currently are and humans will still
live then, then the machines will perhaps cause an authentic dasein
(existence, life) of the humans by use of SAM.
By dasein I roughly mean what Heidegger's existence
philosophy means by it.
Is the common-sense-is-dangerous-statement more dangerous
than the common sense?
Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child
the more similar to an adult.
If children are capable of living authentically and adults are
not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference
of both is because of development and learning, ubringing and education,
thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause
that adult humans are not capable of living authentically
We can say that an authentic human life means a life
according to the human's nature, whereas an unauthentic
life means a life according to the human's culture/s.
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according
to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their
So if humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature
and because of about 98% of their culture/s (**),
then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.
Many humans - especailly most of the current humans - do not want
to hope. Those humans want everything now!
Most of the best philosophers of all times lived alone.
Should all people be philosophers?
Most of the people should not live alone (thus:
should not be philosophers).
What Nietzsche said about the Scheinmensch and Heidegger
said about the Man.
It has much to do with the question: Is a human authentic
dasein (existence, life) possible?
Physics: 1a and Ib.
Chemistry: 1b and IIa.
Biology: 2a and IIb.
Economics: 2b and IIIa.
Semiotics: 3a and IIIb.
Linguistics: 3b and IVa.
Philosophy: 4a and IVb.
Mathematics: 4b and Ia.
I) Order (means mainly ordinary mode of being).
II) Matter (means mainly material mode of being).
III) Function (means mainly functional mode of being).
IV) Consciousness (means mainly conscious or phenomenal mode
The Deutsche Romantik (German Romantic) who deeply idealised the
nature, so that one can speak of a very strong deification of nature.
Most of them were pantheists. A deification is always theistic.
Of course. Duh! A non-theistic deification is not possible.
The Romantic Age as the age of the pantheistic deification
There are many information memories.
Concerning (1) nature: in all things
of the universe, thus in everything that exists, thus also in brains.
Concerning (2) human culture: (2,1)
in brains again; (2,2) in libraries;
(2,3) in machines, thus also in computers,
robotors, and so on.
Since the beginning of the so-called Neolithic Revolution
the human beings have been (unconsciously or even consciously) creating
something in order to be replaced someday. This something
and this someday come nearer and nearer.
It is hard for modern believers when they notice their idols are
as dead as their ideologies.
The senses can already be used before the birth: (1)
sense of touch at the age of about 2 months after the fertilisation;
(2) sense of balance at the age of
about 2 till some more months after the fertilisation; (3)
sense of taste at the age of about 3 months after the fertilisation;
(4) sense of smell at the age of about
5 months after the fertilisation; (5)
sense of hearing at the age of about 6 months after the fertilisation;
(6) sense of sight at the age of about
9 months after the fertilisation.
Every human has a self-interest, a drive to be recognised, a will
to live - you may also call it a will to power.
Humans have a relatively free will. They do not as much
depend on nature (=> Darwin) as other living beings do; they
do not as much depend on economy as a living basis (=> Marx)
as other living beings do; they do not as much depend on fate /destiny
(=> Nietzsche) as other living beings do; they do not as much
depend on the unconscious (=> Freud) as other living
beings do. Humans are relatively free because of their high
developed brains, because high developed brains mean a relatively
high intelligence, thus also relatively high culture/s,
and that means a relative indepencence of nature.
I am saying: The life of a human being begins with the origin of
a human being, and the origin of a human being is the zygote. Additionally
the decision whether one is a male or a female has a biological
basis too, and this basis is most important.
Can you imagine to be dead?
What is death exaxtly, especially when it comes to imagine it?
It is the opposite or/and opponent of life, what is before and after
life, okay, but that is not what one imagines when one imagines
to be dead.
Do you think or believe that the consciousness / awareness is not
merely based on the physical reality and does not need a brain?
I remember a situation after having an accident when my consciousness
and also the pictures came back. It was similar to what you can
sometimes see in a movie. There was a white color, perhaps a white
curtain, that slowly disappeared and let the reality came through.
If one thinks a beginning or/and an end,
then there are often also thoughts like the following two questions:
How does a beginning begin?
How does an end end?
Imagine Sloterdijk's trilogy being called Being and Space.
It is a continuation of Heidegger's Sein und Zeit (Being
Sloterdijk's Sphärologie (logic of spheres) is the method
that increases the spaciousness of the world very much, while the
usual discourses of the globalization decreases the world disgustfully.
The book with the following title should be translated soon, or
you read it in German: Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit
The awful children of the modern era) - by Peter Sloterdijk,
Reprogramming always starts with education because
the young people are the most influenceable people.
There is a great interest in the prevention of learning from history.
Another sucker (**)
or the end-consumer or the last man.
»Wir haben das Glück erfunden« sagen
die letzten Menschen und blinzeln. Translation:
»We have discovered happiness«- say the last men
and blink. (Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche).
Nobody envies the Jews, but a lot of humans envy the Whites (also
called Caucasians or Indogermanics / Indoeuropeans / Aryans), especially
the White men.
Where is the price for the Jews? If there were anybody envious
of Jews, then there would be a high price for Jews too.
The analogy of the Ashkenazi Jews and the Germans in particular
or of all the Jews and all the Aryans in general inspired Hitler.
The intelligence of the Ashkenazi Jews and the Germans is similar,
the intelligence of all the Jews and all the Aryans is also similar
- since 1945 the difference is merely that Jews are allowed to be
proud of themselves and Aryans have to feel ashamed of themselves.
This new world order (globalism) can only and is going to lead
to a global chaos. The result of the new world order can only and
is going to be the survival of (a)
no one or (b) few of the wilderness.
Think about it:
Political correctness in a globalistic phase is the most fatal
behavior. Globalism destroys everything on this planet, thus also
and especially humans.
Where Fichte had lectured: »Act like nobody!«,
Stirner replicated: »Do what you can do alone on the world:
Enjoy yourself!« - My translation of: Peter Sloterdijk,
Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014, S. 461. **
»The rhizome is an anti-genealogy.
The rhizome passes through conversion, expansion, conquest, catch
and stitch .... The rhizome is about ... becoming of all kinds.«
(Gilles Deleuze & Félix Guattari, Rhizome, p. 35.) The
invisible underground mesh (network) against the visibly sprouting,
striving upward tree .... - My translation of: Peter Sloterdijk,
Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014, S. 472. **
Against any past and future - the anti-genealogy - that is one
of the main aspects of the modernity, when fashion replaces customs
For the modern human there is only consumption, no past, no future,
no children, no parents, thus no familiy, no genealogy but only
consumption, enjoy-yourself-ism. So there is also no sacred thing
for the modern human, because for the modern human there is only
consumption, no custom (moral) but fashion that has replaced all
customs (morals), no sacred things, unless they are consumable.
The modern religion (ideology, consumistic manifesto) is consumption,
enjoy-yourself-here-and-now-ism, anti-genealogy, the devil-may-care-attitude.
The main mistake of the modernity is to put the social question
in the in the foreground and to forget to ask the genealogical
The idea behind the rhizome was, as I already said, to have a symbol
for the anti-genealogy. No ancestors, no origin, no parents, no
past, no descendants, no children, no future, no hierarchy - but
a mesh (network) of consumers (also drug consumers, of course, because
Deleuze and Guattari themselves were professing drug consumers).
Deleuze and Guattari had the obsession that the original sin was
ancestry, descent, origin, just genealogy. So they said consequently
their rhizome was an anti-genealogy.
Deleuze and Guattari took that up from Friedrich Nietszche's books,
for example Morgenröte (1881), Zur Genealogie der
Moral (1887), but they probably took that also up from Max Stirner's
book Der Einzelne und sein Eigentum (1844), because (to me)
Deleuze's and Guattari's anti-genealogical philosophy is more like
Stirner's than Nietzsche's philosophy. By the way: Max Stirner (actually:
Johann Kaspar Schmidt) published his book Der Einzelne und sein
Eigentum when Nietzsche was born (1844).
The invisible underground mesh (network) against the visibly sprouting,
striving upward tree. The roots of trees are not networked like
rootstocks (rhizomes) of mushrooms, and mushrooms do not have such
a long stems like trees have, and do not have branches, twigs, leaves
like trees have.
If the greatest philosopher is the first one who has demonstrated
that there are definite limits to what philosophy can do, then Kant
is the greatest philosopher of all times. And even Schopenhauer
- not usually known as a thinker full of happy praise for anyone
or anything - held Kants book Kritik der reinen Vernunft
(Critique of Pure Reason) to be the most important
book ever written in Europe.
Humans are not capable of knowing everything
and anything - regardless whether there is philosophy or science,
whether there is enlightenment or counter-enlightenment, whether
there is idealism or realism, whether there is kynism or cynism
-, the deep sense of knowledge is a great cyclical game of life.
Kowledge (or intelligence) is a highly efficient weapon, yes, but
it is not the only highly efficient weapon.
On the one hand the sentence knowledge is power is
right, but on the other hand the speaker of this sentence speaks
this sentence in order to get power. So the sentence is both philosophical
and political, but the political side has becoming stronger and
stronger since the will to knowledge was overtaken (passed)
by the will to power, and that also means: philosophy has
been going down since it was overtaken by politics.
Naturally brains are made for survival, and culture is embedded
in nature. So first of all there is a natural reason why a brain
exists. The cultural reason merely follows. It is a followup reason,
thus not the natural reaosn as the original reason. So cultural
phenomenons like philosophy and science are not the primary reason
why a brain exists. In other words: Our brains were not primarily
but merely secondarily made for philosophy or science or other cultural
phenomenons, and philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons
are no organs of our body but merely cultural phenomenons.
Kant was right in almost all aspects (except some ethical aspects):
his cosmological hypotheis, his theory about the emergence of the
solar system, his theory about life, his theory about human beings,
his anthropology and other philosophical or scientifical theories
For example: In order to know what is behind or beyond nature we
need philosophy, especially metaphysics, but philosophy and its
metaphysics are embedded in human culture which is embedded in nature.
So this is a dilemma of human knowledge (cognition and so on) and
simultaneously the reason why humans are not capable of knowing
Solipsism is the most extreme form of subjecivism, and materialism
is the most extreme form of objecivism. The problem of solipsism
and materialism or simply of subject and object is not really solvable,
it is a dualismn. Many philosophers have tried to solve it and have
Kant was right in almost all aspects (except some ethical aspects):
his cosmological hypotheis, his theory about the emergence of the
solar system, his theory about life, his theory about human beings,
his anthropology and other philosophical or scientifical theories
Many people fear mathematics, and many people are cynics. Now,
combine this two facts, please!
Do you think that a consciousness can never be dead?
From an ancient point of view, some parts or at least the consequences
of the Platonism were also nihilistic. So if non-ancient nihilists
are against Platonism, then they are nihilists who are against a
part of the ancient nihilism. This seems to be a contradiction,
but this contradiction can be solved, at least partly, because the
ancient nihilism is different from the non-ancient nihilism.
Understanding and thinking something is true
are processes that belong to the same root(s). Animals with a primitive
(not complex enough) brain do not distinguish between understanding
and thinking something is true. You need to have a well
enough working complex brain in order to distinguish between understanding
and thinking something is true.
My argumentation is an evolutionary biological (especially neurological)
one, and I compare the phylogenetic evolution with the ontogenetic
development. You can be sure that animals with a primitive (not
complex enough) brain are not capable of distinguishing between
understanding and thinking something is true.
So you need to have a well enough working complex brain in order
to distinguish between understanding and thinking
something is true. The said roots are evolutionary biological
(especially neurological) roots, mainly the nervous system that
leads to a primitive brain that leads to a more complex brain that
leads to a still more complex brain ... and so on.
Higher animals like great apes, dolphins, some bird
species, for example, are capable of what a nearly two years old
human child is capable of; I say that, for example, bonobos and
chimpanzees are capable of corrupt behaving, although merely in
a primitive way.
The difference between the extreme individuality and the extreme
community is one of the main differences between Occident and Orient.
A sleep has an end. And the death? Is it endless? And if it is
endless: How do you think or imagine an endless death?
Socratism and Platonism changed the Ancient-Greek philosophy and
this change was criticised by the ancient cynics (Antisthenes, Diogenes
and others), but later this became normal, so Socratism and especially
Platonism and followers became cynical as well and they mixed with
movements like the Stoics and the Christians. I know
,this statement is especially a Nietzschean statement, but nevertheless:
it is true. Nietzsche called himself a Cyniker instead
of Zyniker (this is the correct spelling form in German)
just to show that he did not want to be a modern cynic (Zyniker)
but an ancient cynik (Cyniker). By the way: To make
it more Ancient-Greek-alike he should have called himself a Kyniker,
I think. So a Cyniker or Kyniker is cynical
towards the Zyniker - because the ancient cynics have
become normal, thus more and more the modern cynics which can only
be cynically criticised by cynics who are more again like the ancient
cynics (therefore: Cyniker/Kyniker versus Zyniker). Now I am saying
that there are two different forms of nihilism as well, because
cynism and nihilism belong together, although they are not the same
(cynism is a subset of nihilism, so to say), and there are more
than two forms of nihilism. So here we have two different forms
of nihilism: one of the Ancient-Greek culture and one of the Occidental
culture. They are different. Our modern nihilism we are confrontated
with is (1) a more regulated one than the ancient one was and (2)
much more active than the ancient one was. But I don't exactly know
whether they can be used against each other. Probably this phenomenon
is comparable with the speed of light, because it has always the
same amount, whereas other velocities can have different amounts.
»I don't see any reason to care.« What else is
That is more the Ancient-Greek variant of nihilism, whereas our
Modern-Occidental variant of nihilism is more regulated and more
active than the Ancient-Greek variant of nihilism was. The Modern-Occidental
nihilist says: You are allowed to do x, although he/she
knows that it is unethical, immoral. This is the cynically regulated
side of the Modern-Occidental nihilism, the cynically unregulated
side of the Modern-Occidental nihilism is the destruction of all
values with the support of the cynically regulated side.
I regard the developmental way from human nature to human culture
and from human culture to human nature. Economics is neither a begin
(basis etc.) nor an end (goal etc.) in my philosophy. It is merely
a part of the two ways (near the middle of each of them).
It is wrong to change the world to the extent as it is done currently.
It is logically false, it is ethically false, it is aesthetically
false. So it is philosophically false.
Humans should not be free to settle wherever they want to. 1) Unfortunately,
it is alraedy a law, a human right, that humans are free to settle
wherever they want to, although it is also already a fact that it
has been leading to desastrous situations. 2) Owning Earth as the
most destructive paradigm and the free settlement of humans belong
together, and both have been leading to desastrous situations.
The current human rights (including the right to settle wherever
humans want to) are rights that support owning the Earth. So the
current human rights are false. No human should de allowed to own
the Earth. Most of the human rights begin with the words every
human or everybody or one (human -
of course) - and that is a huge problem, because these words do
not stand for all humans but for those humans who have the most
power. So those with the most power are allowed to own the Earth,
whereas all other humans settle in concentration camps called cities.
When humans are in concentration camps called cities,
then they are more controllable. Where do humans prefer to settle,
if they are allowed to settle wherever they want to? In cities.
Protectionism is a part of the immune system of a society.
Changing the world means owning the world.
Their upright gait, their free arms and hands with fingers than
can oppose (=> thumb), their very large brain, their language
that leads to philosophy/science and all the technological/technical
skills that lead to owning the Earth, the solar system, the universe.
My kynical invitation as a
response to a cynical behavior:
Take part in the project »owning the universe«!
Cheegster has an interesting philosophy youtube channel called
On Ice. There I found a video with the title You
We dont know much about our own death. This means
that it is an incredibly fearful thing to most humans, and we
mostly spend our time trying to avoid it. The fact that we know
of this impending doom however, means that we can in turn really
enjoy life. In this video, I discuss why knowledge of our own
death is actually a good thing for us. Let me know your view with
a comment! - Martin
Heidegger's Being & Time. **
A will as such can only be a free will and is not
observable, not cognoscible , thus not provable or
disprovable, so we can agree with Schopenhauer and say that the
will is Kant's thing as such.
Human beings have a relatively free will.
Rousseauism is no solution. There is no need to civilly go back
to nature. Nature dominates anyway.
Instrumentalisation is almost everywhere and very similar to cynism.
It is just the same old (hi)story.
Our children will lack the enjoyment in abundance that we had,
or they will lack nothing, because they will also enjoy in abundance.
It depends on the future history and the question wether we have
to change our behaviour or not.
Maybe protecting the world could become a new (pagan) religion
without injustice and oppression, having said this, we alraedy have
such a religion, at least its prestage, just look at the instrumentalisation
of the themes climate change, global warming
etc. that lead to more power of the instrumentalisers and nothing
Try to think in a similar way as you speak, because you always
speak in a similar way as you think.
Short explanation: The cooperation of thinking and speaking puts
a spiral in motion that inevitably leads to philosophy.
So a three years old child is already capable of a philosophising
(regardless how primitive is is).
Thinking without any linguistic reference is onesided.
Just think about it:
The core is what we can call information - in order
to be in form (to survive) . This leads at last, namely
when it comes to higher culture, to the question: How can
I be sure that the information is true? All understanding
has to do with information, but not all information has to do with
understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does
not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge
is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is
also based on information, but not all information leads to belief.
Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.
Belief and knowledge are exactly the same, but they have the same
Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help, because knowledge
did not accure without help. If you believe that knowledge is absolutely
independent, then you are more a believer than those who say the
All understanding has to do with information, but not all information
has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to
a geologist does not need to understand the information that it
Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help. Knowledge did
not occur out of the nothingness and also not without help. If you
believe that knowledge is absolutely independent, then you are more
a believer than those who say that knowledge is not absolutely independent.
Information is in the outer circle - as the superset of
belief and knowledge -, and it is also an intersection of belief
and knowledge. Both belief and knowledge have their origin in information
(their intersection) and lead to information (their superset). The
intersection and the outer circle had been one circle (without belief
and knowledge) before belief and knowledge were born.
A stone (for example) does not have belief or knowledge but does
nevertheless give information.
Information is the whole process, whereas understanding is merely
a part of it. You do not need to know or to understand the informations
you give. For example: I have got information about you, but you
do not know this information. Another example: trees do not know
and not understand the information they give and get. Many many
other examples can be given. Most living beings are without understanding
but with information. And these most living beings do what
is true or false, although or, better, because they are not
capable of understanding, knowing, thinking - but capable of giving
and getting information. They do not need to know and to understand
what true or false is - they just do it (and mostly with
more success than those higher living beings with knowing
Plants, for example, seem to understand what the words true
and false mean, but, of course, they do not, because
they have no nervous system. They do not need to understand what
true and false mean. But they act and react
as if they understood the meaning of true and false.
And by the way: their actions and reactions are averagely more successful
than those of the living beings with a nervous system.
First of all, one has to understand what others say and then, secondly,
what they mean. If you read my words I am just writing, then you
have to be capable of knowing the letters, the syllables, the words,
the sentences, the whole text and, of course, the grammatical structure
and the relations of all that, and after it you can begin with your
interpretation of what the people mean, because the people and their
world are part of the context but not the text itself.
One can become more powerful by knowlege but also or even more
Imagine you inhabit an epistemological house with two floors. The
first floor as the lower floor is your belief and the second floor
as the upper floor your knowledge. If you take away your first floor,
you are not able anymore to inhabit your house; but if you take
away your second floor, you can remain in your house and just inhabit
the first floor.
Belief and knowledge have the same roots, but they are not equal,
because belief is more relevant than knowledge when it comes to
epistomological certainty. Knowledge can be easier destroyed than
belief. If you are uncertain, then remember your epistemological
beliefs, because your beliefs make you more certain again than knowledge.
The conclusion that knowledge can give you more epistemological
certainty than belief is a fallacy. If you want to maintain your
knowledge, then support it with your belief - like the lower floor
supports the upper floor. This does not men that knowledge is not
relevant. No! Knowledge is jeweled, but it is more fragile than
belief. That is the reason why knowledge needs more to be maintained
or nursed than belief. But this maintaining or nursing is not possible
without belief. That is the reason why belief is more relevant than
knowledge. Your knowledge is of no benefit to you without belief.
It is worthless without belief.
If someone wants to make out of knowledge belief or/and out of
belief knowledge, then the most effective way is to change the semantics
of both words, namely by exchanging both meanings. That is what
the rulers and their functionaries have been doing for so long by
their so called political correctness, which is just
not more than rhetoric, propaganda, semantical supremacy. They are
destroying knowledge, because they try to replace it by belief,
which they call knowledge.
During my study at the university I have met many types of students
who were back then exactly like he (**)
is now. It is their ideological conceitedness that makes them so
cocksure and ignorant, so that they do not only appear like stupid
people but really are stupid people. You do really not have to care
whether their incapacity is based on genetic defects or on ideological
defects, because the effect is the same old stupidity as ever.
Such people can be successful, and the main reason why they can
be successful is (a) that they merely have to repeat their texts
again and again, (b) that they get attention (!).
How do we live a good life? Usually humans live in groups.
My main philosophical interest is life. So, to me, life philosophy
is the most interesting philosophy discipline - supported by anthropology
Philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics.
This would mean the beginning of the end - in both cases.
Reality must match deductions based on language, yes. The linguistic
relativity should not be underestimated but also not overestimated.
It is ethnocentric, when Y, who belongs to the non-ethnocentric
part of the ethnocentrism ethnos, says that X, who belongs
to the ethnocentric part of the ethnocentrism ethnos, is ethnocentric.
Both do the same: propagating ethnocentris.
When I was a student and a research assistant at the university,
I hoped to simply explore the world too, but then I noticed that
science is more a dependent institution of mercenary competitors
or warriors than a free market of research.
Maybe I was or am (?) one of the examples loving the polymath naturalist
of the last third of the 18th and of the first two thirds of the
19th century. One of my class teacher called me Humboldt,
because he thought I could become a polymath naturalist. Well, I
think that my class teacher did not know everything about me ()
or about F. Wilhelm C. C. F. von Humboldt (1767-1835) and his brother
F. W. H Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859).
He did perhaps not know for example what kind of life I prefered
to lead at that time. If he had known that, then he would not have
called me Humboldt, or he would not have known the lifestyle
of the noble (aristocratic) von Humboldt brothers.
Profilers are as important as pimpels in the face of
a pubertal girl.
In a modern age a huge majority is influenced by isms,
so many modern people are ists.
I mean that most Westerners are so much surrounded by isms
that most of them become influenced by isms, so that
they - more or less - identify themselves with isms,
often without knowing it and sometimes with knowing it, and in the
latter case relatively many call themselves ...ists
(for example: feminists). How much they are ists
depends on their personality, their character, and the intensity
of the influence.
My philosophy is mainly based on a cyclicality. . According to
my philosophy there are cycles from very short-dated to very long-dated.
Precisely said this cycles are spiral cycles because of the physical
If you consider all man-made technical things as the extended parts
of mans body, then mans body has almost everything you
can imagine.The word belief is originally not meant
religiously or even theologically.
Now, the trick is to not use belief as a dogma but merely as an
epistemological crutch. If there will be more certainty,
then you will not use it anymore and put it in your cellar.
It is at least no advantage or satisfaction to you, if you must
always say I know nothing or I know that I know
nothing. Philosophy and science do not have 100%-answers.
So it is better to live with an epistemological crutch
than with stupidity or/and lies.
The epistemological crutch helps you to find a solution
or not, to come a to yes/no- or true/false-decision. It does not
dogmatize you, or, in other words, it depends on your personality
and character whether it dogmatizes you or not: if it does, then
you are not a good philosopher or scientist; if it does not, then
you are a good philosopher or scientist. Science would never have
been successful without help like what we call empirism
(observation, experiment, extrapolation,
and so on and so forth), deduction, induction,
and other crutches.
If this all turns out as a dogma, then it is not the crutch
that is to be blame but those humans who are corrupt or too dumb.
Science and philosophy have always used such crutches.
Otherwise they would never have developed (historically evolved).
Belief is needed.
A society with an economy that is based upon information (including
knowledge and belief) is much more environment-sparing than a society
with a money economy that is based upon energetic resources. Information
(but not energy and resources) can be reproduced arbitrarily. So information
is the better money basis. I would suggest a money system of two monetary
units: I (Information) and E (Energy),
so that, for example, 100 cents would consist of 98 I-cent and 2 E-cent,
and both could not really be separated from each other.
Human beings are more free than all other living beings, but human
beings are nevertheless not absolutely free, they are relatively
Culture is the successful or/and unsuccessful implementation of
the trial to escape from nature.
Not merely desperation and nightmare are associated with the senselessness
of life - but also sensemaking celebration of life, lust for life,
life in the here and now because of consciousness in the here and
now, ... and so on.
Probably it is just the negative meaning of life that shows (and
hopefully convinces) us that we should prefer the positive meaning
of life. So, for example, the more you are reminded of your death,
the more you are also reminded of your life in the sense of a positive
I think that this is also the true meaning of Martin Heidegger's
Sein zum Tode (being to death), because
he did not mean that it is positive to die, but he meant
that philosophy and science of the 19th century had objectivated
the deaths of the others - but not of the self, the I.
Heidegger's theory of death stopped the theoretical cynisms of the
19th century (for example: the concept of revolution, the
imagination of evolution, the concept of selection,
of the struggle for life, of the surviving of the fittest,
the idea of progress, ... and so on ), because: what they
made thinkable was the death of the others - thus: not of the self,
the I -, and hereby they caused suppression and forgottenness
of one's own death. The theories of the 19th century were a gift
for the war industry, because the soldiers should not be reminded
of their own death. The military is the biggest guarantor when it
comes to suppression and forgottenness of one's own death. And during
the the First World War - thus: in the early 20th century, when
those theories of the 19th century were still intact - each soldier
thought that merely others but not he himself had to die. (This
is also the meaning of Heidegger's Man: the Man
prevents the courage to the fear of the death - the Man
means the normal inauthenticity, that each one is the others and
no one is him-/herself.)
Philosophically important questions are - for example - questions
that deal with something like the birth process:
- How does man in the world come to his world?
- How does this adventic animal man find the expression
under the terms of himself?
- How does the world honor the promise that is given to man?
- How does man come to the faith / confidence / trust therewith
he can give promise to the world?
Maybe every kind of revolution is a repetition
of birth on another stage; accordingly there are repetitions
of abortive births / miscarriages too. Perhaps life is somehow
a permanent (abortive) birth and repetition of (abortive)
birth. Humans have to arrive. They are arriving (adventic)
animals. And if they have arrived, they start again - straightaway.
They are always underway.
Heideggers man does not exactly mean what
the English man means.
Each one is the other, and no one is her-/himself. Being-with-one-another
manages averageness, inauthenticity.
Consumerism appeals to the I in order to get the whole
we. So in the medium run the we is always
more appealed than the I. If there was only one consumer,
namely the I, then there would be almost no profit for
the provider. So we - as the we - have to be the consumers.
Consumerism wants the we as the consumerist society.
So the rulers (regardless whether they are economical rulers or
political rulers) are always trying to put the I and
the we together. This does not completely but partly
work. And this was why I mentioned Heidegger's man (man
does not mean the same as in English here). Each one is
the other, and no one is her-/himself. Being-with-one-another
manages averageness, inauthenticity. And if there is no authentic
I but an I, namely the inauthentic
I, then it is easier for the rulers to influence the
whole we. They can use the we (including
the I - the inauthentic I of course)
for wars, for consume, ... for whatever they want to.
The enlightenment, for example, reduces fear, angst, superstition,
... and so on. But now it seems that there is merely a small rest
Deception is everywhere, because it is a part of life in general.
So decpetion is in nature as well as in culture. But the most deception
can be found among humans, especially human cultures, more especially:
civilizations. In other words: There has never been more deception
in the world than today.
I like philosophical issues dealing with prenatal and
perinatal metaphors. Humans have to come into the world
somehow, even if their real birth is past.
I mean that crime is caused by both nature and nurture. Crime has
its roots in nature. All living beings are criminal, but only human
beings are capable of knowing what crime is. Also this human capability
has its roots in nature but must be passed on by nurture. You need
a brain in order to understand what crime is. If nurture can but
does not let you know what crime is, then nurture causes crime.
If nurture does let you know what crime is, then nurture does not
cause crime, but if you nevertheless become criminal in that case,
then nature, namely the nature in you, causes crime, and you yourself
are responsible for it, since you can (know what crime is), and
therefore you must (know what crime is). You can, so you must (cp.
In the Mesopotamian or Sumerian culture the I did not
matter much, in the Egyptian culture the I did not matter
much, in the Chinese culture the I did not and does
not matter much, in the Indian culture the I did not
and does not matter much, in the Apollinian (Greek-Roman) culture
the I did not matter much, in the Old-South-and-Middle-American
culture the I did not matter much, in the Arabic/Islamic
culture the I did not and does not matter much. It was
and is only the Faustian Occidental culture where the I
did and does matter much (at least relatively to all other cultures).
My current situation is a very good one.
Change is not always morally good but often morally bad, evil.
The problem is that change is happening anyway. So we would have
to do the change also in order to prevent change, a different change,
or to live according to something like an amor fati as the
alternative choice. We are experiencing the change either actively
It is said that Adolf Hitler once also said Guten Abend
(good evening), so now every Abend (evening)
has to be evil.
There is causality and there is the will and the spirit with its
thinking. So it is not possible that determinists are completely
wrong because of the causality, and it is not possible that indeterminists
are completely wrong because of the will and the spirit with its
thinking. Therefore Kant distinguished the empiric character
(cp.: causality, determinism) from the intelligible character
(cp. will, indeterminism).
Imagine, many nations in East, South, North, and Central Asia,
some nations in West Asia, many nations in Africa found a second
UNO, an Eastern-and-Southern-UNO, a Second-and-Third-World-UNO.
UNO 1 and UNO 2:
Kant distinguished the empiric character (cp.: causality, determinism)
from the intelligible character (cp. free will, indeterminism).
Compatibilism means that indeterminism and determinism are compatible,
and that it is possible to believe or think both without being logically
Arthur Schopenhauer: Der Mensch kann tun, was er will, aber
er kann nicht wollen, was er will. Translation:
Man can do what he wills (wants to), but cannot will (want)
what he wills (wants to).
It is not true what certain physicists say: the vacuum is
nothing, and nothing is not nothing, so that something can be created
out of nothing, the vacuum. It is not true, because it is
impossible - by definition.
All what physicists may get in that case is a linguistic change,
thus a new meaning of the word nothing which leads to
a new meaning of physics and other science sectors, to a new belief,
a new religion, a new theology, a new philosophy. That is what they
want, because they want what their rulers want them to want. Physicists
and other scientists depend on politico-economic rulers because
of the research funds, thus: money.
So at last science will completely lose its meaning.
The free will is merely a relatively free will,
because it is not free from causation.
The best one can do, if one wants to have power over as much people
as possible, is to rule over them as covertly as possible.
Even philosophy has two sides: a theoretical and a practical side.
Ethics is the practical side of philosophy. But there is time and
thus change too. So if you lived within a Stone Age group, you would
know that, for example, killing another human always means that
this is either (1.) in the interest of your group or (2.) not in
the interest of your group. A third interpretation of it is not
possible, because it is either (a) not known or (b) not allowed
(it is a taboo). But since about 6000 years this has changed. Many
interpretations have become possible and led to various groups (now
called societies) with various moralities/ethics, judgements,
punishments and whole systems of them (and even the lack of them
without being in the Stone Age but in chaotic situations). And provided
that it is true that a return to the Stone Age is not possible and
that similar situations are merely possible after a chaos, then
we will have to continue to experience the further change of morality/ethics
or/and to wait for that chaos.
Criminal activities are more and more kept secret by media, politics,
police, ... and so on (at last also by most people).
More and more people live in bigger and bigger becoming cities.
Since 2008 more than 50% of all humans have been living in cities
(for comparison only: in 1950 that percentage was 30%; and in 2030
it will estimately be 60%). So, unfortunately, one has to state
that human acts of bad or evil have increased. The reason is a simple
one, bioecologically and anthropologically said: Humans are not
made for cities, for living in such a settlement density, population
density; humans are made for a life in a relatively small group.
An example: The city Shenzhen in China had 30000 inhabitants in
1979 but 10.5 million inhabitants in 2011.
Morality has to be learned. It is a matter of education. The DNA
says nothing about morality but merely about the potential to learn.
If a human learns morality in a wrong or an evil way, then it is
because of a false learning. Not morality but learning morality
is in the DNA.
Norms, morality, ethics are not based on DNA, but the learning
of what norms, morality, ethics mean (note: they change) is based
on DNA. Learning, which is mainly based on DNA, is not the same
as norms, morality, ethics, which are not based on DNA but on culture,
There is no gene for morality, for ethics, for philosophy. All
what humans can do when it comes to good or evil is to learn what
it means, and that is also the reason why it is absolutely useless
to educate little children before they have reached the age of the
acquisition of the adult language. Language (I mean the adult language
- not the baby talk) is required for e.g. the learning
what good or evil means.
If a human who has reached the child/adult border, thus an adolescent
age of about 14 years or some years more (it depends on each case),
and does not knwo what morality in the sense of a good-and-evil-system
means, then this human will probably never leran what it means.
That is the point.
The more elections you have, the worse your situation is.
Moral health will merely lead to more moral illness,
to more taxes, to more duties, to more censorship, thus to more
Look at the history of other health systems. Health systems invent
more and more ill humans in order to control them and
to become richer and richer, thus more powerful.
It is not possible to stop the evil (acts of the) humans by laws
or by something like moral health. Those who are most
evil and responsible also dictate the laws.
Deathlessness is a natural phenomenon. So if humans or their successors
will have become capable of living forever, then they will have
reached a natural goal via culture / art. This shows that all development
is probably cyclic or helical.
Most people do not think for the long term but merely for the short
The Simulation Hypothesis is not provable and not disprovable.
You can also believe what, for example, Plato already said (something
like: You are living in the wrong world, the real world is the
There are different climates, different weathers, different cultures,
different languages, different thoughts. So why should there not
be differences in thinking systems, philosophies? There are such
A = A is the principle of identity.
The full verb is is not ambiguous .
The is itself can never be wrong, because ist stands
for the principle of identity. What can be wrong is the use
of the is.
Several people use the language in several ways, so some people
even use the verb is in a false way.
Normally, poor or incorrect judgement is and should be corrected
by teaching the correct judgement. But the next question follows
immediately: What is the correct judgement?. The only
possibility we have is to keep on referring to logic, because all
other possibilities can and often do lead to the misuse.
What happens to a logic built on misused identifiers as well as
poor judgement? It would be a logic that is very much reduced for
most of the people. Less is more, black is white,
male is female, left is right, right
is wrong, war is peace ... and all the other uncountable
examples of the misuse of words would boom (like in Orwell's 1984,
for example). It would be like it almost already is.
Scientists need money for their researches. Therefore they become
more and more dependent, thus non-scientists.
One can try to apply the dialectic process to Hegels dialectic
itself. If we say that Hegels dialectic is anti-analytic and
the analytic philosophy anti-dialectic, then there are thesis and
antithesis in two ways, but we do not really know which one of them
starts at first as thesis. Starting at first is an advantage in
this case. So which one is the one with that advantage? If we will
never know this, then we will have to state that both remain just
opposites, because it would be unfair to say this or that one starts
at first. But, in that case, it is also problematic to say what
the synthesis is. The first one (thesis) with the advantage will
always say that the second one (antithesis) is somehow false
or evil, so that the first one will always make a major
contribution to the synthesis.
Another possibility is to give the advantage to the second one,
the antithesis, for example to the dictatorship of the proletariat
- as we know not only from history. Principally, everyone and not
only egalitarianists like the communists, can argue
in this way.
Peter Sloterdijk wrote:
In an earlier day, the rich lived at the expense of the poor,
directly and unequivocally; in a modern economy, unproductive citizens
increasingly live at the expense of productive onesthough
in an equivocal way, since they are told, and believe, that they
are disadvantaged and deserve more still. Today, in fact, a good
half of the population of every modern nation is made up of people
with little or no income, who are exempt from taxes and live, to
a large extent, off the other half of the population, which pays
taxes. If such a situation were to be radicalized, it could give
rise to massive social conflict. The eminently plausible free-market
thesis of exploitation by the unproductive would then have prevailed
over the much less promising socialist thesis of the exploitation
of labor by capital.
In this example, the (advocates of the) unproductives ones argue
as if they were the (advocates of the) productive ones, and the (advocates
of the) real poroductive ones argue in the same way: They are
exploited. But only the productive ones are right, because they (and
only they!) pay taxes, and, moreover, the unproductive ones are paid
by this taxes. The taxpayers (and only the taxpayers) are exploited
by those who do not pay taxes, and this are not only poor people but
also very rich people.
My point is that it is not theoretically decidable who is on first,
because, apparently, that decision is given by history (resp. evolution)
itself, and that means by powerful people (resp. nature).
Dialectic processes are not nonsense, because they really happen.
So they are, philosophically said, ontological, thus not only
Humans always place something (e.g. Big Bang) or someone
(e.g. God) at the beginning. So according to most humans this placed
one came first. Let us take the following example for a dialectic
process in a religious and theological sense: (1) the thesis God
came first, (2) the antithesis Devil was the second one who came,
(3) the synthesis Man came as the thrid one. If we exchange the
first one (thesis God) and and the second one (antithesis Devil)
for each other, then we will pretty soon notice that the third one
(synthesis Man) would have other properties than in the first example.
So we better should assume that there was neither a first one nor
a second one, but both existed already at that time which we want
to be the first time or the beginning of time?!?. They were, are,
and will be in conflict with each other. And it is up to the third
one - the synthesis - (as the smiling third?) to make
the best of it, e.g. to gain from the polemic, the struggle, the
war of the first and the second one?!?. Good for the human rulers
If you have made the Hegel's dialectic your own and are powerful
enough, then you can do with the less powerful people whatever you
want. You just play the historical game called dialectic process
by using them like chess-men.
If you want to rhetorically use these polemical two (thesis
and antithesis), you merely have to jump into the synthesis
as the smiling third by supporting the thesis and pretending that
the antithesis is considered too, although in reality the antithesis
is much more suppressed than considered.
(The polemical two are certainly misused, because we live in an
era of much misuse.)
It is not possible to get rid of Hegel. Take, for example, his
dialectic. The dialectic process is not unreal and not merely
logical (theoretical) but also ontological (factual).
Unfortunately, most humans are not interested or/and do not understand
the technological development and its consequences.
The Wiener Kreis (Viennese Circle) and the Berliner
Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner Gesellschaft
für empirische Philosophie founded the Neupositivismus
The Berliner Kreis (Berlinese Circle, a.k.a. Berliner
Gesellschaft für empirische Philosophie) and the Wiener
Kreis (Vienese Circle) and the founded the Neupositivismus
(Neopositivism), also known as Logischer Empirismus
Consciousness is the immediately findable total content
of the spiritual and emotional (affective) experience.
The teem immediately findable total content
means that the total content of the spiritual and emotional experience
can be immediately found and, for example, communicated to others.
Forgotten content, for example, is not present anymore, and some
parts of the forgotten content come back sometimes, ... and so on.
I did not say is found but can be found
or is immediately findable, namely by the owner of the
consciousness, philosophically said: by the subject. This is important,
because the owner of the consciousness does not always immediately
find the spiritual and emotional content.
Biologically and especially neurologically said, the consciousness
is part of the brain.
1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.
The conscious parts of the brain can be found in the reason brain
(light blue => 4), in the emotion brain (red => 3), and in
the Kleinhirn (cerebellum [pink => 2]).
But because of the fact that we are talking about this more philosophically,
we have to talk about the owner of the consciousness: the subject.
One can also say that the consciousness itself is the owner - it
depends on the so-called point of view.
Who or what is doing the finding? If it is the consciousness itself,
then the next question comes immediately: Why is it not the subject
in a philosophical sense? The brain of the subject is the hint.
If it is this subject, then we can also ask: Why is it not the consciousness
itself? We just do not know very much about consciousness, so it
can also be possible that the consciousness does its own work in
an absolute sense (so that the subject is merely the means of the
consciousness). I would not have a big problem with both interpretations.
These days, you should not be white, not be male, not be heterosexual,
not be Christian - and all those who are still white, male, heterosexual
Christians should never be fathers, thus never have children.
If you are a White-who-officially-hates-Whites, or, just
for example, a Nazi-who-officially-hates-Nazis, a man-who-officially-hates-men,
a Christian-who-officially-hates-Christians, a capitalist-who-officially-hates-capitalists,
... and so on, then you have good prospects to get respect - at
least officially. The more you are officially (thus: not
really) a self-criticist, the more respect you get - at least officially.
The method is very easy: You jump with your thesis
(e.g.: X is evil) into your synthesis (e.g.:
if X is [not] well treated, then X [remains evil] is good)
- the role of the smiling third - by suppressing the antithesis
(e.g.: X is good) and telling the lie that the
antithesis has always the chance to oppose and is always using its
Two huge thinking systems that are probably the most dualistic
ones too are the Occidental and the Oriental philosophy. There are
no other thinking systems that are as huge as these two, provided
that all regional or national thinking systems of both the Occident
and the Orient can really be integrated in their respective superordinated
Faustian, dynamic/energetic, more individual and analytic in a
more scientific sense on the Western side, whereas more metaphysical
in a more religious and moral way on the Eastern side, although
we have to consider that the Eastern philosophy, if there is such,
has at least five several cultural backgrounds: Sumerian, Egyptian,
Arabian in the Near East, Indian and Chinese in the Far East.
There is more than human thought, because some other living beings
have thoughts too, although only some thoughts.
A decentralization is alraedy a synthesis between centralization
(thesis) and anticentralizaition (antitheisis). Take a political
example: The current Germany has a decentralized structure, whereas
the current France has a centralized structure. Both have one national
capital, which means centralization, and smaller capitals of Bundesländer
or Départements, which means decentralization. The difference
is that the power is more decentralized in Germany and more centralized
in France. But no one of the both is anticentralized (thus: antithetical
We have the hardware of the cavemen and the software
of the transhumans.
So what shall we do?
The modern science is an Occidental science and has conquered the
whole world. So even if the genocide will be continued and finally
completed, the techn(olog)ical results of the Occidental science
- especially the machines - will be there, and then it will depend
on the Non-Occidentals or the machines whether science will be continued
Maybe science will die in the same manner as Faust
in the second part of Goethes tragedy Faust.
Alleged oppositionists use other ists not
because they like them but because they hate the same object.
There is the same example with all alleged Greens who
are political not because they like the green nature but because
they hate people who drive cars or have factories ... and so on.
.... The deepest reason for that is the fact that they hate themselves.
Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling said that nature casts up its
eyes in the human being. So I am saying that culture casts up its
eyes in the current phase of the Occidental culture, which means
the trend to transhuman beings.
Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) :
Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
WAGNER : So muß
der Mensch mit seinen großen Gaben // Doch künftig höhern,
höhern Ursprung haben.
HOMUNCULUS (in der Phiole zu Wagner) :
Nun, Väterchen! wie stehts? es war kein Scherz // Komm,
drücke mich recht zärtlich an dein Herz.
WAGNER (betrübt) :
Am Ende hängen wir doch ab // Von Kreaturen, die wir machten.
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), S. 114, 115 und
What is happening? // WAGNER (quieter) :
A man is being made.
WAGNER : So man
with his great skills shall have // To have a higher, higher origin
in the future.
HOMUNCULUS (in the phial to Wagner) :
Well, Daddy! hows things? it was no joke // Come, press close
to my heart tenderly.
WAGNER (saddened) :
In the end, we do depend // On creatures that we made. - Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), p. 114, 115 and 122.
I have to mention that the fact that homosapian has never really
acted according to the respective moral system is a bigger issue
than the fact that homosapian has never shown a precisely
accurate understanding of it. Both are not the same. You can
show that you never really act according to a morality but nonetheless
have a precisely accurate understanding of it.
Almost all human beings know that it is not good to kill; almost
all human beings know that it is not good to steal; we all know
that it is not good to lie; almost all human beings know that it
is not good to cheat; almost all human beings know that it is not
good to ...; ... and so on; ... - but almost all human beings know
too that many human beings act as if they did not know it.
But what, if the fact that this major practical problem is caused
by the minor theoretical problem?
According to Nicolai Hartmann
there are four main strata or levels of being
This four levels of reality are characterized by the fact that
the respective higher (and lighter) levels are carried or borne
by the respective lower (and heavier) levels and free
towards the respective lower (and heavier) levels - insofar as their
freedom is not restricted by the fact that they are
carreid or borne -, especially because they show new properties
or characteristics against the respective lower levels.
The (1) first, lowest, haeviest one
is the inorganic level; the (2)
second, second-lowest (and third highest), second-haeviest (and
third-lightest) one is the organic level; the (3)
third, third-lowest (and second-highest), third-heaviest (and second-lightest)
one is the level of Seelisches, which means properties
or characteristics of soul, psyche, emotion; the (4)
fourth, highest, lightest one is the level of Geistiges,
which means properties or characteristics of spirit, thinking, intellectuality,
imagery. So, for example, the inorganic level (1)
is carried or borne by no other level, whereas the level
of Geistiges (1)
is carried or borne by all other levels.
Inorganic beings (1) do not
need an organic body (2), do not
need Seelisches (3), do
not need Geistiges (4),
whereas even the highest spirit of all times (4)
needs Seelisches (3),
needs an organic body (2), needs
inorganic beings (1). The fourth level
is not capable of existing without the other three levels, because
it is carried or borne by them. The third level is not capable of
existing without the second and the first level, because it is carried
or borne by them. The second level is not capable of existing without
the first level, because it is carried or borne by it. Only the
first level is capable of existing without the other three levels,
because it is not carried or borne by them. The first level is unfree
because of its type of determination: causality. The second
level is relatively free in the sense that it is categorially
free towards the frist level. The third level is relatively
free in the sense that it is categorially free towards the second
and the first level.
The fourth level is relatively free in the sense that it is
most categorially free (but not 100% free), which means categorially
free towards the three other levels.
100%-freedom is not possible: the fact that the lower and heavier
levels carry the higher and lighter levels means that the higher
and lighter levels depend on the lower and heavier levels, although
the higher and lighter levels are relatively free towards the lower
and heavier levels; and the lowest and heaviest level (1)
is not free because of its type of determination: causality. Note:
relatively free means here categorially free;
each level has its own categories.
Hartmann postulated four laws that apply to the levels of
- The law of recurrence: Lower categories recur in the higher
levels as a subaspect of higher categories, but never vice versa.
- The law of modification: The categorial elements modify in their
recurrence in the higher levels (they are shaped by the characteristics
of the higher levels).
- The law of the novum: The higher category is composed of a diversity
of lower elements, but it is a specific novum that is not included
in the lower levels.
- The law of distance between levels: Since the different levels
do not develop continuously but in leaps, they can be clearly
The first and the second level are spatial, the third and
the fourth level are not spatial.
The first level (which is pretty similar to what you called physical
power) is in fact the most powerful one, has in fact the strongest
power in the sense that the other three levels are carried or borne
by the first level and that the categories of the first level recur
in the higher levels (and never vice versa) as a subaspect of higher
You hit a man and this hit causes something
physically (=> (1)
matter, causality). Maybe you hit that man bcause he has threatened
you; so you just want to save your own life (=> (2)
life, urge). Maybe you groundlessly hate that man and therefore
you hit him (=> (3)
Seele, motif). Maybe your hate is not reasonless, and you hit that
man because of a reason (=> (4)
||TYPE OF DETERMINATION **
If one looks at the connection of levels and categories, many world
views contain for Hartmann the basic mistake of the fundamental
- The materialism tries to derive organic (2),
emotional (3) and
spiritual (4) phenomena
from physical processes (1)
and overlooks the more complicated structures at the respective
- Alike the biologism tries to found emotional (3)
and spiritual (4) phenomena
on the life (2) principles
and overlooks the laws of the novelty and the freedom.
- The vitalism tries an explanation of life (2)
with the principle of the finality, although this is a category
of the Geistiges (4).
- In the idealism occurs an explanation of the world ((1)
and (2)) in the principle
of the subject, although the subject is to be assigned to the level
of the Geistiges (4).
Nicolai Hartmann is worth reading - in any case -, yes (**).
Science is not philosophical enough and philosophy is not scientifical
enough, because philosophy is more theoretical than science, and
science is more empirical than philosophy.
Abortion is a criminal offence.
How about teaching responsibility instead of promoting abortion?
My philosophy has fundamentals that can empirically also be found
in nature, a.k.a the universe, and theoretically also be found in
cosmology and geology: (1) actualism, (2) exceptionalism, (3) cataclysm,
Man wants to become god.
Existence is more than life, existence was earlier than life, existence
is the basis of life, whereas life is the higher form of existence,
and according to the formal definition: life is a subordinated form
of existence; so existence is its superordinated form.
In other words:
Every living being is an existing being, but not every existing
being is a living being.
Examples: Stones do exist, but they do not live. They are existing
beings, but they are not living beings. Trees are existing and
Tattoos are ugly and a kind of group pressure - comparable with
fashion. The modern fact that fashion prevails over morals means
that it even determines the morals. Let us see where this will lead
Regardless whether we like it or not: Every living being is
violent. Human beings are living beings. Thus: Every human
being is violent.
Violence is always an option.
Intergenerational injustice is crime. So our debts
Axial Age (also Axis Age, from German: Achsenzeit)
is a term coined by German philosopher Karl Jaspers after Victor
von Strauß (1859) and Ernst von Lasaulx (1870) in the
sense of a »pivotal age« characterizing the period
of ancient history from about the 8th to the 3rd century BC.
Then, according to Jaspers' concept, new ways of thinking appeared
in Persia, India, China and the Greco-Roman world in religion
and philosophy, in a striking parallel development, without any
obvious direct cultural contact between all of the participating
The concept was introduced in his book Vom Ursprung und Ziel
der Geschichte (The Origin and Goal of History, published in
1949. Jaspers claimed that the Axial Age should be viewed as an
objective empirical fact of history, independently of religious
considerations. He identified a number of key thinkers as having
had a profound influence on future philosophies and religions, and
identified characteristics common to each area from which those
thinkers emerged. Jaspers held up this age as unique, and one to
which the rest of the history of human thought might be compared.
Jaspers' approach to the culture of the middle of the first millennium
BC has been adopted by other scholars and academics, and has become
a point of discussion in the history of religion. **
Nihilists want to destroy everything, especially all values, and
if they are successful, there will be nothing left.
Irrationality is the absence of rationality.
If you are thinking in a wrong way, you aren't necessarily
thinking in an irrational way.
So irrationality doesnt mean wrong thinking. It means not
thinking but bringing some instinctive or emotional
drives into thinking.
A metaphysical type like the soul is very likely
the motor not only for art as one cultural appearance, but also
for all other cultural appearances?
Whatever human beings may look for when they say »soul«
, it is not the point. The point is that they believe in the soul
or in that what represents it..
To me, a basic polarity of emotion(s) is the thymos-eros-polarity.
It is not mentioned in the figure above, but likely could be found
in the rage realm (see in the figure above) and love
between two realms (see in the figure above). So, to me, thymos
and eros could be two of more or just the two emotionally basic
The concept of the perception of hope and threat
is similar to my concept of the ellipse with thymos and
love as its two focal points.
The so-called values can be used/misused by almost
everyone. So, for example, responsibility, honesty, cooperation
can be misused by, for example, leftists, centrists, rightists.
Think of the current leftist dictatorship of political correctness
which requires from the children to think and say, for example,
that non-whites are good and or even because whites
are evil, that it is everyones responsibility
and honesty to think and say this over and over again,
also to do this in cooperation over and over again.
Science will not save us. It is more likely that it will do the
Religion is likely more capable of saving us than science is. How
likely is it? Which kind of religion would or should it have to
be? Would or should this religilion be a theistic one? If yes: Would
or should it be a religion of pantheism (is already very close to
atheism), of monotheism, of polytheism. If no: Would it or should
it be a primitve religion, at least a heathenish religion?
If the demographic, economic and political development we have
been experiencing for a pretty long time will go on, then we will
get a syncretistic religion (**|**)
or just the islamic religion which is a monotheistic religion and
currently increasing the most. This is possible and probable, but
not what I would like to have.
If, for example, A equals B, then there is no quantitative difference
between them, so: A = B then. I believe that in real life equality
has the tendency to make also a qualitative difference indifferent,
thus equal, so that there is at last a qualitative indifference.
In other words: if you have no quantitative difference, then you
have to expect that you will - sooner or later - have no qualitative