Occidental culture

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:
If the climate is hot, then the endotherm animals are lazy.
And we have the syllogistic form:
1.premise (propositio maior): Endotherm animals are lazy in hot climate zones.
2. premise (propositio minor): Human beings are endotherm animals.
Conclusion (conclusio): Human beings are lazy in hot climate zones.
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 true.

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 left:
1)  Extinction of all human beings (and even more beings) in this or the following century.
2)  The “world” of “the last men” (“die letzen Menschen” [Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche]) will be totally installed and last forever.
3)  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 “culture”has 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 depopulation.

My whole (natural and cultural) theory is based on spiral-cyclic motions - almost all changes and developments, also all evolution and history.

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 history’s most influential mathematicians.

Carl Friedrich Gauß was the greatest mathematician of all time.

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’ „Dasein“, 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 „In-der-Welt-Sein“ („To-Be-in-the-World“) as an existential of human beings' „Dasein“, 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 “really”exist, or the world and the experiences I make with it “really”exist? 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 don’t 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 goes.

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 and Nietzsche:

„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, 1918, S. IX.
My translation:
„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 Spengler’s 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 ended [**|**|**] - 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 not enough.

Humans have no “free will”, but only a relative free will.

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 Kant’s „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:

1) God(s).
2) Nature.
3) „Ding an sich“ (“thing as such”, “thing in itself”).
4) Lunatics.

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 Kant’s „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” and “history”.
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” and “evolution”.

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.

An analogy:

| 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 be observed.

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. Hegel’s „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 and reaction.

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 dualism?

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:

Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts?
(“Why is there anything [being] at all rather than nothing[ness]?”)
(„Seiendes“ is derived from „sein“ [„to be“] and means an identical mode of „being“.)

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 of “existence”.

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 numbers”.

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.

“Willpower”does 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 way”.

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 Zenon’s 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 Zenon’s 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 remains.

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. “Psyche”has 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 between them.

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 at all.

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”, “economics”etc.) and (4.) “climate”.

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 apparent:

„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 philosophical„stations“ 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 will.

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:


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 science.

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. 67. **
“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 Panza“ today?

IQ map:


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 don’t 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”).

Another consideration:


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 then?

We really do not know for sure whether Nietzsche wasn’t 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 Nietzsche’s „early times as an adult philosopher“, and his „early times as an adult philosopher“ are one of the well „closed“ periods of Nietzsche`s philosophical 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 Nietzsche’s 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 circle.

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:

|Mathematics||Logic (Philosophy)||Linguistics||Semiotics| “versus” |Physics||Chemistry||Biology||Economy (Sociology a.o.)|

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 Karlos, 1787.
“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 luxury islands.

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 luxury.

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 something’s worth; in the case of self-valuing the self’s 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 I mentioned?

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 good dictionary.

I don’t think that Nietzsche’s texts are difficult to understand - the revers is true: Nietzsche’s 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, and satisfied.

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, semiotical operations.

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 between their consciousness and the consciousness of the human beings is too large.

An example:

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.

Another example:

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 beings (**|**|**|**|**|**).

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 luxury beings.

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 reality“ (**). 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 true.“
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“? Or „VO“?

These questions are the point as long as we have no exactly corresponding answers.

„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 (philosophic[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 meaning“.

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 and 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 independent.

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 android machine:


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 development.

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 „subject/object“-problem (**). 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 not?

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“ too!

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 existence“ (**).

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 less-luxury“.

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 luxury being.

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 a theory.

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“ mean.

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 machines? [**|**]).

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 humans.

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 year 1800)
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 „scientists“.

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 FALSE) !
Minor premise: Metals are are gold, silver, ..., iron, ... and so on.
Conclusion: Metals are heavier than water. | ! (LATER THIS BECAME FALSE) !

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 potassium!

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 turns.

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 free will.

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 nihilism.

There is fate (destiny), of course, but there is chance (opportunity) too. There is determination, of course, but there is indetermination too.

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, by causality.

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 will.

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, upbringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.

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 culture/s.
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.

1) Anorganic.
2) Organic.
3) Mental.
4) Spriritual.
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 of being).

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 of nature.

Information storage.

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 and Time“).

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 (my translation: The awful children of the modern era) - by Peter Sloterdijk, 2014.

„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.

Rassistische Preise

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:

Abgetriebener MenschAbgetriebener Mensch
Abgetriebener Mensch mit PlazentaTotes Kind im Eimer

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 (morals).

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 foreground and to forget to ask the genealogical question.

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 Kant’s 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 are true.

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 everything.

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 failed.

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 are true.

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 nihilism.“ (**) 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 „Philosophy On Ice“. There I found a video with the title „You Are Dying“.

„We don’t 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 else.

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:

Epistemology for Beginners

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.

Epistemology for Beginners

Belief and knowledge are exactly the same, but they have the same evolutionary root.
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 opposite.

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.

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 and understanding).

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 by belief.

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 and epistemology.

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 time.

If you consider all man-made technical things as the extended parts of man’s body, then man’s 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.

Epistemology for Beginners

Human beings are more free than all other living beings, but human beings are nevertheless not absolutely free, they are relatively free.

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 meaning.

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.

Heidegger’s „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 of enlightenment.

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. Kant).

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 or passively.

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:

UNO 1 und 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 inconsistent.

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, education, learning.

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 dictatorship.

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 term.

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 ideal world).

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 differences.

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 Hegel’s dialectic itself. If we say that Hegel’s 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 ones—though 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 logical.

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 (Neopositivism).

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 (Logical Empirism).

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 opposing role“.

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 thinking system.

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 to centralization).

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 or not.

Maybe science will „die“ in the same manner as Faust in the second part of Goethe’s 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.


MEPHISTOPHELES :  Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) :  Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
WAGNER :  So muß der Mensch mit seinen großen Gaben // Doch künftig höher’n, höher’n Ursprung haben.
HOMUNCULUS (in der Phiole zu Wagner) :  Nun, Väterchen! wie steht’s? 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 122.
MEPHISTOPHELES :  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! how’s 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 or reality:

(4) Geistiges
(3) Seelisches
(2) Organisches
(1) Anorganisches
Schichtenlehre gemäß N. Hartmann

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 reality:

- 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 distinguished.

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 categories.

An example:

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) Geist, reason).

(4) Geist Reason
(3) Seele Motif
(2) Life Urge
(1) Matter Causality

If one looks at the connection of levels and categories, many world views contain for Hartmann the basic mistake of the fundamental one-sidedness.
- 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 higher level.
- 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, (4) cyclicism.

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 living beings.

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 to ....

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 are crime.

Axial Age.

„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)[2] 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 Eurasian cultures.

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 doesn’t 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 constitutions.

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 everyone’s „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 opposite.

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 difference either.


- Register -

  Occidental culture