WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

Occidental culture

P H I L O S O P H Y   V E R S U S   S C I E N C E


Southern people are not made for philosophy, science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower), but made for religion and idolatry.

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.

p = the climate is hot.
q = the endotherm animals are lazy.
p --› q = the climate is hot, thus the endotherm animals are lazy.

Truth table for a logical implication:

p q p --› q
T T T
T F F
F T T
F F T

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.


In the beginning of Kultur (= culture / civilisation) the hot climate is favourable indeed (because of the more fructuous grounds, the fruits, the harvest etc.), but LATER it is NOT. Why became the northern people the most important people of civilisation at all (= of the world) - that's the question. Because of the cooperation or interaction between philosophy, AND science, AND technique (technology), AND industry, AND economy, AND intelligence (brainpower), AND so on - that's the answer. And this is much more possible in lands with a cold climate. At last in this lands philosophy has even almost lost its worth because science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower) etc. have become more important than philosophy.

Philosophy is much needed in the beginning of Kultur (= culture / civilisation), but at last it is less needed because science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower) etc. have almost replaced it.

In other words: When it comes to Kultur (= culture / civilisation) hot climate is only favourable in the beginning, later it is unfavourable. The modern times of Kultur is Zivilisation (cp. Oswald Spengler) and this means e.g. in history of ideas or intellectual history that science, technique (technology), industry, economy, intelligence (brainpower) etc. have almost replaced philosophy.


Since the beginnig of modern times in the Occident (in German: Abendland, which means „evening land“) science, technique, economy, intelligence (brainpower) and so on has been becoming more important than philosophy, llike I said (**). Northern people need no more philosophy - accept the one which has been belonging to them since the beginning of their Kultur: Faustian philosophy which is the one and only occidental or northern philosophy. Faustian means German, means occident, means northern (in contrast to Asia, Africa, Indigenous America, Indigenous Australia, and Eastern Europe). Faustian means science, technique, economy, intelligence (brainpower) and so on.

Northern and of course western is the so called Occidental culture / civilisation which has conquered the whole globe, and so the whole globe is more or less a occidental civilisation. I am not proud of that. It is just an historical fact. All 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 European 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?


Science will come to an end in 21., 22. or 23. century. Then it will no longer exist or have got a different character, for example a complete religious system, which will have had its reason / cause in corruption and / or something similar.


Science is already partly a religion.

Most of the current scientists are so corrupt, that the word “scientist” is not the right word for them and their profession. They are saying what the rulers want them to say - and that has nothing to do with science, but very much with religion, with being obedient to ideology as modern religion.


Yes, it is unbelievable how religious science has become. According to my theory and also because of that fact I often say that ideologies are modern religions. Therefore it is not surprising to me that this has happened and happens an will happen (until the time when science will be no science anymore, but to 100% the new religion, probably worldwide). Once every Westerner thougt religion was replaced by science, in the future every Westerner or even every human being will think the reverse.


The sentence “I am” and the sentence “I am not” can not be proven scientifically. Therefore, but not only therefore, philosophy is necessary. Is philosophy able to answer the questions: “Am I?”, “Am I not?”, “Is anything outside of me?”, “Is nothing outside of me?” ...?

Science is not able to answer that questions (and many other questions). Philosophy has found some answers - the history of philosophy has made that clear. But its answers are not very much convincing.


If one says ”I think”, or “I am aware”, or “I am”, then this one says something about a subject (“I”) and about an object (“think”, “am aware”, “am”) or a predicate. The problem of the “Subject/object-dualism” (**) is that it is not exactly determinable whether the subjct exists or not and whether the object exists or not. The former is primarily a philosophical, the latter mainly a scientific, both together again a philosophical problem. Concerning this matter the doubter Descartes proved nothing. About 1¼ centuries before Descartes another doubter - Martin Luther - founded a Protestant Christian confession: the Evangelical Lutheran. Luther did not try to prove the existence of the subject, but sought the answer in belief / faith.


Interestingly religion and science are much closer than most people believe. Sometimes they are so similar that one may think they were one and the same..


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:

RELIGION => THEOLOGY (DIVINITY) => PHILOSOPHY/SCIENCE => NEW THEOLOGY (NEW DIVINITY) => NEW RELIGION.

The result is a new beleif (or faith) in truth.

The Occidental culture is a Faustian culture, a culture of science and has a very long history. To me this Faustain culture is the most interesting and the most likable culture of all times. But nevertheless: also this Faustian culture has two sides: a good one and a bad one. After this culture had eked out its science it reached the top of its history - science seemed to be „free“ -, then it created a new theology (new divinity) because science was regarded as a kind of deity, but then, when the first serious enemies of science emerged, it had to change its new theology (new divinity) into new religion. Today the Westerners are still on this way of changing science from a new theology (new divinity) into a new religion, but they are already very close to the goal of this way: a new belief (or faith) in truth.

What does that mainly mean?

The Faustian culture has been defending its science more and more due to the fact that it has been getting more and more enemies. One of the consequences is that science has been becoming a part of the rulers, thus its former enemies.

An Occidental scientist of the Occidental culture's modern times can never be an atheist, or an areligious one, or an disbeliever - that has been being imposible since the Occidental science started its “way” from a new theology (new divinity) to a new religion and its goal: a new belief (or faith) in truth.

There is no doubt that science is a success story of the Occidental culture, perhaps the most successful story of all times, so I am proud and grateful. But this is also not a never-ending story, and perhaps it will end very badly.

The next time you visit the scientific “church” (“universiy”) or a a public discussion of the so-called scientific “experts” (priests and preachers), you may be reminded of the two sides of science.

Once science was an enemy of the rulers, today it is almost entirely under the control of the rulers.


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.


The Non-Faustian cultures had and have a completely different idea when it comes to undertand what “nature”, “physics”, “universe”, “life”, ... means. Humans at different places and times understood, understand, and will understand their environment differently, they even have their own “worlds”, and so they also value and justify differently. If you know how “science” was and/or is understood by the Mesopotamian culture, by the Egyptian culture, by the Indian (or South-Asian) culture, by the Chinese (or East-Asian) culture, by the Apollonian culture (our ancestor), by the Inka/Maya culture, by the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture, and the Faustian culture (the descendant of the Apollinian culture), then you know also the differences in their theories and even their philosophies (metaphysics, ontologies, ...). Merely the Faustian culture has developed a real science; partly ,and merely partly also the other cultures, partly because they had and have (a) a too hot climate, (b) a too dominant religion, so that something which could be called “science” nearly remained or remains a religion, or (c) other conditions that prevented or prevent the developmet of a real science.

You may say (for example): “there were the constructions of the Tower of Babel, the pyramids of the Egyptians and the Maya, the inventions and discoveries of the Mesopotamian culture, the Chinese (East-Asian) culture, the Apollonian culture (our ancestor)”. Alright, but they weren't like that what the Faustian constructions, inventions, and discoveries were and are. Merely the Faustian culture had and has a concept of an autonomous “science” and “technique/technology”. You may see what it means to have a more religious “science” and “technique/technology” when you look at thre current Faustian science which is again more dominated by religion than in former times of the Faustian culture, for example the era of the so-called “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“). It is comparable to humans personal development: the most scientific time is the time of the adolescence and around the adolescence; the era of the “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“) was such a time for the Faustian culture. A younger one is too unripe, an older one is already too ripe - for example too conservative, too philosophical, thus too wise - for science as an “enlightenment” („Aufklärung“), but not too ripe for a more religious or philosophical (metaphysical, ontological) science.


Did anyone of the other cultures invent theories of “relativity”, “gravitational force”, “electromagnetic force”, “strong nuclear force”, “weak nuclear force”, “speed of light”, “thermodynamics”, “quantum”, “big bang”, “inflation of the universe”, “black holes”, “dark matter”, “dark energy”, ....?

That has not merely to do with the different times when those cultures had their best time in order to invent and form something like science and its theories. The Non-Faustian cultures invented theories for their religion, theology, philosophy, or just their states; they had not a really autonomous (system of) science, no universities (universities are invented by the Faustians, they are a pure Faustian form, institution). The “scientists” of the Non-Faustian cultures researched at home and the most of them also studied at home. If you now think of the library of Alexandria, then I have to remind you that it was no university in a Faustian sense.

My point is not that the theories of the Non-Faustians were not useful at all; my point is that they were not scientific (just in a Faustian sense). In the good old times of the Faustian science one could relatively freely study and research because the universities were relatively free then, and this was not possible in other cultures. So the university system, the unit of studies and research, and especially the relative freedom of all universities are unique, and abbeys and cloisters are their forerunners. Monks, namely Occidental (Faustian) monks, were the cultural ancestors of the students of the universities.

In Mesopotamia, especially in Egypt and China, not seldom also in orther cultures (except the Apollonian and the Faustian culture which are related), “scientists” or technicians were killed after important inventions or discoveries they had made. There was no scientific system, all that what we - the Faustians - call “science” lacked there, especially the relative freedom, the unit of studies and research. The universities as a sytem of science, thus of real science, is unique, is Faustian.

The current development of science shows whereto it tends: probably it will not vanish but become a new religion. Science came out of religion and will end as a new religion. The future scientists will probably be similar to the monks of the so-called “Middle Ages” but only a bit similar because their relative freedom will probably decrease but not vanish as long as the Faustian culture will exist.

That is my firm conviction.


You have to know Goethe’s “Faust”, especially the second part (but also the first part), in order to understand what is meant with “Faustian culture” and why all the other cultures are no specific or at least not as much science cultures as the Faustian culture is a science culture. But the Faustian culture is not only a science culture but just a Faustian culture, and as one of the most important parts it includes the part science. In any case, one has to read Goethe’s “Faust” or Spengler’s “Decline of the West” when it comes to really and well understand what “Faustian culture” means. The absolute, categorical will to knowledge is probably the most important example if one wants to know the impulse of Faust and the Faustians.

The other cultures are more religious, but not very much, except one which is the most religiuos of all cultures: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture; all so-called “monotheisms" have their origin in this culture because in the territory of that culture are a lot of deserts, and the monotheistic religions have much to do with deserts.

Religion belongs to culture, so each culture is religious, more or less. For example: the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture is the most religious culture, the Faustian culture is the most scientific culture.

It is no coincidence or accident that the Faustian culture invented and discovered so much, and the consequences which can clearly be seen are the pollution of the planet Earth and its neighborhood, the unresponsible politics, the bad conscience, the hypocrisy, the lies, and as the next goal: the new religion. Science is Faustian science and nothing else, and one can easily guess what it means when it becomes a new religion.

Goethe has not only described the typical Western man with his “Faust”, but also predicted the future of the Western man.


Northern climate - very much advantageous for thinking and for science, thus for a Faustian culture:

** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **


In the near end of Goethe’s „Faust“, part II, an angel says to Faust:

„Wer immer strebend sich bemüht, // Den können wir erlösen.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 376.)
Translation:
“Who strives always to the utmost, // For him there is salvation.”

And amongst others this is what the „Chorus mysticus“ sings when Faust is in heaven at last (... fortunately!):

„Alles Vergängliche ist nur ein Gleichnis.“
(Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Teil II, S. 383.)
Translation:
“All perishable is only an allegory.”


Science is no cure-all, no universal remedy. Currently science is on the best way to become a new religion. Do you believe that will be a “better” religion?


Science became a new theology long ago, even before it could try to become a new religion. Newton’s “laws” are as theological as God’s “laws” in the “good old” religious times of Christianity, and as Allah’s “laws” (if you don’t believe it, then ask the “Christian” French!).

Today the Christians are similar to those scientists who were persecuted by the Christians in the 15th, in the 16th, in the 17th, and in the eraly 18th century, especially from the middle or late 16th to the early 18th century when the Catholic Anti-Reformation persecuted scientists.

Don’t think that religion will be destroyed just because Christianity will be destroyed. That’s an dangerous, fatal error. And if you want to destroy Occidental values and traditions why don’t you start with science which is one of the most typical Occidental forms but not the Christianity which is also and even originally an Oriental form?


It is true that science is on the way to become a new religion. Science as science (!) simply does not get further. But it gets further as religion, as a new religion. You are not allowed to question the scientific dogma. Those of the common physicists who are honest say that they are too stupid to get further - I say they are already too religious to get further. Science had its great time long ago, and its time is not yet over but is going to be over in the relatively near future, full of dogmas and no science anymore because dogmas are a certain sign for religion. How many dogmas has science already accumulated?


According to Schopenhauer the WILL is Kant’s „thing-in-itself“ (I’ve been told that the better English term could be: „thing as such“), and Einstein often quoted Schopenhauer, agreed with Schopenhauer, but also with Kant, and the only one who was accepted as philosopher by Schopenhauer was Kant.


It is in fact impossible to show or even prove respectively disprove with physical means and methods what physics is; that is only possible with language and with philosophy. This is roughly that what Heidegger once said in an interview.

Philosophy has also to be a realm of science, but science has also to be a realm of philosophy. It is the interdependence which makes both successful - otherwise both become dictatorships, religions, new religions with new dogmas and new bondages which have been increasing for so long.


Religion and science are different, they are not the same, but hey have the same root: belief.

Every culture is inimitable, and the Faustian culture is a science culture. Most of science is Faustian science, thus Faustian culture.

Faustians have a never-satisfied thirst for knowledge. Therefore the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science.

That all is unique. That all lacks- in Non-Faustian cultures.


If there were not a Faustian culture there would not be the typical Faustian cloisters, abbeys, and consequently the relatively free universities, the typical Faustian systems of education and science, the technical and consequently the economical and social progress with all its good and bad sides.


When we close our eyes, we (1.) keep the eyes’ pupils moist (during the sleep the reflex for closing the lids does not work), (2.) protect the eyes from debris (foreign bodies; during the sleep the reflex for closing the lids does not work), (3.) turn off external stimuli, (4.) ensure the forming of the sleeping hormon Melatonin, (5.) treat the brain with care because it has less to do during the sleep with closed eyes.

A sleeping person does not blink (see also => 1. and 2.).


It is not possible to know whether there will also be “no alternative” (**) in the future. Due to that there is no scientific truth but merely probability. The conclusion “gold, silver, iron ... etc. are metals, they are havier than water, thus all metals are heavier than water” had been “true” (“no alternative”) until the potassium was discovered.


Logic as a such doesn't change, but some or many contents of it change; they may have a proton pseudos or any other logical falsity. The conclusion that „all metals are heavier than waterr“ had been “true” for a long time; but then it changed to “false” because the potassium was discovered. Since the potassium was discovered the conclusion that “not all metals are heavier than water” has been being “true”; probably it will be “true” forever because probably the premise that „potassium is a metal“ will be “true” forever. Please don’t forget that this example refers to science, thus is not merely logical but also scientifical, thus is not merely theoretical but also empirical, and it is the science (and not the logic as a such) which has caused the false conclusion.


Do you know the difference between the real being (existence) and the ideal being (essence)? The real being is spatiotemporal, the ideal being (essence) lacks temporality. According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being (essence) is the true, the actual real being, while the so-called „real“ being is merely the appearance, the illusoriness.

If our definitions merely accepted spatiotemporality as the property of being, then being without temporality would not be possible by defintion. If our definitions accepted that temporality is not required for being, then we being without temporality would be possible by definition.

Does essence also have affect? Do both the real being and the ideal being have affect? Don’t forget: According to Platon and other philosophers the ideal being is the true, the actual real being.


Some physicists (seriously) say “1+1=1.9...~” because of the “mass defect” (cp. E=MC²).


The German mathematician C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann proved (published in 1882) that p (pi) is a transcendental number, meaning it is not a root of any polynomial with rational coefficients.

p is irrational, even transcendental. The transformation of the same area of a circle in a square is impossible. This impossibility was given the designation „quadrature of the circle“ because no one knew what the reason for that impossibility was; but 1882 C. L. Ferdinand von Lindemann showed that this problem is in principle unsolvable.


The algebraic irrational numbers and the transcendental irrational numbers (for example “p” [“Pi”] or “e” [“Euler’s number”]) belong - of course -to the irrational numbers (cp. in the following Illustration):

**


If you will “square the circle” someday, then those who have the power to determine or even dictate the relations between humans and their language, especially its semantics, will probably change the definition of “circle” and the definition of “square”.

**

But „someday never comes“, said John Fogerty (**).

Impossible?


Among the scientists, the mathematicians are currently the least corrupted scientists.


Those who think deeply are the best, and those who report to the public are the worst.


To a peasant population it is an advantage if the the Earth is at the center of the universe, but to an urban population it is an advantage if the the Earth is not at the center of the universe.


If someone says that “natural selection disproves God”, then that one merely says by using other words, how important it is to have not only a natural science burt also a spiritual or moral science, or philosophy.


Should philosophers know any and every branch of science? **


One important purpose is a kind of scrutiny / surveillance / control / supervision because science needs money for research and therefore becomes a corrupt system if there is no control. The current control is a political or religious control, so that science (which has already become corrupt) becomes more and more a part of the political or religious system. But a political or religious “science” is no science anymore. Philosophy should protect science against corruption. Philosophy does not need money for research. So philosophy is a good spiritual weapon against corruption, although (or because?) also for corruption.


Do you have enough money for such a scientific research like the “European Organization for Nuclear Research” (“CERN”)?

Philosophy can also be corrupt, but currently it is not as much corrupt as e.g. science. Philosophy is both a part of science and not a part of science. So in the case of philosophy the risk is not as high as it is in the case of science in general.


Philosophy - also as a mind-science, spirit-science, awareness-science, knowledge-science etc. - can be subjective and objective like any other branch of science, but when it comes to a very expensive research, then the other branches of science depend more on money. Provided that there is an interest on both sides of buying, everyone can by everything as well as everyone can be bought by everyone, thus also a philosopher who lives in the desert with no human contact can be bought. But who is really more expensive: a physicist or a philosopher?


It is useful to know any and every branch of science.

Yes, it is not necessary, but it is useful to know any and every branch of science. It depends on the individual case; for some it is useful for others it is more of a burden. So one has to decide.


I think Leibniz was the philosopher who knew more about science than all other philosophers; one can even say that Leibniz was a great philosopher, a great scientist, and a great technician.


Physics or metaphysics (reality or ideality) - one can have them merely together. It is not possible for humans to have one of them without the other. And if someone dictates to believe in only one of the two, then all those who do not believe in that one are going to be killed or live in prison or in madhouses - the same procedure as every time.


it has been going in another way for about six millenniums, thus for nearly three cycles. What are those cycle? I give you one example

(A):

Aa)
__________ Religion X __________
Theology Y _________ Theology X

Ab)
___________________ Theology Y __________
Philosophy/Science X ___________ Religion X

Ac)
__________ Philosophy/Science X ___________
Theology Z ___________________ Theology Y

Ad)
__________ Theology Z ___________________
Religion Y ___________ Philosophy/Science

XBa)
__________ Religion Y __________
Theology A _________ Theology

ZBb)
... and so on .....

Any cycle contains four phases (a-d). The realm „Philosophy/Science“ (i.e. „X“) dominates averagely one phase, the realm „Religion“ (i.e. „X“) dominates averagely one phase, and the realm „Theology“ (i.e. „Y“ and „Z“) dominates averagely two phases. So the realms „Religion“ and „Theology“ together dominate averagely three phases (75% of one cycle). That is averagely, which means that in reality the realm „Philosophy/Science“ dominates even less than 25% of one cycle (and b.t.w.: it is not said whether philosophy or science dominates). Today we are in Ad: the realm „Philosophy/Science“ (i.e. „X“) is dominated by the realm „Theology“ (i.e. „Z“), whilst the realm „Religion“ (i.e. „Y“) is waiting for its new domination, is at the ready to take over, because - usually - it is its turn when it comes to start with a new cycle. Maybe the next new cycle will be a very much different one, for example a cycle without the realm „Religion“ and/or without the realm „Theology“, and maybe it will already start in the 21st, 22nd, or 23rd century.


Humans are no intelligent enough. And most of the scientists do what they do not because of superiority but because of interest, curiosity, trial, and error (!). In other words: most of the scientists are not intelligent enough to control what they do. Moreover: most of the scientists are not controlled by themselves, as it should be; they are controlled by the rulers, as it should not be; and the rulers are also not intelligent enough to control what they do. Thus: humans are not intelligent enough.


Wisdom is an elaborated knowledge. It is more based on the own experience than knowledge itself is. So wisdom requires a higher age. Wise people are old. If younger people seem to be wise, to have wisdom, then they are „altklug“ („old-clever“), precocious (is that the correct English word for it?).

B.t.w.: Knowledge is not always power, because it depends on the magnitude and distribution of power in each and every situation. There are (for example) poor people who are wise, but they have no power, in any case no societal power.


According to the mathematical and logical definition of probability and thus to the probability calculation itself it is not possible to know what would or will happen - otherwise the mathematical and logical definition of probability and thus to the probability calculation itself would be superfluous, redundant.


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.


Leibniz' philosophy contains all things philosophy needs, thus also mathematics. After Leibniz mathematics vanished from philosophy. Kant's philosophy contains all things philosophy needs except mathematics, thus Kant's philosophy contains also physics / cosmology / astronomy. After the middle (not the late) Kant physics / cosmology / astronomy vanished from philosophy. So the base of metaphysics vanished - which necessarily means: nihilism. A philosophy without any metaphysics is not a complete philosophy anymnore. Since then the nihilistic philosophy has been triumphing over the non-nihilistic philosophy as the very much more real philosophy, the destruction has been triumphing over the construction, the chaos has been triumphing over the order, the emotion has been triumphing over the logic, ..., and so on.

Nihilistic philosophy has merely a litte bit to do with philosophy. The greater or better philosopher can never be a nihilistic philosopher. A partly destroyed house can never be the greater or better house.


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“.


There is too much non-scientific lobbyism in science, and this lobbyism jams science, and, if it will going on, will bring science to an end. Another point is that scientists themselves get more an more corrupt, so that they become more and more part of this non-scientific lobbyism in science, and that means that they become more and more non-scientists, thus more and more ideologues (modern religious humans). And a third point is that all this fits to the brainwashing of the people by propaganda.

Here follow some more examples:

- „War is peace.“
- „Stupid is intelligent.“
- „Smaller is bigger.“
- „7 is 13.“

Brainwashing.

Another examples for the „tabooed admission“ that the current physicians do not understand the universe are the concept „big bang“ and the concept „inflation of the universe“.


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.


**

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.


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.


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!


Experience is very important but not the only component when it comes to philosophy. If a young human is capable of loving wisdom, of logical thinking as well as strong and deep thinking, thus of studying philosophy, and of knowing that a young human has not much life experience, empirical knowledge, and to respect the philosophers with much life experience, empirical knowledge, then there is no problem for this young human to successfully study philosophy.


Look at this:

Religion —› Theology —› Philosophy / Science —› Theology —› Religion


Concepts do not change, if they are true - that means: logically true, correctly defined, logically correct. But if they are not true, then they change - mostly just after the changing of the power relations. Currently there are many untrue concepts.


What about plants and mushrooms? They have no brains, but they obviously need to „know“ something in order to survive. They get informations about their environment, process this informations, and react. Without that kind of „knowledge“ they could not survive - just as many other living beings that have a kind of „knowledge“. Do you think that they also have a kind of „philosophy“?


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.


The real reason for the „both“ (**) is that one has a brain and senses, thus that one has a logical theory and an empirical praxis in life as well as in science.

So we need not only thoughts, mathematics, logic, and a well defined language but also the observation, laboratories and other empircal things.


There is probably a competition for a prize of the best science joke.

But if there is such a massive joke in physics, then I don't want to hear anything about the other science disciplines. They themselves are probably jokes.


Many things have been precisely defined in scientific terms before the rulers forbid to define it and even to speak about it (except in a negative sense). That is interesting, isn't it?

So the rulers forbid a part of science and more and more parts of science, and at last there will be no science but merely a new religion.


Japan could also have been the place of origin of the Bubonic Plague - think of the many volcanoes in and around Japan. But it is an unanswered question whether the Black Death was caused by a meteorite strike or by a pathogenic germs or viruses.


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.


Kant's theory about the emergence and development of planets has been true since 1755 when he invented this theory by thinking about it - without science, because the scientists knew nothing about it at that time. Compare: Immanuel Kant, Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels, 1755.


Immanuel Kant was sure that (1) the sun emerged from a cosmic cloud, that (2) a dust disk with floating particles was formed by the centrifugal force of the still rapidly rotating sun, and that (3) the planets were „glued“ in this dust disk with floating particles. According to Kant suns and solar systems originate in a rotating cloud of gas that has thus become dense so that it collapses, and planets originate as „collections of sun durst parts“.


Kant said, for example, one should overcome dogmatism by using the own intellect.


I am interested in science more than anything. But the older I have become the more my critique of science has increased.


If we hold mathematics up as an example of measuring how much can be explained economics, psychology and sociology, then we can say: economics means much mathematics with many formulas and not merely statistics, whereas psychology and especially sociology mean almost no mathematics except merely some formulas and statistics. 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.


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.


Science has become more and more a function of politics. Scientists have become politically correct functionaries of the cynical rulers.

If those who are not scientists want to have scientific solutions, then they have to use their own brains in the first place.

Kant wrote:

„Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen!“
(Immanuel Kant, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, 1784).
Translation:
„Have courage to use your own mind!“


Science also depends on definitions. If scientists try for example what you call the „pinpointing differences in belief and knowledge, or not“, then they have to begin with the definition of the words „belief“ and „knowledge“ - regardless whether they want to or not. So scientists can always find or not find what they want to or what the politicians want them to find or to not find.

Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own mind - as Kant said (translated by me).


One of the words for the definitions of „belief“ and „knowledge“ that they must begin with as one original phenomenon is the word „information“ in a very primitive sense which means, for example, without lie, fraud, corruption, cynism .. and so on.


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).

**


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«“!


Without language no philosophy and science.


An observer observes how an observer observes an observer who observes how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes ....

Beobachtung der Beobachtung


In order to know where the consciousness „goes“, you have to scientifically experience the consciousness, and that is not possible, because the consciousness is no physical but a metaphysical phenomenon, so it is not scientifically but philosophically knowable. The consciousness is merely indirectly but not directly provable. So it is not as provable as, for instance, a particle. It is also not a program. So it is also not directly provable by a computer program or something like that.


Science and philosophy are actually secualr extensions of religion.

Science is more like religion that philosophy is, philosophy is more like theology than science is, and both philosophism and scientism are like theism.


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.


How many humans are scientists? How many humans were religious priests in the past 6000 years? It was and is always the same percental number, and that was and is no accident. Most of the other humans (mostly 99%) do not distinguish scientistic priest from religious priests. These priests have always been called „experts“ and „specialists“ and in reality always been functionaries of the rulers.


The roots of our Occidental scientific institutions - the universities - are Occidental monasteries. So the first university scientists were monks. In other words: religion can lead to science, whereas science leads to religion (the latter development is currently observable). So if you are defending our current scientists, then you are defending the religious priest of the future. Universities were relatively free, but they have been becoming corrupt, thus more dependent (because of their increasing dependence of money for their research - which is exploited by the rulers). So at last the scientists can only choose to be functionaries and priests in the name of the rulers.


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“.


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“.

Let's have a little bit philosophical anatomy and neurology:

Let's say we have (1) a cerebral instinct, thus an instinct brain, (2) a cerebellum, thus a kleinhirn, (3), cerebral emotions, thus an emotion brain, and (4) a cerebral reason, thus a reason brain.

Now look at this picture and read the text below it:


1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.

Now, neurologically and psychoanalytically, Freud would perhaps say that the instinct brain is neurologically what the „Es“ (English: „Id“) and „das Unbewußte“ (English: „the unconscious“) psychoanalytically is, that the reason brain is what the „Ich“ (in English: „I“, „ego“„self“) and „das Bewußte“ (English: „the conscious“) psychoanalytically is. But with what would he correlate the „Über-Ich“ (English: „superego“, „high self“)? Probably with the reason brain too. But it is something like „das Überbewußte“ (English: „the superconscious“ [my invention]). The supersonsciousness is the „group- brain-as-it-is-stray-represented-in-each-individual-reason-brain“, especially the moral system of a group (couple, family, tribe, folk, people, nation, culture ... and so on). And the subconsciousness is the „brain-as-the-stray-parts-between-the-instinctive-brain-and-the-reason-brain“

According to logic and linguistics, there must also be the prefix „post“ (cf. for example „posthuman“), if there is the prefix „pre“ (cf. for example „prehuman“), and there must also be the prefix „super-“ (cf. for example „superordination“), if there is the prefix „sub-“ (cf. for example „subordination). It is a question of word meaning or concept definition. For example: the term „a posteriori“ is the semantic, especially temporal, and thus also conceptual opposite of the term „a priori“, and the term „superconscious“ is the semantic and thus also conceptual opposite of the term „subconscious“.

And even if science does not prove or disprove this empirically, then there nevertheless remains the theoretical possibility of it.

So the „superconsciousness“ as the opposite of the „subconsciousness“ is what is beyond the „consciousness“, whereas the „consciousness“ itself is beyond the „subconsciousness“ which is beyond the „unconsciousness“. If we believe in an area between the „consciousness“ and the „unconsciousness“, then we can also believe that the „consciousness“ is an area between the „subconsciousness“ and the „superconsciousness“. I would even say that the word „consciousness“ stems from a higher quality than it is currently meant. This meaning has got lost, and my concept of „superconsciousness“ is an attempt of memory, of bringing it back into use.

Philosophy without metaphysics is like science without physics. This would mean the beginning of the end - in both cases.


Despite the fact that scientists are believed to be exact and objective or objectivistic, they follow the primacy of the subjectivity, because scientists dominate the objects, their methods and models are part of them and not of the objects. This illustrates the connection of finding the object and disguising the subject. This kind of hubris is the price of the objectivity and is likewise bought by the quiescence and the standardization of what the subject is allowed to realize / recognize .... So in the long run the team of researchers can merely become a homegenous army of subjects who are all shaped by the same methodical disguising. In the long run they have to become uniformed (same interests, same methods, same concepts, same words).

The opposed pole is the primacy of the objectivity, where the researcher comes closer to the object by loving it. (Yes - by loving it!) So the primacy of the objectivity has to do with aesthetics and erotism, whereas the primacy of the subjectivity has to do with agonal competition, with war and death. And, of course, the theories are opposed too: erotic theory versus agonal theory.

I think we have to consider both.


All science becomes dependent on the moneygivers, thus on the corruption. Therefore I mentioned both the primacy of the subjectivity with its agonal competition and the primacy of the objectivity with its erotic aesthetics. The former is currently the hegemonial one, and it's up to the latter to „survive“.


Culture can be used as a „clock“, because all other fields are subordinated, they obey culture, whereas culture obeys only nature.


Scientists and philosophers do not differ much from each other when it comes to culture (including politics - of course), which they obey


When the culture has great times (whatever „great“ means in this relation), then science follows and gets great times too, often when culture already starts having less great times.


It is not good that, according to the English language, the word „science“ mainly refers to „natural science“, all other branches are not mainly regarded as scientific branches, but at least they are sometimes called „human sciences“ or „moral sciences“, otherwise: „arts“ or „humanities“.

Science

Where is philosophy here? Should it be there?

I mean: Philosophy is somehow science too. All scientific theory is somehow philosophy.


Many philosophers are used and misused too, and they allow their moneygivers to use and misuse them too.


A scientific theory must be falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it is a theory merely for theologians or philosophers (but not for scientists).

You can believe in a non-falsifiable theory, but you should be very careful with it and rather not use it when it comes to science.


We will not get rid of the ghosts which we have called for. (Loosely based on Goethe.)


What if there would be a purely spiritual consciousness with merely occasional connections to a brain?


A word like „death“ and other words (for example also „consciousnes“) are still concepts and not things. So we have to define and possibly redefine these words in order to understand them better and better. And „death“ is no word for a thing but a description for no thing (no-thing, nothing), and this makes it so difficult to be an object for science and technology or engineering. Imagine a human activities recording machine records that there is no thing (no-thing, nothing), which means that death is just what it the word „death“ already means. This machine would approve our linguistic and philosophic definitions. And that would be good (too), wouldn't it?

Would you agree, if one said: „»Death« is the word as a means to metaphysically answer a difficult question that can't be scientifically or technologically answered (yet)“?


The word „belief“ is riginally 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


When science becomes independent of religion, then it is not or at least hardly because of money; but when science becomes dependend of religion again (it is a cycle) or itself a religion depending on a political state or corporation, super-organization, then it is solely or at least mainly because of money, because it needs much money, it has become corrupt, susceptible to blackmail.

Would you prefer a system in which the value of the money would be different from the current one? 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.

In that system science would be - by far - not as much dependent as it is currently.


Philosophy is dead?

No. Philosophy is possibly dying but not dead. And the next one is science. Science has been becoming more and more religious. Maybe both will be dead in the near future. But is that what you would like to appreciate?


I know much about the biography and the works of the physicist Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker and that he and, for example, Otto Hahn and Werner Heisenberg were members of the „Uranprojekt“ („Uran Project“) before and during the Second World War.


Hegel’s Dialektik is a method of knowledge, a process, a self-motion of thinking and reality, the tread of the spirit (Geist) to its self-knowledge.


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 medical industry has no interest in feminization but in illness, has no interest in reducing the population but in reducing the health.

Those who want to control or do control all others are interested in feminization, illness, reducing the population, reducing the health, reducing the fertility, reducing the intelligence, reducing the wealth, ... and many other things the controllers benefit from.

The medical industry exists because of illness resp. reduced health and the techn(olog)ical revolution (machine revolution) in combination with the credit revolution.

So there also exists a medical cynism and a scientifical/techn(olog)ical cynism.


Science has created many gods. Some are already „dead“, some are still „alive“. The number of gods has increased (thus: not decreased!).

Which „scientific god“ do you prefer?

Or do you think that all these „gods“ are no „real gods“ or „true gods“ but merely „false gods“?


Science has to do with two sides of its „coin“: theory (logic, language) and empirism (scientific practice, experience) - both connected with deduction and induction.


Not all scientists accept the quark theory and the string theories, and the others do it because of their interests and, of course, because of the fact that they are just theorists.


Let us compare the set „linguistics“ and its subsets with the set „sun“ and its subsets.

1) Set: Linguistics 2) Set: Sun
1,1) Subset: Logic 2,1) Subset: Hydrogen
1,1,1) Subsubset: Mathematics 2,2) Subsubset: Helium
1,1,2) Subsubset: Others 2,3) Subsubset: Others

Question: What happens if you take the hydrogen away from the sun?
Answer: The sun becomes bigger because of the helium burning.

If there were no mathematics, then logic would use linguistics instead of mathematics (like the logic of children, especially of little children, does).

Observe your little children when they try to calculate in a really mathematical way for the first time. You should find out that they use language and a bit later also their fingers in order to come closer and closer to the real mathematics.


Scientists need money for their researches. Therefore they become more and more dependent, thus non-scientists.


The Wiener Kreis (Vienese 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“.


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.


The Occidental monasteries of the Early Middle Ages can be interpreted as the first universities (the real universities appeared later).


Why should God or his work be limited? And why should God or his work be limited by the laws of physics?

Theologically said: Such limits would contradict what most human beings think about God, because according to them, thus by definition, God is the creator of everything.

So those who believe in God and his laws do not believe that „everything in the universe is limited by the physical laws.“ (**). One has to consider two aspects here: the philosophical (especially metaphysical) and the scientifical (especially physical) one.

If you consider only physics, then you have to leave out the metaphysical aspect (science dictates this, and the word „physics“ shows it). But you do not have to leave out the physical aspect, if you consider only metaphysics (philosophy does not dictate this, and the compound word „metaphysics“ shows distinctly that physics" is considered in metaphysics). There are many consequences that follow from this, and one of them is that scientists, although they claim to be objective, are subjective because of this dictatorship, the dogma, the determination of the methods. The scientifical methods are determined by subjectivists.

Being objective in a more real sense means that the subject determines nothing at all but lets the objects themselves determine what they are.


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“.


Interestingly, the most exact branch of science is not a branch of natural science but a branch of spiritual science: mathematics. Mathematics is not a branch of natural science but a spiritual science the most exact branch of science.

Mathematics is a spiritual science, thus: a science. In German, there is the distinction between Naturwissenschaft (natural science) and Geisteswissenschaft (spiritual science), and Sozialwissenschaft (social science) is „something“ between them.

Mathematics is the most exact science, and - interestingly - it is not a natural but a spiritual science.


Do you belive that scientists have „even declared (for sociopolitical reasons) that science has proven that logic doesn't work. “ (**)? If that is true, then they did something like a declaration of bankruptcy. A „science“ that has „proven that logic does not work“ is no science. In other words: The current „scientists“ are no scientists.

I think that this sociopolitical development with such a „declaration“ (see above) is a very ugly one. At last there will be no practical science anymore (at least no one which is practiced by real humans), and "no practical science" means "no science in use, only false definitions of it".

Mathematics should remain what it has always been: an „unphysical“ („non-physical“), thus an „unnatural“ („non-natural“) branch of science which is the most exact one, thus also the best one when it comes to help all other branches of science.

If someone is badly talking about mathematics, then you can be sure that this someone is not a scientist.


Mathematics is not a branch of natural science, as we know, but it is a branch of science. So it must be a branch of another kind of science, and I call this another kind of science „spiritual science“ (following the German „Geisteswissenschaft“ - „Geist“ means „ghost“, „spirit“ -, although „Geisteswissenschaft“ is often translated by „humanities“, but I do not think that that translation is the right one). The translation is a bit difficult, but we know that mathematics as such has nothing to do with physics, with chemistry, with biology, ... and other branches of natural science. Mathematics is a „subset“ of the „set“ logic.

Mathematics as a subset of logic


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).

LEVEL ** CATEGORY ** TYPE OF DETERMINATION **
(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 (**).


Most people are subjectivists, not objectivists. Even most scientists are subjectivists - they subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers.

Most scientists are subjectivists. They subjectively dictate the objects and objectivity because of their methods and the fact that they have become more and more dependend on their money givers. But what about philosophers for example? Are most of them subjectivists too?


Thesis:

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.


We do not really know where the energy comes from. So we do not know either where the universe comes from, why it exists, if it exists (note that „universe“ is a concept) ... and so on. The task of the physicists is not to answer questions like those. Science does not think (cp. Heidegger). Those questions must be answered or at least discussed by philosophers or theologians.

If there is only matter and energy and if there is convertability of both and if we too consist of both, then the energy may be the godlike one (thus also: the cause/reason for everything else), whereas the matter may be just the other one. If that is true, then God is always everywhere, thus also around you and in you.


Kant knew much about science.

„Kant is best known for his work in the philosophy of ethics and metaphysics, but he made significant contributions to other disciplines. He made an important astronomical discovery about the nature of Earth's rotation, for which he won the Berlin Academy Prize in 1754. According to Lord Kelvin in 1897, Kant made contributions useful to mathematicians or physical astronomers. According to Thomas Huxley in 1867 Kant made contributions to geology as well when, in 1775 [1755], he wrote his General Natural History and Theory of the Celestial Bodies; or, an Attempt to Account for the Constitutional and Mechanical Origin of the Universe, upon Newtonian Principles."

In the General History of Nature and Theory of the Heavens (Allgemeine Naturgeschichte und Theorie des Himmels) (1755), Kant laid out the Nebular hypothesis, in which he deduced that the Solar System formed from a large cloud of gas, a nebula. Thus he tried to explain the order of the solar system, which Isaac Newton had explained as imposed from the beginning by God. Kant also correctly deduced that the Milky Way was a large disk of stars, which he theorized also formed from a (much larger) spinning cloud of gas. He further suggested that other nebulae might also be similarly large and distant disks of stars. These postulations opened new horizons for astronomy: for the first time extending astronomy beyond the solar system to galactic and extragalactic realms.“ **

Kant knew much about the biological sciences too, ecpecially about anthropological sciences. Kant was really ingenious.


It is not possible that a physical experiment explains what physics „is“. This is was what Heidegger meant when he said: „Die Wissenschaft denkt nicht“ („the science does not think“).

So philosophy (especially its ontology) has to say what physics „is“ and what reality „is“.

Science is not capable of answering philosophic questions like „what is reality?“ or „what is nature?“ or „what is physics?“ and many other philosophic questions that have not to do with empirical evidence.


Questions about, for instance, the „anthropic principle“ or about the „first cause“ should not be answered by scientists, but by philosophers or theologians, because „die Wissenschaft denkt nicht“ („science does not think“), as Heidegger once said, so scientists are not really capable of answering philosophical or theological questions.

You can measure the distance between the Sun and the Earth, but this does not necessarily mean that this distance is random; and you can know how the system of the Sun and its planets has developed since its beginning (Kant has given a theory that is still valid), but that does not necessarily mean that you can answer all philosophical or theological questions. And the anthropic principle for instance is a metaphysical (thus: a philosophical or theological) issue, although or even because it is deduced from physics (thus: science). When physicists try to answer a metaphysical question like the question whether their physical constants (natural constants) are „caused by randomness“ or not, then they are already metaphysicians (the more proper word is „metaphysicists“). The natural constants (physical constants) do not have to be caused by randomness, they can also be caused by a „spiritual machinist“, a creator, a God or a principle which is not random. Physicists do not know either anything about the „events before the big bang“, if there was a big bang at all, or about an existence beyond our universe, if there is one at all.


A strong argument would be that this „cosmos“ literally requires life.


Four steps:

1) Perception - based on the sense organs (subjective) and signs (objective). Pre-Knowledge (semiotic language).
2) Knowledge through linguistic skills - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1) and on linguistic language.
3) Knowledge through the pure logic of language - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2) and on pure logical language.
4) Knowledge through mathematical language - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2), on pure logical language (=> 3) and on mathematical language.

Now an example: We want to know what a circle philosophically means.

If we know how and wherefore mathematicians use certain definitions, then this does not necessarily mean that they use it in order to get the truth. They are just searching for consistent statements (in their mathematical language).

The „higher“ Occidental mathematics has much more to do with functions than with numbers. Its geometry has mainly become a functional theory too. But what does that tell you about the circle when it comes to the first three steps I mentioned above? No mathematician denies the meaning or/and definition of a circle giving in a currently valid dictionary. We already had a similar discussion about „1 = 0.999...~?“ (**). 1 and 0.999...~ are never identical, but according to the Occidental mathematics functions have become more important than numbers, because functions do work (just: function) much better than pure numbers.

And what about the physicists? Do they say that sunrise and sunset do not exist according to your perception? Do they deny that the Sun is going up and down according to an observer? Do they insist that you have to always say that sunrise and sunset are caused by the Earth rotation? No.

In other words: Does the answer to the question whether a circle is just circular (without sides) or has sides just in order to calculate in a better, the Occidental way of mathematics not also depend on perspectives?

I mean: Would you say that sunrise and sunset do not exist, namely in the world of your perception? Certainly not.

So do we at last not have the same discussion here as almost always: subjectivity versus objectivity (**).


According to my understanding, scientists have to be objectivists; but when they become corrupt and greedy, so that they depend on their money givers, then they are no objectivists, but subjectivists; because they only say what their money givers want them to say. The methods are the other reason why scientists can and mostly do become subjectivists.

The words „subject“ and „object“ are linguistic (grammatic) and philosophic (epistemic) concepts.

The object/subject relationship is different from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity and different from the relationship between a subjectivist and an objectivist.

Many scientists got fired because they had been objective.


The enlightenment was the era with the most real or objective scientists. So, one can say: the farther away the enlightenment, the more subjective the scientists.

When science depends on money and on dictating methods, then science is almost always very much more subjective than objective, because there are almost always subjective interests behind the money and the methods. Only those money givers who have interests in science as an institution of objectivity are friends of science, of objectivity; and only those methods that do not depend on subjective interests are no dictating methods.


Scientist can’t explain our world, the philosophers and theologians can’t explain it either.

So, all we can do is to describe it and to do it in the most possible way of correctness and conclusiveness, stringency, thus by using logic in connection with our experiences.

The success of the scientists is pretty great. But nonetheless, we have to admit that this success refers mainly to a short time of history and to certain times in history more than to others. And by the way: I was not talking about the success of the scientists. I was talking about the scientists’ incapability of explainig our world.

The current scientific knowledge contradicts the older one, although (or because?) the older one was probably more successful than the current one, at least in a relative way,.

Philosophers and theologians have already been unsuccessful for a long time; and according to many people (regardless of the facts about them), philosophers and theologians are just redundant.

What remains?

An example: We want to know whether or not a soul exists. I can guarantee you that science is the wrong address when it comes to this question. On the other hand, theology and philosophy have currently a more bad than a good reputation in general, at least in the West.


Terms like „Ding an sich“, „Wille“, „In-der-Welt-sein“ and many others do not have the function to avoid science, objectivity, knowledge, recognition, insight ... and so on and so forth. The opposite is true. With those terms we are more capable of getting more information about the other things than without those terms. They are and work like scientific and mathematical constants and variables.

Humans (especially the Faustian humans) want to understand and to explain everything. And if they did not use such terms, they would be less able to understand and to explain most things.

These terms do not forbid anything. They are just epistemological constants and variables. As if they were saying: „As long as you are not able to find a solution use us as constants or variables“. And they are not only epistemologically important. The speed of light is a natural constant. Who says that the speed of light explains „most things away“? - In spite of the fact that natural constants are not like social or spiritual constants, I would say that they all work very similarly.


Spirtual, at least mathematic constants are even less random than natural constants. Think of mathematic constants like „pi“ or „root two“. They work! They function!

The translation is not seldom difficult; so the word „spiritual“ may confuse some people here; but what I mean by it is a superordinate of - for example - logic, mathematics, philosophy, law ....


We can and should relate to likelihood and to average values anyway.


The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science.


Experience has both sides: subjectivity and objectivity (**). Both are aspects of epistemology.

The problem is that too much consideration of subjectivity can lead to extreme subjectivism, thus solipsism. Accoding to a solipsist, the subjective I (self, ego) with its conscious contents is the only reality.


Not all beings are living beings, not all living beings are human beings; and empiricism is not the only way to prove something; empircism is used to disqualify incorrect hypotheses; so empircism alone never proves anything, logic proves or disproves ....


Quantum physics (mechanics) and Relativity physics (theory) are so much different frome each other, that one can say that they refer to two different realities, two different worlds; and since these described realities (worlds) are so much different from each other and we can only have one reality (worlds) by definition, either one or both must be false.


The subject can overtake the role of an object. For instance: If a subject adopts the point of view of an object or observes the own body with all its affects, then this subject is in the position of both subject and object. And to others this subject is an object anyway.


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.


An example of a first preform of scientists are the monks of the Order of Saint Benedict (ca. 480–543).

Benediktinisches Kloster
Benediktinisches Kloster
Benediktinisches Kloster
Benediktinisches Kloster


|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|

- Register -

 

  Occidental culture