WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

Occidental culture

T H E   M E A N I N G   O F   L I F E


Life experience teaches that an enemy is necessary to survive. (Compare all living beings.) If a living being, especially a human being, survives without an enemy, there is no expanding, and if there is no expanding, then in the long run (in the long run!) there is no life anymore. In the long run living groups (for example: packs, prides), especially human groups (for example: tribes, communes) decline and die out, if they have no enemy. They die out because of too much energy, wealth, hedonism, “individualism” and other nihilisms, and one of them is the ism of “having no enemy”, “world peace”, “universal peace” ... and so on.

I didn't say anything about a child, but about groups of those living beings (including human beings) who survive or not survive in the long run - in the long run! A “child in the long run” is no child anymore. In the long run a child is already an adult. But a child is no adult. Children need protection, so they don't need an enemy, except when they play adult roles, but that's merely a play. Life, especially life in groups (for example: tribes, communes) needs an enemy in the long run. Without an enemy groups can't survive in the long run.

Your conclusion, which is a result of a complex comparison, is false.

Notice the term in the long run” which means for a person about 30 years and more, and for a group (for example: a tribe, a commune) about 100 years and more.

A life of one person lasts about 80 years (on average), a childish life lasts about 14 to 16 years (on average) - that's too less when it comes to the long run of a group (for example: a tribe, a commune): about 100 years and more. In addition: children need protection, and if they are not protected, they die (in the most cases of living beings) or become diseased. And pleace notice that an enemy for a living being doesn't necessarily always be another living being. Forces of nature are often also experienced as enemies. And not seldom they are challenges in order to form and justify cultures (compare the theory of Arnold Joseph Toynbee).

Besides:

Whatever psychology is (do you know what “psyche” really is? [Compare the Ancient Greek mythology!]), it is no science of children - a science of children has to incorporate all realms of science (because of the complexity) - and it merely shows statistics, manipulated data, manipulated information, mainstream statements, political correctness, thus the ideology of the rulers. I am not very much interested in ideology (modern religion).


The synthesis becomes a new thesis (cp. Hegel’s „Dialektik“). Life with no synthesis would be very boring, merely acting (thesis) and reacting (antithesis), no qualitative change. There would be no qualitative development without any synthesis (and further: no new thesis). Humans changed their lives - compare the humans of the Stone Age and the humans of the last 6000 years.

Without any synthesis life would be merely a ping pong game, because it would merely consist of thesis and antithesis, for example: action and reaction.


“Free will” is not what human beings or other living beings have, because they are part of the evolution. For example: As a human you can't decide your origin, your genetic program, your birth, your death. And if you can't decide about the most important phenomenons of your life, then you have no “free will”.

Market propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting articles, consumer goods, products, so that you may think you have a “free will”, but what you have is merely a “relative free will”. Political propagandists say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting politicians, their parties (homonym!), their ideologies (modern religions), so that you may think you have a “free will”, but what you have is merely a “relative free will”. They say that you can decide about your way of life by choosing or selecting your sex, gender, so that you may think you have a “free will”, but what you have is merely a “relative free will”. You can merely choose in a relative way. God, the nature, or Kant’s „Ding an sich“ (“thing as such” / “thing in itself”) may have or be a “free will”, but humans don't know who or what they really are and have killed them, either absolutely (God) or partly (nature, „Ding an sich“).


<= || =>

- Register -

 

  Occidental culture