991) Arminius, 13.03.2017, 15:08, 15:46; Alf, 13.03.2017, 16:28, 16:58, 18:17, 18:22, 18:48 (5883-5889)
Mags J. wrote:
But, Mags J. (), how can life make sense to you and your existence not make sense to you?
All life is existence, but not all existence is life.
So: If your existence is senseless, then your your life is senseless too. Or (the other way around): If your existence makes sense, then your life makes sense too.
Have a nice existence by having a nice life.
As long as there is capitalism (techno-creditism), there is communism (egalitarianism) too. Their Synthesis (cp. Hegel) is globalism or humanitarianism where communism and/or capitalism are/is not gone, but merely aufgehoben (Hegel).
Maybe we should try to continue this conservaion in the following thread, Jerkey.
Art is a form of communication. **
Art is communication. **
O(oo)k(aa)a(yy)y .... But .... What's the need to communicate then to you?
Everyone should always have a soul.
Yes (**), at least temporarily.
993) Kathrina, 17.03.2017, 14:15; Alf, 17.03.2017, 17:34, 19:30; Arminius, 17.03.2017, 19:37; Alf, 17.03.2017, 21:33; Arminius, 17.03.2017, 22:17, 23:41 (5893-5900)
And where are my posts?
Communication is too general. All living beings communicate in the way you just described, most of them by using only chemical signs, some of them by using also other signs, but only humans by using also language as a very complex system of linguistic signs. So the fact that only humans have art and only humans have such a complex system of linguistic signs could be an indication of a very deep connection between them. I think that there is a developmental connection between an instinctive faith or belief on the one hand and art and language on the other hand, provided that all fundamental requirements are already given (e.g.: upright gait, relatively free hands, relatively huge and very complex brain).
Sorry. Wrong thread.
Marx was a Links-Hegelianer (Left-Hegelian). He turned many parts of Hegel's conception upside down - so, for example, Marx said das Sein bestimmt das Bewußtsein (the Sein [being] determines the consciousness), which was just the opposite of what Hegel had said before him: das Bewußtsein bestimmt das Sein (the consciousness determines the Sein [being]").
The reason why I am saying that communism is not dead has to do with Hegel's Dialektik, which is - by the way - not turned upside down by Marx. So we do not have to consider Hegel and Marx separately in this case. I think this is well considered in the thread I linked to. So I would prefer to continue the discussion in that said thread.
Thank you (**) very much.
Encode Decode wrote:
Encode Decode wrote:
Can you tell more about that inspiration you have?
Today, the said 9 days (**) are over.
Happy birthday, Magnus Anderson.
Mags J. wrote:
Existence is not merely »our« existence as a species, existence refers to both individuals and groups (including »our« existence as a species). You could also speak of »our« existence as living beings or »our« existence as (a gathering of) atoms or »our« existence as (a gathering of) particles. You are talking about the difference between ones personal life and the species life which you call existence. But existence does not refer to merely one of them. Existence is more than life, existence was earlier than life, existence is the basis of life, whereas life is the higher form of existence, and according to the formal definition: life is a subordinated form of existence; so existence is its superordinated form.
In other words:
Every living being is an existing being, but not every existing being is a living being.
Stones do exist, but they do not live. They are existing beings, but they are not living beings. Trees are existing and living beings.
994) Kathrina, 19.03.2017, 20:02, 20:09; Alf, 19.03.2017, 20:25, 20:47; Kathrina, 19.03.2017, 22:51, 23:32; Arminius, 19.03.2017, 23:58 (5901-5907)
Sex brings happiness, at least temporarily.
Do you agree?
I can merely find some of my posts, thus: not all. That's a posting problem, isnt it?
»I guess you mean the following three religions: Terasem, Unitarian Univeralism, Bahai' Faith.
Are you one of those Christian-kooks who think that anything that isn't Christian is automatically a cult? **
These religions call themselves religions. Terasem also calls itself a non-profit, a charity, among other titles. It certainty is a religion. It's obvious if one takes a look at the beliefs of an afterlife and a deity, Terasem answers those questions.
I'd consider Unitarian Universalism a philosophy of a religion more than a religion outright. Still, they have humanist teachings of love and acceptance. Things like the six sources of faith and the seven principles are but a introduction to the faith of UU.
Baha'i is definitely a religion. They have scripture, holy sites, daily rituals, a dead prophet. What more could you ask for in a religion? The Baha'i Faith even brands itself as a world religion. Out of all three of these Baha'i has the most followers; between five to seven million. **
Questions about the meaning of life become superfluous once randomness is understood, because statistical improbability and divine purpose tend not to be mutually compatible. **
995) Alf, 20.03.2017, 02:14; Kathrina, 20.03.2017, 03:13; Arminius, 20.03.2017, 05:05; Alf, 20.03.2017, 16:00, 16:39, 16:44; Kathrina, 20.03.2017, 17:14; Alf, 20.03.2017, 17:30, 17:45, 19:08, 22:25 (5908-5918)
But youve said that it does. See again:
That's what you've said: Art comes from and is (a form of) communication. So the conclusion of your own words is: Art comes from art.
S o r r y .
Only if you mean the interaction of human emotions, human ideas, human knowledge. And if you mean the interaction of human emotions, human ideas, human knowledge, we are again in agreement, but will have to define that more closely.
O t h e r w i s e :
We turn around in a circle again.
Ah, I see.
Old Europe wrote:
Sloterdijk's ideas seek to integrate different components that have been erroneously considered detached from each other. Consequently, he proposes the creation of an ontological constitution that would incorporate all beingshumans, animals, plants, and machines.
Sloterdijk regards cultures and civilizations as anthropogenic hothouses, installations for the cultivation of human beings; just as we have established wildlife preserves to protect certain animal species, so too ought we to adopt more deliberate policies to ensure the survival of Aristotle's zoon politikon.
Old Europe wrote:
The exploration of these spheres begins with the basic difference between mammals and other animals: the biological and utopian comfort of the mothers womb, which humans try to recreate through science, ideology, and religion. From these microspheres (ontological relations such as fetus-placenta) to macrospheres (macro-uteri such as nations or states), Sloterdijk analyzes spheres where humans try but fail to dwell and traces a connection between vital crisis (e.g., emptiness and narcissistic detachment) and crises created when a sphere shatters.
Sloterdijk has said that the first paragraphs of Spheres are the book that Heidegger should have written, a companion volume to Being and Time, namely Being and Space. He was referring to his initial exploration of the idea of Dasein, which is then taken further.
Sloterdijk also argues that the current concept of globalization lacks historical perspective. In his view it is merely the third wave in a process of overcoming distances (the first wave being the metaphysical globalization of the Greek cosmology and the second the nautical globalization of the 15th century). The difference for Sloterdijk is that, while the second wave created cosmopolitanism, the third is creating a global provincialism. Sloterdijks sketch of a philosophical history of globalization can be found in Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals (2005; translated as In the World Interior of Capital), subtitled Die letzte Kugel (The final sphere).
Sloterdijk claimed that the welfare state is a fiscal kleptocracy that had transformed the country into a swamp of resentment and degraded its citizens into mystified subjects of tax law.
Sloterdijk opened the text with the famous quote of leftist critics of capitalism (made famous in the 19th century by Proudhon in his What Is Property?) Property is theft, stating, however, that it is nowadays the modern state that is the biggest taker. We are living in a fiscal grabbing semi-socialism and nobody calls for a fiscal civil war.
He repeated his statements and stirred up the debate in his articles titled Kleptokratie des Staates (transl. Kleptocracy of the state) and Aufbruch der Leistungsträger (transl. Uprising of the performers) in the German monthly Cicero Magazin für politische Kultur.
According to Sloterdijk, the institutions of the welfare state lend themselves to a system that privileges the marginalized, but relies, unsustainably, on the class of citizens who are materially successful.
In January 2010, an English translation was published, titled A Grasping Hand The modern democratic state pillages its productive citizens, in Forbes and in the Winter 2010 issue of City Journal.
Sloterdijk's 2010 book, Die nehmende Hand und die gebende Seite, contains the texts that triggered the 20092010 welfare state dispute.
Die moderne Welt wird sich als eine Zeit erweisen, in der die Wünsche durch ihr Wahrwerden das Fürchten lehren.- Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit.
Topic: Many, many post no or a few posts, and a few post many posts.
Many ILP members post no or a few posts, and a few ILP members post many posts.
5009 ILP members (69.10%) have posted no or less than 10 posts. Not more than 1435 ILP members (19.80%) have posted 10-99 posts. But merely 805 ILP members (11.10%) have posted 100 or more than 100 posts.
That's interesting, isnt it?
Id like to know what you think about it.
Magnus Anderson wrote:
And when art is decadent, it is just the other way around.
The natural world is not interested in what man thinks is art, and man is not interested in what the natural world is interested in.
You know all Christians, Mackerni?
Note that I used quotation marks (natural world [**|**]) and that all living beings are part of that natural world.
I hope so too.
The following map shows the world according to Donald Trump according to the Huffington Post (UK):
Does the Huffington Post want us to take that seriously?
That's nothing new. Truths and lies have always been inseparably intertwined by all kind of governments.
996) Alf, 21.03.2017, 01:22, 01:36, 14:54, 15:23, 15:49, 16:27; Kathrina, 21.03.2017, 17:41, 17:52, 18:37; Alf, 21.03.2017, 19:21; Kathrina, 21.03.2017, 19:40, 19:53, 20:06, 20:38, 20:54; Arminius, 21.03.2017, 23:51 (5919-5933)
»Honeymoon« phase of a new administration (**)?
You dont know how I feel, and I was not talking about Christians, but about your three religions, and not judging like a Christian or whoever.
On the internet, 20% of all nodes attract 80% of all links. All this seems to obey the 80/20 rule (**).
You havent answered my question. It was the first question between us: Are your alledged religions real religions?
Almost all US presidents have been gangsters who support their gangsters. Trump is just the current one.
To you, okay, but that's no argument, but merely your opinion, not more. Sorry. I haven't got an argument from you. So why should I be convinced, Mackerni?
Rationality is not overrated. It is more underrated than overrated. Perhaps it was overrated in the past (e.g. during the Age of Enlightenment), but currently it is not overrated. In times where everything has to be femine, feministic, consumeristic, politically correct, emotional ... and so on and so forth ..., there is no or at least not enough room for rationality.
Whats your point, Gibby?
First of all, I want to gather several answers to my questions. After it, I will start making statements.
You dont know my definition of religion.
My question was the first question between us, and this question included your definition of religion. But you didn't want to give me your definition of religion, and instead of giving it, you asked me unsuccessfuly to give you mine. Your answer that your alledged religions were real to you is not sufficient. You have to say how you know that your alledged religions are real religions, if you want to convince somebody. Your personal opinion is not sufficient.
I have never said that you need to validate them.
All you have answered is that you like your three religions, and that is no convincing statement when it comes to the question whether your alledged religions are real religions.
You want a more objective answer, but Mackerni can only give you a subjective answer.
Who are these guys (**)?
According to Anders Hejlsberg, C# is not a Java clone:
Is that you, Impious?
James S. Saint wrote:
That is possible, yes.
Old Europe wrote:
That is absolutely right. Are you German, Old Europe?
According to RM:AO, gravity / gravitation and electromagnetism are something like concomitants of the affectance.
Surreptitious 57 wrote:
That does not prove what you said in your before: Questions about the meaning of life become superfluous ....
Questions about the meaning of life do not have to, but can even become more important in that case.
Honeybees are very successful and efficient. In one point - offspring (!) - they are even more efficient than humans.
If it is right that Trump is a paradigm of revision (**), what kind of revision is it and where does it exactly lead to?
To times before Hegel, thus: before 1770? Or what do you mean?
Your text does not make this clear.
Yes (**), but isn't reactionary also a general term?
What exactly makes those ideas you mentioned so reactionary?
Great president or implemented, socially proved movement, a possibility or not - that all does not express very much, does it?
I am not a Trump fan but hoping that you will enlighten me. Please clarify!
998) Arminius, 23.03.2017, 02:09, 18:42, 19:50, 21:23, 21:47, 22:12, 22:13, 23:02; Kathrina, 23.03.2017, 23:23; Arminius, 23.03.2017, 23:30; Kathrina, 23.03.2017, 23:41 (5940-5950)
I found the following defintion of reactionary, but I must say that I do not fully accept it:
The definition is one that refers to the French revolution, and the French revolutionaries were not better than those they fightet against, all other revolutionaries after them have given evidence, because they were even more terroristic. In addition: All revolutionaries react! So they themselves are reactionaries.
What remains if all those definitions of reactionary are not really convincing?
Surreptitious 57 wrote:
No, or let us say: that is only half a truth (if half a truth is possible at all). You do not know whether life is occured randomly or not (**|**). The question whether there is a meaning of life does always make sense, and people always ask this question. It does not assume that there is a meaning, as you suggest (probably because you yourself assume that there is no meaning). It is just a question. Everyone may find an answer to this question, regardless which answer it is. That is the reason why I opened this thread.
If you assume that there is no meaning of life for you, then just say that there is no meaning of life for you (again: for you!). You have no objective - but only a subjective (**|**) - argument against those who say that there is an objective meaning of life. There is no proof of the thesis that there is no meaning of life.
Tattoos are a kind of group pressure - comparable with fashion. The modern fact that fashion prevails over morals means that it even determines the morals. Let us see where this will lead to ....
Wisdom is great and music the best. Would that be a compromise?
Zappa wasnt the greatest musician. There were others who were greater than him, especially in earlier centuries. But this is not what this thread should deal with. I used the Zappa quote in order to just ask more generally: IS MUSIC THE BEST?
Guess when the third one (**) will be tattooed too!
Music makes us feel good. Isn't that a good argument?
Music moves humans of all cultures, in a way that doesnt seem to happen with e.g. animals. Nobody really understands why listening to music - which, unlike sex or food, has no intrinsic value - can trigger such profoundly rewarding experiences.
Music is exquisitely emotionally evocative, which is why a touch of happy music makes even unrelated pictures seem more pleasant. In light of the above, then, we are led to the conclusion that the artifact of music should contain some distinctly human elements.
999) Kathrina, 07.04.2017, 15:57, 16:28; Herr Schütze, 07.04.2017, 17:05; Kathrina, 07.04.2017, 19:33, 20:35, 20:40 (5951-5956)
Randomness has not much to do with the question whether life makes sense. It is a fact that life is everywhere in the universe where it has got a chance. Our universe tends to life.
This relations and the fact of blackmailing are the reasons why the EU and the Euro still exist.
The EU net payers as the EU losers should leave the EU. There should be an EU net payers exit.
Ich hoffe, es geht Ihnen gut.
Zum Thema Spiegel:
Die Zeitschrift Spiegel wurde von uns schon vor rund vier Jahrzehnten mit dem Attribut notorisch denkfaul abgetan, und jeder Spiegel-Journalist (ob männlich oder weiblich) hat sich immer mehr als das offenbart, was er immer schon gewesen ist: Narziß.
Rudolf Augstein setzte sich noch in den 1960er Jahren immerhin indirekt mit dem Denken auseinander, beispielsweise in dem 1966 geführten Gespräch mit Martin Heidegger, doch das kommt einem seit vielen Jahren bereits so vor, als wäre es vor Jahrhunderten gewesen. Einem Rudolf Augstein der 1960er Jahre würde heute fristlos gekündigt und der Prozeß gemacht.
Doch schon in den 1950er Jahren hatte Hans Magnus Enzensberger eine kritische Analyse über die Sprache des Spiegel verfaßt und eine Reihe von Thesen aufgestellt: Das angebliche Nachrichtenmagazin Spiegel sei im Grunde gar kein Nachrichtenmagazin, da es seinen Informationsgehalt in die Form von Storys kleide, es übe nicht Kritik, seine Leserschaft werde nicht orientiert, sondern desorientiert.
Trump is a liar, like any other politician. The newest example of the same old examples is the fact that the United States of America have attacked Syria again. Trump once said that, if he became the president of the USA, he didn't want the USA to attack foreign countries again. Now, Trump is the president of the USA and a foreign country is attacked again by the USA.
I was talking about a lie.
Music has its extreme sides too, hasnt it?
The first who discovered America were the Vikings under Leif Eriksson who lived from 970 to 1020. They discovered it around the year 1000.
In 1473, an expedition under the command of the Germans Didrik Pining und Hans Pothorst with the Danish navigator Johannes Scolvus and the Portuguese João Vaz Corte-Real discovered America also before Christopher Columbus (1492).
Yes. First they sold the gas to the islam terrorists, then they lied about that fact and many other facts - as usual. Do you remember what was told (1) about the port of Havanna, (2) about the Lusitania, (3) about Pearl Harbor, (4) about the Gulf of Tanking, (5) about the Twin Towers, (6) about the chemical weapons in Iraq, (7) about the gas in Syria? Answer: (1) Lies, (2) lies, (3) lies, (4) lies, (5) lies, (6) lies, (7) lies.
Being a super power means being a super liar. Saddam Hussein said that Bushs lie about the chemical weapons in Iraq was the mother of all lies.
Power, lies and slavery correlate with each other.
It is better to fall alone with the free than to go in triumph with the slaves. - Ernst Jünger, On the Marble Cliffs (original: Auf den Marmorklippen), 1939. Translated by me.
So you are saying that the life of the human species makes no sense, whereas the life of a single human being makes sense, at least for you. So perhaps we have to distinguish between evolution and history, between nature and culture or a person. Then the answer to the question of the meaning of life has indeed two sides. A person or a couple, a family, a kin, a clan, a tribe, a nation, a culture can have a goal, so that life makes sense, probably because of getting respect, the will to power, or/and just because of each moment. This could also mean that the life of the human species makes sense. But can we know that for sure? Maybe there is only a subjective answer possible, an answer of a person, a couple, a family, a kin, a clan, a tribe, a nation, a culture - if each of them is a subject. The objective meaning could be the framework condition of evolution or nature, for example the fight against the entropy, or the completion, the achievement, the perfection of what was set or placed with its earliest beginning, the fertilizaition, conception.
The human species is merely a zoological concept. But a human as a person or humans as another subject - like a couple, a family, a kin, a clan, a tribe, a nation, a culture - can have, should have and often do have a goal which shows that their life makes sense, has a meaning.
By the way: It is possible too that the Brexit can become a meaning of life to you, if you spend your life time with it (and - perhaps - get power because of it).
Danke. Mir geht es auch gut.
Nun, ich glaube, daß der Spiegel in den 1960er Jahren trotz des beginnenden Wandels seine volksverhetzende Fratze noch nicht so deutlich zeigen konnte, wie er es heute kann, und darum auch noch nicht so deutlich zeigte wie es heute tut.
Ja, das ist richtig.
Übrigens fällt auf, daß die Sex-und-Politik-Angelegenheit im prüden British Empire des 19. Jahrhunderts nicht zufällig andersherum war: Über Sex durfte man nicht reden, wohl aber über Politik. Heute ist es genau umgekehrt, denn heute darf man nicht über Politik reden, wohl aber über Sex.
Wo der Sex regiert, da ist die poltische und geistige Freiheit verboten.
Das erinnert an panem et circenses im antiken Rom.