01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [721][722][723][724][725][726][727][728][729][730] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
721) Arminius, 24.05.2015, 01:25, 02:45, 03:02, 03:07, 15:53, 17:36 (3028-3033)
And this was my response:
And one more example: Why are those many ILP members who call themselves "atheists" always posting in this subforum (Religion and Spirituality) and always negatively refering to theism and theists? They are antitheists!
James S. Saint wrote:
I am not grumbling about English or other languages. My intention is to show how we should philosophically use words, and death languages like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit do not change anymore, and because of that fact they are best placed to give us the definitions we need for science (for example: medicine, law, and all other science disciplines), thus also for philosophy.For example: The meanings of the Ancient Greek a and anti are solid, fixed meanings. So we should use them when it comes to be precise. And all Western languages do use them when it comes to be precise (for example in science). Why should ILP members not be precise?
If ILP members should not be precise, then I would stop posting on ILP. In that case all words, all posts, all threads of ILP would be OFF TOPIC, because they would have nothing at all to do with ILP, ILP would not be ILP but ILK (I LOVE Kaffeeklatsch), and that is not what I want ILP to be.
James S. Saint wrote:
That is absolutely right.James S. Saint wrote:
Yes.James S. Saint wrote:
Being precise, we should call ILP IL, because the portion of philosophy is merely 1/8 (12,5%):
James S. Saint wrote:
They belong to the real ILP (compare: (7)), becasue they are real philosophers.
|
3033 |
James S. Saint wrote:
»English is no where close to a strictly codified language. Languages change quite often, including German. Is all of German wrong today merely because ancient Germania spoke it and spelled it differently? French is the same way. Their spelling indicates how they are "supposed" to be speaking it. But do they speak it the way they spell it? Not even close.« **
That is true. I have been said the same before in the other thread too.
I do not know about other languages like French or German, but English is certainly a very unscientific or loose language. **
I am not grumbling about English or other languages. My intention is to show how we should philosophically use words, and "death" languages like Ancient Greek, or Latin, or Sanskrit do not change anymore, and because of that fact they are best placed to give us the definitions we need for science (for example: medicine, law, and all other science disciplines), thus also for philosophy. ** **
It relies on practice far more than rules, which is not a good sign, besides making it difficult for learning. **
English is such a language which you cannot learn only by books, especially its speaking part. It is confusing in general, not to say about exceptions. **
But, let me mention here that both of Hindi and Sanskrit are governed by strict rules, both in writing and speaking. Means, you have to write exactly how you speak and vice verse. No confusion. I do not know about other Asian languages but my guess is that they will follow the same practice too. **
722) Arminius, 25.05.2015, 00:50, 01:04, 01:21, 01:42, 15:25, 16:01, 18:13, 20:14, 21:00, 22:57, 23:21 (3034-3044)
Mutcer wrote:
You did not read my posts.Mutcer wrote:
You did not read my posts. Otherwise you would know the answer.Mutcer wrote:
I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.Mutcer wrote:
No. Your statement is nonsense. Are you sure that you know what logic is?Mutcer wrote:
I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.Mutcer wrote:
That is your answer to my question? Please read my question again.Mutcer wrote:
I did not say that god but that your example is ridiculous. Please read my post again.Mutcer wrote
Or an antignostic atheists. Are you afraid of the morpheme anti?Mutcer wrote:
Or an antitheists. Are you afraid of the morpheme anti?The situation that humans stopped believing in god or gods will never be reached. When it comes to religious, metaphysical, philosophical, spriritual aspects humans are transcendence beings.Mutcer wrote:
Precisely spoken an atheist is not one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists. Again: I said this several times. Why do you not read my posts?Mutcer wrote:
I have given the answer several times. I am not interested in a permanently repetition and quotation of my posts.
What is a gotcha. An ad hominem?Excuse me, English is not my first language.
|
3036 |
3037 |
Arminius wrote:
»If newborns could be classified as atheists (and newborns are NOT atheists), then the rulers would misuse this, because they want the children for themselves, for their system of rule, they want no godbelievers, no theists. What they want are antitheists who firstly call themselves atheists before they show their true face, that they are against theists, thus that they are antitheists. According to the rulers parents who are theists are enemies. Therefore the rulers use a linguistic trick in order to make out of all parents and especially out of all children ....« ** **
That is the bottom line truth of it.
Arminius wrote:
»We know that from history: the rulers of the systems of egalitarianism like communism and other socialisms wanted all people, especially all children (!), to be in conformity with the system. Currently the system is a globalistic system, and it is as antitheistic (rhetorically called: "atheistic") as the systems of egalitarianism. The difference between the globalism and the egalitarianism is that the globalism conists of both the dictatorship of egalitarianism and the dictatorship of liberalism (a.k.a. capitalism), whereas the egalitarianism consists of the dictatorship of egalitarianism and nothing else, but both globalism and egalitarianism are antitheistic (rhetorically called: atheistic).« ** **
Also called »Secularism«.
Arminius wrote:
Rulers, especially the current rulers, want to be like gods; so they want no other gods besides them. If all gods of the past and of the present will be dead, thus out of the brains of their subjects, then the rulers will dictate a new theism (with themselves as gods - of course), and then atheism and antitheism will be forbidden. That's history - its process is not "progressive", not "linear", but it is periodic, thus cyclic, exactly: spiral-cyclic.« ** **
Yep.
Arminius wrote:
This thread is interesting but also terrible, because behind all those euphemistic (rhetoric!) words like atheists, atheism, atheistic of those who are against theists, theism, theistic, thus who are antitheists, permanently works the nihilism (the rhetoric atheism is one of its euphemistic and dishonest forms, antitheism is its strongest and honest form against theism).« ** **
That is why the languages change so much, people using the language against the masses; not allowing certain words, insisting on other words, constant manipulation ..., just like what is happening on this thread. **
I suggest to reform ILP and to call it »IL« with the following eight subforums:
(1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
(2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
(3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
(4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
(5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
(6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
(7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«). ** **
3038 |
If you wish to address my latest post on the thread topic with an intellectually honest reply, I'll be happy to continue the discussion with you. **
Features | Lexemes | ||
Theist | Atheist | Antitheist | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
3039 |
Don't forget ILBS
.... I'll let you ask Mithus what that means. **
(1) ILF (»I Love Fun«),
(2) ILG (»I Love Gossip«),
(3) ILL (»I Love Lies«),
(4) ILN 1 (»I love Nietzsche«),
(5) ILN 2 (»I love Nonsense«),
(6) ILN 3 (»I Love Nothing«),
(7) ILP (»I Love Philosophy«) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (»I Love Social Criticism«).ILN = (4) ILN 1, (5) ILN 2, (6) ILN 3. ** **
3040 |
It sounds like you're interested in continuing on this discussion. Thanks for making the effort. I'll address this post only you after you address each of my points in the first post in which you avoided my points and questions. Here it is again: .... **
In this world of two categories (theist/atheist) .... **
If a theist is hit on the head, loses the ability to think and goes into a vegetative state, then he automatically becomes an atheist. **
Here comes a typical ILN question:
Do you think that Purgatorius (allegedly an ancestor of the human beings) was a theist, an atheist, or even an antitheist?
** **
3041 |
Since atheist means to not hold the belief that a god exists, the »no« for child/atheist is incorrect. If you said »explicit atheist« instead of limiting it to »atheist«, then you would be correct. **
The following shows a semantic feature analysis for the words »theist«, »atheists«, »antitheist«:
Features | Lexemes | ||
Theist | Atheist | Antitheist | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
One could add more features as preconditions for those lexemes (»theist«, »atheist«, »antitheist«) which are also conceptual preconditions, but more features or preconditions are not necessary for this thread. Mark my words: »theist«, »atheists«, »antitheist« are no children! Newborns are children and are not able to really intellctually process the meanings of the words »theist«, »theism«, »theistic«, »atheist«, »atheism«, »atheistic«, »antitheist«, »antitheism«, »antitheistic«. ** **
Then what word would you use to describe one who doesn't hold the belief that a god exists?
....
Then please copy and paste the answer you provided. Or tell me what page your answer is on. **
This is a long thread, and it's a lot more work for me to read through the entire thread while trying to read your intentions to find what you think is the answer to my question than for me to ask the question and for you to answer it again. **
A little piece of wisdom. One who avoids a question by saying "I already answered that" is similar to one who responds with "no comment". It almost always means that they are unwilling to lie, but know that an honest answer would seriously compromise their position. It's called reading between the lines. **
I need more information on Purgatorius. Is Purgatorius considered to have been a person? If not, then he wasn't an atheist. **
Where did I say that? **
This is a long thread, and it's a lot more work for me to read through the entire thread while trying to read your intentions to find what you think is the answer to my question than for me to ask the question and for you to answer it again. **
3042 |
Mutcer wrote:
A quote from an 1861 speech by the pioneering feminist and atheist Ernestine Rose shows how many atheists think of atheism. Rose said, »It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are atheists, and were religion not inculcated into their minds they would remain so.« In other words, people who set religious belief aside are returning to a state that is natural for humans atheism.« **
A typically dumb quote ... seriously dumb. **
It is an interesting and demonstrable fact, that all children are ignorant, and were education not inculcated into their minds they would remain so. In other words, people who set education aside are returning to a state that is natural for humans ignorant/atheism. **
3043 |
It doesn't happen from within. **
3044 |
723) Arminius, 26.05.2015, 05:41, 13:30, 18:06, 18:28, 18:32 (3045-3049)
This must be the wrong thread.Mags, where did you find the ad homs? I can't find any.
Mutcer wrote:
No. You are "operating under the erroneous assumption that to be an atheist, one must be aware of what" is political correct, but political correctness has nothing to do with the correct definition of theist, atheist, and antitheist.Mutver wrote:
Mutcer, please! According to the current science that creature is your ancestor!Mutcer wrote:
You said it conclusively, although not literally, with many of your sentences you wrote here.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sorry, Mutcer, but I think this is the wrong thread (**|**).
Why is Dan no practising moderatior anymore?
Mags J. wrote:
Don't unleash your mysogynistic ego on me because it will backfire on
you. Who do you think you are talking to? some idiot?
|
3049 |
724) Arminius, 27.05.2015, 00:01, 01:02, 01:42, 16:39, 17:17, 17:48, 18:19, 21:26 (3050-3057)
In consideration of the fact that humans control, want to control, and have to control humans because of the human will to recognition, appreciation, acceptance, acknowledgement, tribute, credit, thus to power, the probability of the realisation of that limitless capabilities you are talking about (**), is unfortunately reduced.Perhaps you are also interested in the following thread (**|**).
Arbiter of Change wrote:
Four questions, please, Arbiter (b.t.w.: the spelling of the German Arbeiter which means worker is very similar to the English arbiter - if "arbiter" did not lack the e, then it would be even the same spelling):1) Is your disliking about the ILP moderation strong enough to answer
the question of this thread with no?
|
3052 |
Let's backpedal a little bit. **
Do you think »not a theist« and »atheist« mean the same thing or mean different things? **
3053 |
I didn't vote.
Other complaints I have is that half the mods are almost never here .... **
Why is Dan no practising moderator anymore? ** **
... and only Ucc ever actually participates in discussions. **
Some good things are that the other half of mods are active on an almost daily basis and do their job properly. **
I just dislike the overall style of moderation I described in my post above, where a person can blatantly troll and spew non-philosophy but get away with it, but one insult and everybody gets all jumpy. **
3054 |
3055 |
I apparently voted No before the middle of January. I suppose that is because I often enough feel there should be stricter moderation. **
I think the ban on insults--verbal violence, active aggression--is a good thing, but as you say that does not cut it. Often enough I feel there are too many cretins, or too much cretinousness. I just found out this word etymologically derives from »Christian«! **
And indeed, what I mean is people who are--often enough suspiciously--cocksure about their positions. **
3056 |
50% for »yes«, 30% for »no«, and 20% for »I don't know«. ** **
3057 |
Not sure if this is the right place for a discussion on my custom title. **
Then again, the mods are free to split it off from this thread (something I think they should perhaps do more often--though they may have good reasons for doing it as seldom as possible). Also, it's your thread.
»Supremacist« by itself can also be short for »white supremacist«. »Philosophical supremacist« would then mean »a white supremacist who is philosophical«, whatever that means. I'm a philosophical supremacist in the sense that »philosophical« takes the place of »white«. Thus »supremacist« in my title means I believe »that one group of people is better than all other groups and should have control over them« (Merriam-Webster)--that group being the philosophers. So yeah, I believe ILP should be moderated so as to most advance philosophy. I understand, though, that to that end the love of ILovePhilosophy must, in cases of a conflict of interest, take precedence over the love of philosophy.
Arminius wrote:
It derives from the French. ** **
From the French word for »Christian«, which is cognate with the English word. **
I consciously did not exclude myself. As I wrote elsewhere, I have become »a Value Philosopher--that is, I now acknowledge, and in fact insist, that my worldview is in the first place a value and only in the second place a fact. It is my will that the world be will to power and nothing besides.« **
That's only insofar as I'm a philosopher, though. **
725) Arminius, 28.05.2015, 01:04, 01:04, 02:32, 18:20, 18:58, 19:59 (3058-3063)
Amorphos wrote:
If my translation of your word inventive is correct, then I must disappoint you, because it is a historical fact that Germany is the most inventive nation in the world - by far.
Mutcer wrote:
I'm sorry, Mutcer. Your conclusions are false, because your definitions and preconditions are false.And concerning to the thread you mentioned, I have to say again that your conclusions are false because your definitions and preconditions are false. It is our logic itself that tells us that God can be beyond of logic - as well as issues of love, ethics, aestetics, emotions, etc. can be beyond of logic. The spiritual engagement with that what can be is one of the main aspects of metaphysics and - in the case of God - of theology. If you want to critisise or even deny God, theology, theism, and theists, you have to know what you want to critisise or even deny, thus you have to know what God, theology, theism, and theist mean. And the statement God is not fully explainable by logic does not mean God does not exist. Your arguments in that said thread are as full of repetitions, especially repeated questions as in this thread, and I could not find anything like that what you and two other ILP members had allegedly shown.We - the human beings - are not merely luxury beings but also beings of transcendence. If we were not such transcendence beings, then it would not be possible to think about any transcendental phenomenon.
Brevel Monkey wrote:
How do we decide what is »intelligent«. An IQ test is a subjective definition of intelligence. Even a pure test of computational ability is still, in some senses, subjective. As soon as you start trying to make »more intelligent beings«, you are relying on our own, flimsy definition of what intelligence means.An IQ test can refer to persons and societies. IQ tests are not entirely objective but at least also not entirely subjective.Brevel Monkey wrote:
Yes, that's absolutely right. And: The longer the process of the arriving in the world the more intelligent the living beings who arrive.
Sauwelios wrote:
But - at least - you said this:Sauwelios wrote:
Moderators with enough will to power probably mean a stricter moderation.
Sauwelios wrote:
I noticed it, but I decided to not mention it, because I did not want to derail my own thread; and that is als the reason for this post: the risk of derailment is given. So, please, keep to the point: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?.So you, Arbiter (or Arbeiter [nobody noticed?], or Arsebiter) and Sauwelios, are not satisfied with the ILP moderation and have well founded, justified, reasoned arguments.What can we do in order to get a better ILP moderation?
Yes. Like I said several times (for example in your other thread):
|
726) Arminius, 29.05.2015, 02:38, 02:48, 03:25, 04:11, 14:52, 15:33, 16:06, 16:52, 17:25, 17:44, 17:54, 19:11, 19:55, 22:08, 22:23 (3064-3078)
Mutcer wrote:
NO. Newborns have nothing to do with that because of the definition(s) and the precondition(s). According to your false definitions (if you have any definition at all!) and your false preconditions everyone could be an athesit because of the lack of being a theist. So I was correct when I said:
Purgatorius (allegedly an ancestor of the human beings):Mutcer wrote:
NO. It does NOT require intellectual processing for a newborn baby to not be a theist, because a newborn and other children have nothing to do with the definitions and preconditions you want to have for your classification.Mutcer wrote:
That is - again - nonsense, Mutcer, because godbeliever and theist do not mean the same - the reason for that are - again - the definitions. In order to believe in God you do not have to intellctually process as much information about God as you need in the case of theism. If you believe in God you do not have to challenge God, but if you are a theist, an atheist, or an antitheist that is already one of the preconditions.Do you know what that means?
Phyllo wrote:
No. We do not need it. And that is one of the reasons why babies can and should never be defined as atheists, not even as godbelievers, perhaps also not even as believers.
Mutcer wrote:
NO. Again and again: Newborns have nothing to do with that.Look also here (**|**).
Amorphos wrote:
It is not quite sure that the Chinese have the highest national average IQ. However. What I said about the arriving in the world was meant in a more evolutionarily anthropological than currently national sense, although the arriving in the world has also to do with the current nations - of course. The Chinese nation can and does learn from the most of the European nations, because they were the first arriving nations. But the arriving in the world has not only to do with intelligence but also with responsibility, and - unfortunately - it is just the responsibility that lacks more and more, although it should grow more and more. So there is an error in the modern world - the lack of responsibility -, and this error is mainly caused by another error - the greed.Perhaps the Chinese nation will cause a huge catastrophe because of this two learned errors: (1) the greed and (2) its main effect - the lack of responsibility.
Sauwelios wrote:
Yes, but it is an option. A good webforum does not need to have many but good members. It is a matter more of quality than of quantity that shows how good a webforum is. If ILP banks more on quantity than on quality, then it will lose members who bank on quality (and I will be among them). ILP should bank on more quality and hazard the less cruel consequences, because it is better to take a quantitative loss than a qualitative loss.Sauwelios wrote:
Yes, but perhaps also leading to a better quality.So the change of the ILP moderation is a risk, and probably Carleas does not want to risk anything.P.S.) I do not hope that I am going to be banned because of this post.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. Intelligence and careful attention are two of the most important components of the quality I mentioned (see above).
Amorphos wrote:
It was not my intention to praise the Europeans, but nevertheless: the European nations were the first "arriving" nations. Nations are typical European. The Chinese did not know what nations were before they "met" them for the first time.Amorphos wrote:
Yes.Amorphos wrote:
If we "merely" look at the present and the near future, yes, but did you notice that I also used the future tense by the word will? My estimation is that in the future the Europeans as the West will play a less meaningful role than in the near future and than they do today.
Mutcer wrote:
You are confusing logic with definition.If 1 + 1 = 2, then that does not prove that the word two means the number 2.A newborn human is NOT a not-theist or atheist, or antitheist, or theist, because a newborn human has nothing to do wit that. The definitions and preconditions exclude children (thus also newborns); thus a newborn human is neither a godbeliever nor a theist, atheist, antitheist.Arminius wrote:
|
Features | Lexemes | ||
Theist | Atheist | Antitheist | |
Living being | yes | yes | yes |
Human being | yes | yes | yes |
Godbeliever | yes | no | no |
Intellectual | yes | yes | yes |
Child | no | no | no |
.... ** **
3072 |
I still fail to see the usefulness of dividing everything into two categories. In this case, the only reason seems to be to claim that atheism is »natural« for humans. **
3073 |
3074 |
Yes, that is the actual intention of the OP. This is I said earlier on this thread ---
Basically OP was indirectly suggesting that humans are born with the default sense of not believing in theism but unfortunately they were somehow forced to believe otherwise. Means, having strong disbelief in the theism is some sort of natural or default position for humans and diverting from it unnatural, hence humans should discard theism and go back to their natural state, which is having belief in the nonexistence of the god.
That is the only reason why OP tried to include agnostics into atheists through playing semantics in order to present theists as opposite to rest of all. **
3075 |
My point originally was that the Chinese grow up [arrive] quicker and are lets say at least equal in intelligence. So the point is that lengthier growing up transitions dont provide a better or more advanced product [adult human]. »Arriving« in terms of cultural and industrial advancement for nations, isnt relevant because children of all cultures grew up faster pre-20th century. Unless we say that recently the longer growing up periods have improved us. Then we would also have to say why that requires child-like form rather than beginning at adult form? **
I see. Less prominent perhaps, and the east will catch up. Imho the future will see a collective world rather than east/west dualisms etc.. **
3076 |
Does a newborn baby hold the belief that a god exists? **
3077 |
Atheism is the neutral term or what we are when we are born. **
3078 |
Note that doesn't hold a belief that a god exists is neutral. Thus, atheism can be neutral - especially in the case of newborn babies. **
727) Arminius, 30.05.2015, 00:01, 01:04, 02:43, 03:22, 04:28, 04:40, 15:44, 17:13, 17:23, 17:45, 19:05, 19:41, 22:48, 23:11, 23:21, 23:32 (3079-3099)
Amorphos wrote:
Failure is more probable because of the fragility of the bubbles or balloons.Amorphos wrote:
These balloons or bubbles are groups or societies - I call them cultures - with a same identity (they can but do not need to be nations) like, for example, the Occidental culture. But these balloons or bubbles can also be smaller groups as they were e.g. before the so-called Neolithic Revolution which led to the establishment of the agriculture and to the first towns, thus to more fragile balloons or bubbles. And because of the historical fact that these groups became bigger and bigger they also became more fragile, thus, to use the metaphor again, this small balloons or bubbles became big balloons or bubbles.Outside and - especially (!) - inside of these balloons or bubbles and their developments there are also contrary developments, and the latter are often the reason for the bursts of the balloons or bubbles , especially of the big balloons or bubbles.Now you can conclude that it is almost impossible to start as a big balloon or bubble, but it is not entirely impossible, if the balloon or bubble can be inflated in a very short time (as I said: almost impossible).In the case of China one has to say that it is a ca. 4000 years old balloon or bubble, thus the preconditions are given that it will not fail because of its cultural tradition, but it is probable that it will fail because of the changed situations and the fact that all current cultures are - more or less - also old balloons or bubbles and escape responsibility more and more, so China will probably fail because of the latter.And in the case of the so-called world society one has to say that it will probably fail before it will really start (to blow up itself as a balloons or bubbles in a very short time [see above]).
Amorphos wrote:
Yes. But because of the contrary developments I mentioned (see above) this strength shrinks by degrees, at last exponentially.Amorphos wrote:
They do what balloons usually do.Amorphos wrote:
They are fragile, but not always to the same degree, because of differences of age and influences. You may also compare them with living beings. Living beings are fragile, if you compare them with their environment, the influences. Thus these balloons or bubbles are not exactly as fragile as the real balloons and bubbles and also not exactly as fragile as living beings. And they are relatively singular because they have no other chance for existence.Amorphos wrote:
The best analogy are living beings, especially the immun systems of living beings. Immun systems are fragile, if you compare them with the environment, the influences. The weapons of an immun system and those of a culture are similar. Probably you know them from science - especially from biology / medicine (immun system) and from evolution / history (cultures).Amorphos wrote:
All societies are cultural bubbles or balloons. So also a so-called world society has no other chance than defending its bubble or balloon by its cultural immun system (b.t.w.: this immun system does not work well yet - compare for example: UNO), and if it is not able to defend itself, then it disappears, thus its bubble or balloon bursts.
This world is full of living beings. Each living being has an immun system. Immun systems are relatively fragile (see above). Nevertheless: the world is full of living beings.One living being goes, another living being comes. One group goes, another group comes. One culture goes, another culture comes. ....
Phyllo wrote:
He ignores almost everything.It is just catastrophic.
Mutcer wrote:
Such a nonsense!Mutcer, it is useless. You do not read my posts, otherwise you would know what I am saying. Your preconditions (premises) and definitions are false. Thus your conclusions are also false.So why should I continue this conservation?
Many ILP members misuse philosophy and thus also ILP. Why is the misuse of philosophy not the main aspect of the rules of a philosophy webforum named I Love Philosophy? The ILP subforum Religion and Spirituality is especially misused by those ILP members. The other subforums are less misused but also not free from misuse. Many ILP members circumvernt the valid rules (for example those that refer to ad hominems) by using false or partly false definitions, preconditions (premises) in order to troll, to derail threads, and to enforce ideologies or other political orders that have nothing to do with philosophy. Thus they are always off-topic and in violation of ILP rules but not or seldom of the main ILP rule: ad hominems are not allowed.Philosophy is not liberalism.The misuse of philosophy should be the main aspect of the rules of a philosophy webforum, especiall then, if it is named I Love Philosophy.
Copied post in another thread.
Jr Wells wrote:
I think you have read no single post of this thread. Mutcer's mistakes, errors, flaws are too obvious. If you had read my and his posts of the last pages, you would have noticed that. Please, read the posts.Without rules, without preconditions (premises) and definitions logic would not work. Mutcer either (a) ignores preconditions (premises) and definitions, or (b) his used preconditions (premises) and definitions are false. And it is always one of the both (a, b).If one says that non-atheists are atheists by ignoring that preconditions (premises) and definitions are absoluetely necessary for logic, then that statement is false. According to that statement e.g. all stones, all trees, all dogs, all cats, all monkeys, all ancestors of the humans, all humans are atheists, and that is false.
Copied post in another thread.
Zinnat wrote:
Okay. But if this process of naivete, how you call it, continues and produces more and more naivete, then it is not even possible anymore to talk about themes like tweaking the definitions.
Orb wrote:
A misuse would be nearly impossible to discover? Logical rules are better known than ad hominem rules. So a misuse is easier to discover by using logical rules than it is by using ad hominem rules. Ad hominem rules have more room for interpretation than logical rules. Thus ILP needs more quality, more intelligence and careful attention:James S. Saint wrote:
Let's have a third interim result for the question: Are you satisfied with the ILP moderation?.We have 67% for yes, 24% for no, and 9% for I don't know.Please vote!The first interim result from January, 12, 2015:Arminius wrote:
The second interim result from May, 27, 2015:Arminius wrote:
Within 3 (three) days (**|**) 6% more for yes (61% => 67%) ...!Please read the last post of this page!
Orb wrote:
For example by political correctness, because political correctness has nothing to do with logical correctness, often even not with correctness.Orb wrote:
They can, yes, but they often are not or at least not correctly but e.g. political correctly.The logical rules should be the main rules, and the ad hominem rules should be subsumed under them.Orb wrote:
Unfortunately propriety is often misused, and not seldom caused by ad hominem rules, although they are wanted to prevent misuse, but they do not satisfactorily work, because misusers can easily circumvent ad hominem rules and nevertheless be in violation of them by using other methods, especially such methods I mentioned several times in this thread.The logical rules should be the main rules, and the ad hominem rules should be the subordinated rules. Such regulations strengthen both logic and propriety. They lead to the lack of people who like ad hominems.
Zoot Allures wrote:
Philosophy can be misused, and unfotuntaely I have to add: in this times of misusing everything can be misused.Feel free to feel like being misused.Zoot Allures wrote:
Okay, dear Wittgensteinian, but philosophy and linguistics are nonetheless not the same. Logic and mathematics are also not the same.I like your focus on language. However, a little bit differentiation is okay, isn't it?
Jr Wells wrote:
Okay, if you want to call it stronger, but to me the right word in this case is weaker, because he lacks the acceptance of e.g. philosophical, especially logical rules on a philosophy forum called I Love Philosophy.However. Probably you remember this:Arminius wrote:
I mean if the ad hominem rules do not satisfactorily work, then there is already a lack of regulation, at least in an applied sense.
Zinnat wrote:
Wiki is their false god. Most of those people who have no traditional god anymore tinker a new god, at least a false god. Wiki is one of the current thousand false gods. |
728) Arminius, 31.05.2015, 01:56, 02:12, 03:42, 18:36, 19:09, 21:04, 22:10, 23:50 (3095-3102)
Jr Wells wrote:
Strengths are strengths. Weaknesses are weaknesses.Jr Wells wrote:
Do you intend to open such a thread?
James S. Saint wrote:
The philosophy problems go away but not the philosophy itself. Philosophy is something like a subspecies of language.
Amorphos wrote:
If the last human bubble will burst, then there will probably already be a stronger bubble of machines (robots, androids). Machines (robots, androids) are not humans; so the first birth of a so-called human V2 will merely have a chance then, if humans will be still alive (unless the machines will make a mistake - but the probability that they will is very low). So first of all we should speak about the future of the humans V1, as you would call them, and about the future of A.I. ....
James S. Saint wrote:
Language is more than that. Language is not merely communication, it is also information, it is a kind of pre-science and pre-philosophy. Without language one could not precisely say what is scientifically and philosophically meant. Language is needed for almost everything humans culturally do. Without language humans were no humans. Without language there were no science at all, no philosophy at all.If you used langauga only for communication, you would know nothing. If you used language only for information, you would know everything that you want to know but not for what it is worth.
Zoot Allures wrote:
I know all that. The reason why like your focus on language has much to do with the fact that I studied linguistics, although not only linguistics, and that language is one of the greatest phenomena. Regarding the ordinary language and philosophy, I have to say that Heidegger was the one who used the ordinary language for philosophy the most perfectly; but sometimes the ordinary language is more difficult to use for philosophy than the more elaborated high-level language; however, one should prefer the ordinary language but also use the more elaborated high-level language for pohilosophy, because the ordinary language lacks the elaborated forms of the high-level language and the high-level language runs into danger of being misunderstood by the recipients.
Jr Wells wrote:
Agreed!Mutcer wrote:
As I have said several times: Your conclusions are false, because your premises (preconditions) are false.Mutcer wrote:
No. It covers and clouds that word, so that its meaning becomes a new meaning (comparable with the words in Orwells newspeek).Mutcer wrote:
No. That would not be the natural state and also not the neutral state, if it is based on newborn humans, because they have nothing to do with beliefs in god, they are not able to believe in god and - above all - not able to think about any belief in god.Mutcer wrote:
That is utter nonsense, a nonsensical wordplay, used in order to make out of all humans atheists.B.t.w.: What is a negative acriminal? A newborn hyena?Mutcer wrote:
No. Absolutely no. Mutcer, you have to consider definitions and preconditions (premises) - as I told you several times. It is not allowed to connect newborns with theists, atheists, antitheists, because they can't be classified as such, the answer to the question of such a classification is always. NOT DEFINED!Mutcer wrote:
Your #4 and #5 are false. Human newborns are NOT theists, are NOT non-theists are NOT atheists, are NOT antitheists. The question whether newborns are theists, atheists (non-theists), antitheists can only be answered with NO or with NOT DEFINED!Mutcer wrote:
A newborn is not able to hold the belief that a god exists. Therfore a newborn has nothing to do with theism, atheism, and antitheism. Each logic (syllogisms and so on) fails when it comes to connect newborns with theists, atheists, and antitheists. It is not possible by definition, and all premises (preconditions) that connect them are false.Mutcer wrote:
It is sufficient. Of course. Each logic (syllogisms and so on) fails when it comes to connect newborns with theists, atheists, and antitheists. It is not possible by definition, and all premises (preconditions) that connect them are false.Mutcer, you are completely ignoring the meanings/definitions of the words/concepts of newborn, baby, child, and theist, atheist, antitheist.Your next ignoring step is that all your premises (preconditions) are also false.So all your conclusions can be nothing else than false.
Mutcer wrote:
In no category.Your categories have nothing to do with newborn babies.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------If there are the following three categories: elephants, lions, and zebras; in which category do you fall into?
Only human beings - thus no other living beings - are able to use language (I mean the human language - of course!). It was the language that made out of prehumans humans. |
729) Arminius, 01.06.2015, 00:00, 01:14, 02:23, 03:14, 16:35 (3103-3107)
The goal of Hollywood is obvious.
I meant that it can be only H1 who creates H2, and therefore we should be interested in the future of H1, because H2 has not been created yet, thus H2 will be created in the furture or never.
No tricks?
Perhaps you know this too: Passport (Klaus Doldinger u.a.), Looking Thru, 1973.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------B.t.w.: Why is there no YouTube version of Frank Zappa's Purple Lagoon from his live lp Zappa in New York? Do you know that?
Thank you. Unfortunately I can't start it because of the UMG. |
730) Herr Schütze, 02.06.2015, 04:42 (3108)
@ Mücke
Den Rücken kehren? Ja, aber wohin wollen Sie denn? Es ist in anderen Ländern noch schlimmer.Ein Land, was die die rechtschaffenen Menschen belügt, betrügt, gibt es nicht. Länder können nicht belügen und betrügen. Länder sind keine Lebewesen, schon gar nicht solche, die sich Menschen nennen. Es waren und sind Menschen, die die rechtschaffenen Menschen dieses Landes belogen, betrogen belügen, betrügen, belügen werden, betrügen werden.Ein Land, was die die rechtschaffenen Menschen ... um die Früchte ihrer Lebensarbeitszeit bringt, gibt es nicht. Länder können das nicht. Länder sind keine Lebewesen, schon gar nicht solche, die sich Menschen nennen. Es waren und sind Menschen, die die rechtschaffenen Menschen dieses Landes um die Früchte ihrer Lebensarbeitszeit brachten, bringen und bringen werden.Ein Land, was ... nicht maßhält, gibt es nicht. Länder können nicht maßhalten. Länder sind keine Lebewesen, schon gar nicht solche, die sich Menschen nennen. Es waren und sind Menschen, die nicht maßhielten, nicht maßhalten und nicht maßhalten werden.Ein Land, was ... auf die kleinen Leute spuckt, gibt es nicht. Länder können nicht spucken. Länder sind keine Lebewesen, schon gar nicht solche, die sich Menschen nennen. Es waren und sind Menschen, die dauf die kleinen Leute spuckten, spucken und spuicken werden.Das Land kann nichts dafür. Nennen sie also bitte die Namen der herrschenden Menschen - Sie wirken sonst unglaubwürdig (vielleicht zu recht).Das Land, das Sie meinen, heißt auch nicht BRD, sondern Deutschland. BRD ist ein DDR-Kürzel, das lediglich Auskunft über die echte oder angebliche Herrschaftsform eines Systems in einem bestimmten Land gibt (oftmals noch mehr über die, die glauben zu wissen, wie das zu bewerten sei), aber rein gar nichts über das Land selbst. |
==>
|