WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz
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

<= [1431][1432][1433][1434][1435][1436][1437][1438][1439][1440] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
2017 160
2018 30
2019 18
2020 202
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
1150
1180
1198
1400
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
16,16%
2,61%
1,53%
16,86%
 
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0050
0,0044
0,0198
0,0384
0,0702
0,0819
0,1219
0,1581
0,1726
0,1885
0,1813
0,1754
0,1946
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1579
1950
1102
79
26
671
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3879
5829
6931
7010
7036
7707
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
33,33%
 
987,50%
55,75%
90,77%
32,69%
235,28%
68,65%
50,27%
18,91%
1,14%
0,37%
9,54%
 
  K.  
S. E.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2,82
1,21
1,64
2,11
7,02
6,61
13,83
6,89
2,63
1,44
3,32
 
  K.  
T.
0,0039
0,0027
0,0027
0,0082
0,0055
0,0055
0,0055
0,0109
0
0,4328
0,2658
0,6721
0,4630
4,4219
4,3260
5,3279
3,0192
0,2164
0,0712
1,8333
 
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,143
1,143
2,486
1,807
1,723
1,805
3,770
4,569
5,888
6,027
5,941
5,873
5,505
 
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0057
0,0050
0,0491
0,0693
0,1210
0,1479
0,4596
0,7225
1,0164
1,1362
1,0843
1,0302
1,0710
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 1431) Kathrina, 03.03.2021, 00:44, 00:48, 02:26, 02:57, 03:04, 03:14, 17:34 (7961-7967)

7961

Why have you (**) been banned from KTS?

Just for fun?

7962


Kathrina wrote:

„Magnus Anderson wrote:

»I am not sure Sculptor is a troll. He seems to be merely unpleasant (not that such should be tolerated.) Lev Muishkin was worse, I think.« **

But then you couldn't have petitioned either, because there are no rules in this webforum about who is a troll and who is a stalker, although you can find out pretty easily by going through post by post, thread by thread. You can figure it out! Funny that »Facebook« as the largest web forum in the world has „fact checkers“ as censors and the small web forum »ILovePhilosophy« doesn't even have a moderation.

I have given many more references than you have and, unlike you, have also spoken of stalking. Have you ever had to endure stalking? I have looked at the relevant posts again.

And as for the communists, well, it's clear anyway that they tend to cover for a communist. There would have to be a neutral moderation. But there is not. We should renew the moderation in a neutral direction. See Great Again's thread »Renewing the Moderation« (**|**). But will such a renewed moderation work?

What else remains as a poster is the ignore list.“ ** **

Mags J. wrote:

„@ Kathrina.

I quite liked Lev, but trolling others around ain’t a great thing to be doing. People get off on doing it, I guess.“ **

Ierrellus summed it up quite well:

Ierrellus wrote:

„You want a good example of a stalker. Try the one that rides my ass.“ **

Ierrellus wrote:

„Lev Muishkin. He follows most of my posts with ad homs.“ **

7963

QUESTIONS ARE QUESTIONS!

Gib wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Is humanity the best or dangerous?

»Humanity« is one of the most misused and subsequently misunderstood words.

As its main goal, humanity should have the harmonious education of the valuable dispositions typical of human beings. But in practice, it has often been the other way around.

I would like to know your opinion about this.

Thank you.

Humanity?

Every day (!) about 10000 ABORTIONS in USA, Canada, EU. And the difference between RICH and POOR today is about as big as the difference between an elephant and a bacterium (!). Not to mention the wars!« ** **

Your questions are all over the place.“ **

And that's a good thing!

Gib wrote:

„Is humanity the best or dangerous? Why so dichotomous? Why not sometimes good, sometimes not so good? And dangerous to who? Other animals? The environment? To itself?“ **

Look at my signature.

BEST, DANGEROUS, DANGEROUS, BEST

I combined the question of whether music is best with the question of whether Trump is dangerous and the question of whether Biden is dangerous.

Is Music the Best?Is Donald Trump Dangerous?Is Donald Trump Dangerous?Is Humanity the Best or Dangerous?

You can discuss anything, you just have to want to.

Gib wrote:

„In what way do you think the word »humanity« is misunderstood? Is it not as simple as the community of all human beings? If this is wrong, who are you to say you know the right meaning?“ **

I am Kathrina. Hello.

Gib wrote:

„And what is the »harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings«? And why should humanity have that as its goal?“ **

This all is what some of the ILP members (me inclusive) should discuss. Others are seemingly not capable of doing it.

Gib wrote:

„By the sounds of it, you think we're going in the opposite direction, and that's a bad thing.“ **

Who is „we“?

Gib wrote:

„So have you made up your mind? Is humanity overall dangerous?“ **

This all is what some of the ILP members (me inclusive) should discuss. Others are seemingly not capable of doing it.

Gib wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»I would like to know your opinion about this.« ** **

About what?“ **

See above and below. « ** **

Gib wrote:

„Narrow down your question.“ **

No.

Look. If you want a discussion, you should think about the topic anyway. The more room you give for such a discussion, the better the quantity and quality of the thought contributions.

You see it differently, because you would rather have an established basis that has already been checked off beforehand, to which you then only want to say „yes“, so that you can finally embrace everyone again.

I will not change a single word in the opening post. Besides, you can see that the opening post is very well received.

Thank you and have a nice day.

7964

The question whether or not human kindness has destroyed more than it has nurtured is indeed interesting (**), and I would add the question whether or not nurturing causes destroyment and destroyment causes nurturing.

7965

Attano wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»›Humanity‹ is one of the most misused and subsequently misunderstood words.« ** **

Yes, I agree. Together with »nature«.“ **

Yes (e.g.: nature is not capable of selecting). And other words too.

7966

That (**) was crazy, really. Stalking, trolling, throwing ad hominems against Ierrellus without end.

7967

For humanists and so-called „humanists“ (), humanity has a very high value. However, most humanists do not answer the question of what humanity actually is. There are many others who, for that reason or not, have arrived at an interpretation of humanity that not only calls humanity into question, but even turns the very meaning of the word upside down. But the original meaning itself is also not quite clear, because already at the time when this word appeared - in antiquity - mischief was done with it.

Not I, dear Gib, but Cicero presented the harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings with regard to reason and mind as the main goal of humanity. This should be accompanied by the highest development of human culture and morality and accordingly behavior towards fellow men, indeed towards all creatures. The idea of humanity experienced its actual foundation and development in the 18th century in the era of New Humanism. For Kant, humanity is „the sense of the good in community with others in general; on the one hand, the general feeling of participation, on the other hand, the ability to be able to communicate intimately and generally, which qualities, combined together, constitute the sociability appropriate to humanity, by which it differs from animal confinement“.

Humanity as a value can really be understood as „the best“ (well, with values one rather says „the highest“), as for example music can be evaluated as the best. Due to the fact that humanity has been misinterpreted and misunderstood because of the misuse, humanity can also be understood as something that is dangerous, because in its name wars, killings of people and many other creatures, environmental destruction, pollution of the planet Earth and also already its environment have been carried out. The „human rights“ have been used more and more only by a few people in the sense of destruction, murder and pollution for reasons of greed for power. This will become worse and worse in the future if this crime will not be stopped. But what can you expect when it is the criminals themselves who (are supposed to) „stop“ and „punish“ their own crimes?

As if the contamination of the Earth would not be enough, the few - the rulers - have also littered the cosmic environment of the Earth, expose all creatures to the sprayed and vaccinated poisons, high-energy radiation (5G, 6G) and the control of AI. These few, but rulers, make the middle class - the Western middle class -, pay for all this. And 99.9999% of all humans are supposed to subordinate themselves to all this voluntarily.

I already said all that in a shorter form in my opening post, and the others got it right the first time, which is why I'm still wondering what you have your problems with, Gib.

It is not always necessary to explain what one means with a lot of sentences or even a lot of books or websites, even more so when one wants to have a discussion. Most of the time, a few sentences are much more useful for driving a discussion.

 

NACH OBEN 1432) Kathrina, 04.03.2021, 00:39, 19:25; Kultur, 04.03.2021, 23:33 (7968-7970)

7968

Obsrvr wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Is God there in any situation?

And to what extent is there a relationship between God and any situation at all?

Do you have any suggestions?« ** **

I accept the notion that God IS the situation itself. QED.“ **

God is the situation itself? An interesting statement. But the situation is the present state in a room or space. So God is this present state in a room or space? Then he must be everything at this moment in this room or space - except me. Is that right?

QED.

7969

Gib wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»I already said all that in a shorter form in my opening post, and the others got it right the first time, which is why I'm still wondering what you have your problems with, Gib.« ** **

Proly 'cause they went with the general gist of what you said, which I stated above that I got. But I like to get a bit more specific because otherwise I feel like it's guesswork and that I'm just expressing my own thoughts rather than addressing your question. That plus the question addresses topics that are too broad and complex to have a simple yes/no answer.“ **

That's right. It is also one of the main reasons why I do not want to define the meaning of the word „humanity“ or its definition very precisely myself. This would anyway irritate more than enlighten.

Since technology and subsequently economy, media and politics have become frantic, it is hardly possible to keep track of exactly who changes what, when, where and why. Also, many word meanings change in the process. This can go so far that a „neo-speak“ (Orwell said „newspeak“, which he referred however to the communism) results alone due to the technical development.

If one assumes in any case that „humanity“ is rather dangerous than e.g. best, then one should (be allowed to) expect that the word for it will either be changed in such a way that people understand its meaning, how dangerous „humanity“ is, or else the word meaning will remain the old one (e.g. in the sense of Kant or Humboldt), but then people will have to learn to turn this meaning of the word around, because if people will not do this, they will not notice how much they are lied to and deceived (we have enough examples of this from history, especially the communist examples since 1917).

Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.

Gib wrote:

„Encode and I came up with this rendition of what the harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings means:

Gib wrote:

»I think Kathrina is trying to say that we can all have a common education that we all share (harmonious) about our differences (predispositions). <-- At this point, I think ›typical of human beings‹ speaks for itself.« **

**

Wilhelm von Humboldt, the brother of Alexander von Humboldt, defined the task of the state as providing external protection and internal legal security, but otherwise holding back as much as possible and leaving as much freedom as possible for individual and national development.

Many will perhaps prefer to see the word „national“ replaced by the word „global“, but we have never had a „global society“ and we would first have to experience a „global society“ in order to be able to judge whether it can also function in the same way as a national one (I don't think so, because a „global society“ can only lead to oppression, surveillance and violence, many deaths).

Gib wrote:

„But since you said the idea was originally Cicero's, I'll have to look it up.

You can have abstract and exotic definitions of „humanity“ but I don't get what's so wrong with „the community of human beings on the planet Earth“. <-- I think that's the definition. Simple. Common sense. Creative and profound definitions like Kant's are fine ....“ **

Yes.

Gib wrote:

„... I wouldn't say that most people misunderstand what humanity really means just because there are these esoteric definitions out there. <-- Those are the fringe ones.“ **

There are not or at least not only esoteric definitions. There are simply too many misunderstandings, because there are too many misinterpretations, and „controlled misinterpretations“ can also be called „ intentionally misused interpretations“.

The masses as the huge majority in any society are not interested in „definitions“ anyway, but use words, and words have meanings. But even in meanings the masses are not very interested, although they should actually know that words always have meanings.

The masses prefer to let think instead of thinking themselves.

So again: Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.

Gib wrote:

„Anyway, on the question of whether humanity is overall good or overall evil, I'm inclined to say evil--I don't have any facts to back that up, I'm just cynical--but I must also repeat this is a very heavy question with no clear yes/no answer. How does one even measure the overall good or evil that comes out of human beings? And shouldn't one have to define »good« and »evil« first? Get some consensus from a reasonable number of people? And should we be judging the overall good/evil of humanity as a whole, or would such a judgment be meaningless in light of the fact that individuals are good/evil?“ **

Yes, but if you really like to go into the details, you should have noticed that I beat you to it, too, because I intentionally did not speak of „good versus evil“, but of „best versus dangerous“, because I juxtaposed something morally evaluated with a rather natural experience in life.

And my further intention was to leave it up to discussion how to relate the two.

Gib wrote:

Questions, questions, questions. <-- You see KathrineKathrina? That's where my mind goes with questions that are this broad and general... I try to give my answer but end up posing more questions.
^ But at least I got something started.“ **

Yes, you did. Thank you.

7970

My username, my indication of my location, my avatar and my signature are supposed to point out that there is something which is becoming rarer and rarer, because it has become civilization, i.e. degenerated culture, but that should be striven for all the more as a non-degenerate form, if that is at all possible and not simply a fateful development, something which is hardly becoming, but has almost only become.

Cultures exist almost only as a degenerated or fossilized, frozen, senile forms. The English language bears witness to this. In English, when culture is spoken of, the word „civilization“ is usually used, thus admitted that culture has become a degenerated, fossilized, frozen, senile form.

The word „Kultur“ is meant to indicate this, and that is why it is not written in English, because among all occidental languages, English is the most degenerated language - no wonder, it has become the world's „lingua franca“.

Whether one tries to explain cultural degeneration in terms of fate or certain memes, it remains pretty much the same. What we should be thinking about, in my opinion, concerns two questions:
1) How can we shape cultural decline (degeneration) so that we can reasonably endure it?
2) Will a new culture (according to Spengler, it would be the ninth) come?

Sonneuntergang und Sonnenaufgang

 

NACH OBEN 1433) Kathrina, 05.03.2021, 00:06, 00:19, 00:25; Alf, 05.03.2021, 02:07, 02:25, 18:57, 19:17, 19:41, 20:27 (7971-7979)

7971

Encode Decode:

„Kathrina wrote:

»With ›humanity‹ I meant both: ›humanity‹ and ›human kindness‹. The English language, unfortunately, does not distinguish so much in this matter. And I intentionally avoided the word ›humanism‹.« ** **

You can call me Encode or Aaron.

It is important to begin thinking about this at a more basic level - the level of people or indeed the individual. I will give my thoughts starting with people and proceed from there. I think human kindness is important, even in this day and age. On the other hand, kindness that people take for granted is a bad thing. I can see how human kindness is for the best but also dangerous. I don't think we can make up our mind about this given that people, in general, are incongruous with respect to each other. Humanity, as it stands, is not harmonious(in both senses that google lists: forming a pleasing or consistent whole; free from disagreement or dissent). I do however have to mention that this could be argued from one side or the other. Is human kindness for the best or is it dangerous? This would make for an interesting debate. In recent times, however (as is evident even on this forum) it is apparent that a debate needs an audience with a healthy mind. **

It basically doesn't matter who you start with, Encode, one human or all humans. This was also known in ancient times. But go ahead, please.

7972

Pandora? Do you (**) mean the ILP Pandora?

7973

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Hey, you’re (**) a Biden’s biotch, report on Biden’s triumphs with all those flattering NYT and Washington Post articles. Share why he’s our savior. Explain why it’s great that Biden started a war in Syria.“ **

I would also be very interested in that.

Didn't he once say that he fought as a soldier against the victorious Vietnamese? Now he is fighting again against Asian people, this time West Asian people - the Syrians -, and he is fighting (again?) with Joe Biden this fight against a technically, but not morally inferior people - like back then in Vietnam.

Kriegsverbrechen der USA in Vietnam

Man. This text would have to be accompanied by many musical instruments and I would have to put it on the music market with the title: „The Universal Soldier“.

„He's the Universal Soldier
and he really is to blame.
His orders come from far away no more.
They come from here and there and you and me,
and brothers, can't you see
this is not the way to put an end to war.“ **

The United States of America should not be allowed to have any weapons at all, no nuclear weapons, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no missiles either, no airplanes, no tanks, no soldiers, no rifles, no guns, no knives. The United States of America should be allowed to have only stones (and some hands to be able to use the stones).

The US-Americans have started enough wars and brought them over the whole mankind, over the whole planet Earth.

7974

Kathrina wrote:

„Since technology and subsequently economy, media and politics have become frantic, it is hardly possible to keep track of exactly who changes what, when, where and why. Also, many word meanings change in the process. This can go so far that a „neo-speak“ (Orwell said „newspeak“, which he referred however to the communism) results alone due to the technical development.

If one assumes in any case that „humanity“ is rather dangerous than e.g. best, then one should (be allowed to) expect that the word for it will either be changed in such a way that people understand its meaning, how dangerous „humanity“ is, or else the word meaning will remain the old one (e.g. in the sense of Kant or Humboldt), but then people will have to learn to turn this meaning of the word around, because if people will not do this, they will not notice how much they are lied to and deceived (we have enough examples of this from history, especially the communist examples since 1917).

Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.“ ** **

I think that a code of anthropotechnics must be formulated. This would retroactively also change the meaning of classical or idealistic humanism / new humanism - because with it it would be revealed and written down that humanitas does not only imply the friendship of human being with human being; it also always implies - and with increasing explicitness - that human being represents the higher power for human being.

7975

Kathrina wrote:

„Obsrvr wrote:

»Alf wrote:

›Is God there in any situation?

And to what extent is there a relationship between God and any situation at all?

Do you have any suggestions?‹ ** **

I accept the notion that God IS the situation itself. QED.« **

God is the situation itself? An interesting statement. But the situation is the present state in a room or space. So God is this present state in a room or space? Then he must be everything at this moment in this room or space - except me. Is that right?

QED.“ ** **

It's like this:

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Real God = The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = »The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is«.“ **

Isn't it?

7976

And why is it not like that (**|**), as you (**) said?

You are not drunk again (**|**), are you?

I hope you can take a joke. Otherwise excuse me, please.

7977

You (**) equate God with consciousness, and your soul is synonymous with a consciousness, as you say, so accordimg to that: God is your soul. Right?

7978

Carleas, are you okay?

My posts have not been counted correctly. This seems to apply only to posts in certain subforums. Could you correct that, please?

If not, then change my name to „Carleas“ in light blue color, please.

By the way:

I am still wondering, how Mags can hear what Meno has written (**).

Please correct that too, Carleas.

If not, then change my name to „Carleas“ in light blue color, please.

7979


Obsrvr wrote:

„Programming of children and naive university students - along with their overwhelming communistic ethics brainwashing.“ **

That's the point.

 

 

NACH OBEN 1434) Kultur, 06.03.2021, 00:47 (7980)

7980

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»My username, my indication of my location, my avatar and my signature are supposed to point out that there is something which is becoming rarer and rarer, because it has become civilization, i.e. degenerated culture, but that should be striven for all the more as a non-degenerate form, if that is at all possible and not simply a fateful development, something which is hardly becoming, but has almost only become.« ** **

It's an indication of the power of social engineering and propaganda, in the post-war era. The victors »write the history books« - official narrative - and then may criminalize all alternate narratives that challenge it.

Kultur wrote:

»Cultures exist almost only as a degenerated or fossilized, frozen, senile forms. The English language bears witness to this. In English, when culture is spoken of, the word ›civilization‹ is usually used, thus admitted that culture has become a degenerated, fossilized, frozen, senile form.Yes, cultivating multiple interpretations and variants of it called ›civilizations‹.

Kultur wrote:

»The word ›Kultur‹ is meant to indicate this, and that is why it is not written in English, because among all occidental languages, English is the most degenerated language - no wonder, it has become the world's ›lingua franca‹.« ** **

Agreed.

And it is rooted in a interpretation of Latin which also bastardized the Hellenic original. Much is lost in translation, just as genius does not birth geniuses.

Kultur wrote:

»Whether one tries to explain for cultural degeneration with fate or certain memes, it remains pretty much the same. What we should be thinking about, in my opinion, concerns two questions:

1) How can we shape the cultural decline (degeneration) in such a way that we can bear it to some extent?« ** **

Yes, and I've given my own opinion in the form of a pop-cultural allegory in Zombie Apocalypse. I've already described how and why „zombification occurs“ and how it spreads and what it means, so the allegory is relevant.

How would you survive, dear friend, a zombie apocalypse, if it were real? In my contexts it is real, though it is not as it is artistically displayed in movies and television but it is displayed in everyday use of language, exposing a gradual dumbind-down and disconnection form empirical reality and the past. A linguistically transmittable dis-ease can only find a »vaccine« in linguistics. I've offered my opinion in this regard, as well, by indicating that the best medicine is not interventional but preventative, and that once disease has taken hold of an organism then time is of the essence.

The psychosomatic symptomology has been written years ago Nihilism: Signs & Symptoms along with the causes ... though some details have been revised. This is a falsifiable mental disorder, which is witnessed everyday in its extreme manifestations as gender dysphoria.

Kultur wrote:

»2) Will a new culture (according to Spengler, it would be the ninth) come?« ** **

Given what you've said thus far I cannot believe this would be in doubt.

Everything, including superorganism founded on memes - organism are founded on genes - go in cycles. Every variant is never absolutely the same as the previous - due to chaos, producing mutations/corruptions, and the determining effects of free-will. What is in doubt is if the Indo-Euroepan race will survive another near-extiction event, as it did at least twice before? - this is in question particularly for the European branch, and less so for the Indo branch, and the reasons is the effects of a parasitical meme that has infested European man. Does Europe still have the autoimmune virility to fight off this infestation and return to tis origins? This is in doubt. Here, the zombie narrative returns. What would people that have become immune to this parasitical disease that causes zombification do? How? I would think that the first thing a man finding himself in such a situation would think to do is find others who, like him, have evaded the disease that creates zombification. This forum is a - let's say - commune of the uninfected.“ **

A good comment. Thank you.

 

NACH OBEN 1435) Kultur, 07.03.2021, 00:19, 00:30, 00:34, 00:38, 01:37, 00:40; Alf, 07.03.2021, 02:55, 03:31; Kultur, 07.03.2021, 19:41; Alf, 07.03.2021, 20:44, 22:08; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 07.03.2021, 22:22; Great Again, 07.03.2021, 23:58 (7981-7993)

7981

I know Spengler's books so well that I sometimes think I would have written them myself. But the English version of Spengler's texts is a little different. Through the translation, some things are neglected or exaggerated, some things are even misrepresented. This can be due to the translation itself, to the translator, or to a translation problem in general.

The German word „Kultur“ should not have been translated into English in Spengler's case. The word „civilisation“ is often used in English when „culture“ or more properly „Kultur“ should be said. The words „civilisation“ and „Zivilisation“, the words „civilisation“ and „Kultur“ and the words „culture“ and „Kultur“ are not exactly congruent either. Unfortunately, the German linguistic practice after World War II, more precisely since „1968“, even more precisely since 1989/'90 (fall of the Berlin Wall) has adapted a bit to the English linguistic practice, so that the translation problem is not as important today as it was in Spengler's time. But nevertheless the difference is still there, as the following diagram shows:

Kultur, Culture, Zivilisation, Civilisation

7982

I don't agree with every word Spengler wrote, but I would say that he is the philosopher I agree with the most. If one can also understand Goethe as a philosopher - and one can, as Spengler also thought -, then Goethe is the one I agree with the second most. He is followed by the philosophers Hegel, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, N. Hartmann, N. Luhmann (supposedly more of a „sociologist“) and last but not least Sloterdijk. Now you can classify me philosophically a little bit.

7983

@ Satyr (the films you posted).

„Asimov's vision is absolutely horrific“, said the man with the Eastern European accent. I agree with that.

I have a few small things to correct on the 2nd film. However, they are not so important from a philosophical point of view.

7984

Satyr wrote:

„How would you define the terms?

Capture the Spenglerean essence of it.“ **

Which Terms do you mean? The Terms „Kultur“, „culture“, „Zivilisation“, „civilisation“?

7985

Hello, Kvasir.

I am now registered.

7986

One can only feel very sorry for the children.

7987

You have misquoted me, Mr. Meno (**).

It is not allowed to misquote someone. You have done it so even three times.

I never said what you put between my lines and made it look like a quote.

You have made yourself guilty by misquoting me, probably even intentionally.

You can now be legally prosecuted. Remember that anything additional you say from now on can also be used against you.

7988

Mags J. wrote:

„Why should I not be able to hear (do you mean read?) what Meno has written?“ **

For purely physical reasons, it is not possible to hear that and what someone writes who is thousands of kilometers away.

Mags J. wrote:

„Where and why, is everyone coming back from?“ **

I took a break and posted elsewhere later, before I started posting here again.

Mags J. wrote:

„It’s been a steady stream of past members returning for some months now.“ **

Is that true?

Questions over questions.

7989

In German, „Zivilisation“ is on the one hand the hyponym to the hyperonym „Kultur“, but on the other hand can also be congruent with „Kultur“ sometimes, i.e. both can sometimes also be synonyms depending on the text and context.

In English, „civilisation“ („civilization“) is on the one hand congruent with the German word „Zivilisation“, on the other hand partly congruent with the German word „Kultur“.

Moreover, „Kultur“ still has meanings in German that do not exist at all in the English word „culture“, just because the civilisation (Zivilisation) has destroyed more in English speaking societies.

Kultur, Culture, Zivilisation, Civilisation

If two different nations, which are closely related to each other, have different opinions about Kultur/culture and Zivilisation/civilisation or even about Kultur and culture, sometimes also about Zivilisation and civilisation, because already the meanings of these words are not congruent, then this is even more true for two different Kulturen/cultures or Zivilisationen/civilisations. The linguistic differences between the peoples are like different accents of a (universal) language, a language family etc., where each language, so to speak, acts similarly to a „net“ thrown over reality (in the different linguistic communities the meshes of this net are not of the same size and do not run everywhere in the same way); and even finer differences, fine-tunings, so to speak, e.g. dialects (geo[graphic-]linguistic), sociolects (sociolinguistic), even idiolects ([ego-]idiolinguistic).

I have already indicated in the opening post (**|**) how Spengler understands Kulturen (plural form of „Kultur“). For Spengler, Kulturen are „living units“, and these „living units“ live their cycle like other living beings, „real living beings“ (creatures), as the colloquial language would say. Spengler understands cultures (Kulturen) in such a way, as I said it above: as an umbrella term, as „hyperonomy“ or „superordination“, as the linguists say. From Spengler's (and also my) point of view, Zivilization is the downfall of a Kultur, its unfruitfulness (childlessness, infertility), its nihilism, its decadence. The Kultur does not become something completely different when it becomes Zivilization. It remains the same, but just becomes its Weltstädte (world cities, cosmopolitan cities), its own form of unfruitfulness (childlessness, infertility), nihilism, decadence, its downfall, its decline, its decay, its senility, its dementia.

The „Zvilization of a Kultur“ can also be called the „winter of a Kultur“. I myself call the „Zvilization of a Kultur“ both the „autumn (fall) of a Kultur“ and the „winter of a Kultur“. This is because I have a different time frame than Spengler, to whom „Zivilisation“ is „Winter“ only. But that is not what you have asked for.

According to Spengler, a Kultur is an organism in the sense of Goethe's morphology. Consequently, the subtitle of Spengler's main work is called „Umrisse einer Morphologie der Weltgeschichte“ („Outlines of a Morphology of World History“). In the first volume of his main work, Spengler still conceived Kulturen (cultures) as monads, which means that he assumed that Kulturen (cultures) can't understand each other. In the second volume of his main work he relativized this monadological concept a little bit.

Not to be separated from a culture is its Ursymbol („primal symbol“) and its Seelenbild („soul image“), both of which are coupled to the landscape surrounding the culture, because, according to Spengler, the experience of spatial depth is decisive:

„The fate-directed life appears, as soon as we awake, in the sense life as felt depth. Everything stretches, but it is not yet »the space«, nothing solidified in itself, but a constant stretching from the moved here to the moved there. The experience of the world is exclusively linked to the essence of depth - of distance - whose pull in the abstract system of mathematics is called »third dimension« besides length and width. .... The experience of depth is - on this insight everything else depends - a completely involuntary and necessary as well as completely creative act, through which the I receives its world, I would like to say dictated to it.“

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 217-218 (translated by me). **

„The depth experience stretches the sensation to the world. The being directed of the life was called with meaning as non-reversibility and a rest of this decisive characteristic of the time lies in the compulsion to be able to feel also the depth of the world always from itself, never from the horizon to itself. The moving body of all animals and of man is designed towards this direction. One moves »forward«- towards the future, approaching with every step not only the goal, but also the age - and feels every look backward also as the look at something past, already ordered to the history.“

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 223-224 (translated by me). **

Without landscape, without depth experience, without primal symbol, without soul image, without relative selfhood (selfreference), without a breed as cultivation, as culture (!), Kultur in Spengler's sense is not understandable.

The English word „civilization“ never means the German word „Kultur“ in Spengler's sense, but denotes only a part of it, its final stage, which may or may not be subdivided again into sub-stages, if one wishes.

The English word „culture“ for the German word „Kultur“ in Spengler's sense can be problematic too. One has to know what Spengler meant by „Kultur“.

When I used to ask a person whose first language was English what he/she understood by „culture“, I often only got to hear: „education“ in the sense of „teaching/learning“, „schooling“, most especially „art“. But this is too little for a speaker with German as first language. Although the old understanding of the German „Kultur“ is also disappearing more and more in the public, it is still completely understandable to the most, even almost self-evident.

If one means the German word „Kultur“ in Spengler's sense, one should not use the English word „civilisation“ („civilization“). Also the English word „culture“, as I already said, does not exactly denote what the German word „Kultur“ in Spengler's sense denotes.
__________

By the way:
There is another translation problem with the word „Prussianism“. The English translation for „Preußentum“ is almost always „Prussianism“, but this is the false translation. The right translation is „Prussiandom“ or „Prussianity“. Spengler just did not mean an „ism“ when he spoke of „Preußentum“.

7990

Wendy Darling wrote:

„If Mags read it in her mind’s eye, she probably heard it in her mind’s ear, metaphysically speaking.“ **

The next problem:

How can Mags read in her mind's eye? I know that she must have magical powers. But if she reads in her own eye, doesn't she have to be outside her own eye? Well, it's a mind's eye, but what and where is a mind's eye exactly? And if this magical thing is inside her body, how can she see inside her body with her eyes? And if she can, because she has magical powers, does she turn on the light inside her body beforehand, or is that not necessary either?

And how can she hear what she reads (in her mind's eye)? Does she read it aloud? And if that is irrelevant, what and where is a mind's ear exactly? And if this magical thing is inside her body, how can she hear inside her body what she reads or not reads, because she can't, in her mind's eye? And if she can, because she has magical powers, does she turn on the light inside her body beforehand and read it aloud inside her body, so that her mind’s ear can hear ist, or is that not necessary either?

Questions over questions.

Next question: Where is Carleas?

7991

Everything is fine. Most of what I've posted in this thread was not meant to be serious at all, as you (**) probably understood it to be.

Thank you.

7992

You (**) are „not bothered by“ AI surveillance „happening“, but you also demand „limits to any such installations“ that have to do with total AI surveillance (?!?).

7993


Not every economic system is capitalist, and capitalism does not necessarily have to do with the real economy.

There is no such thing as regulated capitalism, but only a system controlled by monopoly capitalists, in which the financial system forms its own system.

State capitalism is a mixture of capitalism and communism in that the state - the government - is capitalist, but commands communism from the non-governing.

Gangster capitalism can be both monopoly capitalism and state capitalism. Classical capitalism exists only for the middle class, which is why it is fought, exploited by monopoly capitalism (upper class) and by state capitalism (upper class) as well as by commanded communism (lower class). This will later lead to a new feudalism, has already done so in part.

By the way, you have confused Hungary with Belarus or Ukraine.

 

NACH OBEN 1436) Great Again, 08.03.2021, 00:58; Kultur, 08.03.2021, 21:06; Great Again, 08.03.2021, 22:25; Kultur, 08.03.2021, 23:59 (7994-7997)

7994

From nomadic dwellers to sedentary dwellers and from sedentary dwellers to nomadic dwellers like Otto and his ilk in space (**|**)?

From nomadic dwellers to sedentary dwellers.

The transition from nomadic dwellers to sedentary dwellers took place through the so-called „Neolithic Revolution“. Numerous cultural innovations occurred as a result of the introduction of the productive economy: it allowed man to become sedentary, cultivating the same soil for several years; this, in turn, had as a consequence that he began to construct solid houses, to design building concepts.

The first sedentary people developed the first cult of architecture in the first cities, which were built as markets on rivers. The cuboid became the basic element of architecture. The first sacred buildings were also built, and polygonal wall construction began. This „immunological“ sphere served as protection against enemies, but also for the identity of socio-economic communities.

The vegetation cycle „sowing, ripening, harvesting“ found its expression in religious ideas and it was compared with the life cycle: „birth, becoming, death“. With the beginning of the producing economy a strong population increase was connected: by the cultivation of grain and by the later animal husbandry more humans could be fed; this larger becoming community could manage again more fields, with which again more humans found nourishment etc.. This also gave man a different relationship to land, which he had to constantly claim and hold in his possession if he wanted to cultivate it in the long term. From this arose not only other relationships to property, but also claims to power and thus conflict with neighboring communities. Group aggression, which is hardly ever found among hunter-gatherer peoples, was the result.

Instead of just gathering what nature yields, sedentary people grow grain and raise livestock - it should be remembered that this ability to produce agricultural food has remained a foundation to our present day. Since the time when grain was grown and domestic animals were bred to increase the food supply, farmers have been able to stay in one place year-round, including building large permanent dwellings to house many implements. The breeding of domestic animals was already practiced by some of the nomads in the Upper Paleolithic - perhaps they were semi-sedentary (semi-nomads) - but this was done more for reasons of specialized hunting, that is, for reasons more of the appropriating than the producing mode of economy. Through the producing mode of economy the domestic animal breeding got a second aspect, which however should have much more far-reaching consequences than the first aspect. A third aspect was also to be added later: Domestic animal breeding for luxury reasons or comfort reasons.

7995

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»If two different nations, which are closely related to each other, have different opinions about Kultur/culture and Zivilisation/civilisation or even about Kultur and culture, sometimes also about Zivilisation and civilisation, because already the meanings of these words are not congruent, then this is even more true for two different Kulturen/cultures or Zivilisationen/civilisations. The linguistic differences between the peoples are like different accents of a (universal) language, a language family etc., where each language, so to speak, acts similarly to a „net“ thrown over reality (in the different linguistic communities the meshes of this net are not of the same size and do not run everywhere in the same way); and even finer differences, fine-tunings, so to speak, e.g. dialects (geo[graphic-]linguistic), sociolects (sociolinguistic), even idiolects ([ego-]idiolinguistic).« ** **

.... Greek has no word for culture other than the one mores adopted from the Latin languages »koultoura«, for culture, and for civilization »politismoV« which is etymologically rooted in the concept of urbanity and governance. ....“ **

Yes, „koultoura“ is a loanword - a word borrowed from other languages - which indicates that what culture actually means has been completely lost in Greek. There are many such examples. And it is a great pity when precisely a cultural folk („Kulturvolk“ in German) like the Greeks are affected by this. The ancient Greek language lasted for a long time, but towards the end of that time it gradually became „civilized“, thus deformed. Even the ancient Romans valued the ancient Greek language more than their own language for a long time - this changed gradually only since the 1st century BC. Besides Greek, there is another cultural language („Kultursprache“ in German): German. I hope that German will not suffer the same fate as ancient Greek did. But it looks like that it will, and the internet accelerates this process. English, which has already been shortened to the bare essentials, is obviously considered a model. This can be observed especially on the internet too.

But „politismoV“ for civilization is interesting. Why did it get just this word?

Satyr wrote:

„The Greeks used »paideia« to refer to the habits and training a culture imposes upon a man to cultivate him into its ideal citizen in a civilization.“ **

Do you know the work „Paideia“ of the German classical philologist Werner Jaeger (1888-1961), first published in 1934? Jaeger has taken the title of his probably best-known book with an ancient Greek word (although not in ancient Greek letters), thus leaving it untranslated, which is sometimes preferable (what I have also said with regard to the German word „Kultur“). The book is recommended.

During my studies I also dealt with Greek education, especially Spartan education. To do that, you can't get around knowing the meaning of the word.

This study was also about the poems of Tyrtaios. In a seminar I also dealt with the poems of Tyrtaios. I got a certificate of study for that. I still remember it very clearly, although it was a very long time ago.

Satyr wrote:

„We are currently moving into a phase where terms like »male/female« are being detached from a shared reality, converted to obscure metaphorical ideas/ideals that can mean anything because they are unrestricted by the tangible world - by natural order.“ **

Agreed.

Satyr wrote:

„So, in the spirit of "bringing it all back down to earth" all terms must be defined by reconnecting them to a shared experiential referent, to maintain dialogue, even if in disagreement, as rational and pragmatic as possible.“ **

Yes. And it must also be filled with „life“. But that's where I - like Spengler - see one of the problems: If the culture can no longer be „lived“, then it simply can not be brought back.

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»I have already indicated in the opening post how Spengler understands Kulturen (plural form of ›Kultur‹). For Spengler, Kulturen are ›living units‹, and these ›living units‹ live their cycle like other living beings, ›real living beings‹ (creatures), as the colloquial language would say. Spengler understands cultures (Kulturen) in such a way, as I said it above: as an umbrella term, as ›hyperonomy«or ›superordination‹, as the linguists say.« ** **

To put it in my linguistic context »culture« is to the superorganism what »spirit« is to an organism, viz., the mind/body/nervous system expressed outwardly as actions/behaviours, attitude/demeanour, art/semiotics (including language).“ **

Yes, this can be said. And to the „spirit“ I would add the „soul“. Or do you equate the soul with the spirit?

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»From Spengler's (and also my) point of view, Zivilization is the downfall of a Kultur, its unfruitfulness (childlessness, infertility), its nihilism, its decadence. The Kultur does not become something completely different when it becomes Zivilization. It remains the same, but just becomes its Weltstädte (World cities, cosmopolitan cities), its own form of unfruitfulness (childlessness, infertility), nihilism, decadence, its downfall, its decline, its decay, its senility, its dementia.« ** **

Therefore, we might say that »civilization« is the final phase of a culture - its highest achievement, displayed through urbanization, regimentation, sclerotic rigidity losing flexibility/adaptability - just as an organism when it grows old - cocooning itself in its own past; unable to respond efficiently to environmental changes.“ **

Exactly.

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»Not to be separated from a culture is its Ursymbol (›primal symbol‹) and its Seelenbild (›soul image‹), both of which are coupled to the landscape surrounding the culture, because, according to Spengler, the experience of spatial depth is decisive:

›The fate-directed life appears, as soon as we awake, in the sense life as felt depth. Everything stretches, but it is not yet 'the space', nothing solidified in itself, but a constant stretching from the moved here to the moved there. The experience of the world is exclusively linked to the essence of depth - of distance - whose pull in the abstract system of mathematics is called 'third dimension' besides length and width. .... The experience of depth is - on this insight everything else depends - a completely involuntary and necessary as well as completely creative act, through which the I receives its world, I would like to say dictated to it.‹

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 217-218 (translated by me). **

›The depth experience stretches the sensation to the world. The being directed of the life was called with meaning as non-reversibility and a rest of this decisive characteristic of the time lies in the compulsion to be able to feel also the depth of the world always from itself, never from the horizon to itself. The moving body of all animals and of man is designed towards this direction. One moves »forward«- towards the future, approaching with every step not only the goal, but also the age - and feels every look backward also as the look at something past, already ordered to the history.‹

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 223-224 (translated by me). **

Without landscape, without depth experience, without primal symbol, without soul image, without relative selfhood (selfreference), without a breed as cultivation, as culture (!), Kultur in Spengler's sense is not understandable.« ** **

Space being a defining characteristic of the »Faustian spirit« - »space« in the Heidegger sense of expanding possibilities, within which matter/energy is but an appreciation of probability, or heightened possibility.
Space in the context of a SuperOrganism - with a distinct culture is its spatio-temporal field of effect - its psychosomatic aura, i.e., a field of increased interactivity similar to that of a magnetic field cast by a solar mass - or in Nieatzchean terms its »will to power«.

The DNA is to an organism what semiotics, i.e., art, language, is to a superorganism - its genotype; civilization is the phenotype.“ **

Do you mean by „superorganism“ culture (Kultur) too? Do you mean by „civilization“ „Zivilisation“ in Spengler's sense or just in the English sense? If you mean that semiotics/language as the geonotype of a culture (as a superorganism!) and the phenotype as the civilization, then you are assuming that both culture and civilization started at the same time, just as genotype and phenotype do. A genotype is that which is and will be and will have become at some point, and a phenotype is that which seems, looks, is describable as a phenomenon. Thus, you do not distinguish culture and civilization on the temporal level because they both appear and disappear at the same time. Is that right?

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»The English word ›civilization‹ never means the German word ›Kultur‹ in Spengler's sense, but denotes only a part of it, its final stage, which may or may not be subdivided again into sub-stages, if one wishes.« ** **

Just as the English word »truth« - from the Latin »veritas«, does not capture the meaning in the Greek term aletheia, »aleqeia«.“ **

Wikipedia wrote:

„The English word truth is derived from Old English tríewþ, tréowþ, trýwþ, Middle English trewþe, cognate to Old High German triuwida, Old Norse tryggð. Like troth, it is a -th nominalisation of the adjective true (Old English tréowe).

The English word true is from Old English (West Saxon) (ge)tríewe, tréowe, cognate to Old Saxon (gi)trûui, Old High German (ga)triuwu (Modern German treu »faithful«), Old Norse tryggr, Gothic triggws,[4] all from a Proto-Germanic *trewwj- »having good faith«, perhaps ultimately from PIE *dru- »tree«, on the notion of »steadfast as an oak« (e.g., Sanskrit da´ru »(piece of) wood«). Old Norse trú, »faith, word of honour; religious faith, belief« (archaic English troth »loyalty, honesty, good faith«, compare Ásatrú).

Thus, »truth« involves both the quality of »faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, veracity«, and that of »agreement with fact or reality«, in Anglo-Saxon expressed by soþ (Modern English sooth).“

All Germanic languages besides English have introduced a terminological distinction between truth »fidelity« and truth »factuality«. To express »factuality«, North Germanic opted for nouns derived from sanna »to assert, affirm«, while continental West Germanic (German and Dutch) opted for continuations of wâra »faith, trust ...«.“

English, German, Latin, Greek, and almost all other languages of Europe, as well as West Asia, South Asia, and to a lesser extent Central Asia, share the same linguistic root, which is called Indo-Germanic because it is meant to designate the westernmost region (Iceland) and the easternmost region (India). Political correctness has done a great job here, too, and made Indo-Germanic into „Indo-European“.

The following film (posted by you): **.

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»If one means the German word ›Kultur‹ in Spengler's sense, one should not use the English word ›civilisation‹ (›civilization‹). Also the English word ›culture‹, as I already said, does not exactly denote what the German word ›Kultur‹ in Spengler's sense denotes.« ** **

I've tried to incorporate such subtle ways of indicating nuances, but it is hard when dealing with a variety of people rigidly defending their prejudices.“ **

Their prejudices are consequences of their obedience to authority, their weakness, their convenience, their comfort, their pampering.

7996

Buddhism is a doctrine of salvation according to which everything in the world is impermanent, without self (persistent substance) and therefore suffering (unsatisfactory). Each individual being is a transient combination of factors of existence that spring up and disappear again according to eternal laws in functional dependence on each other (cf. Dharma). Since no good or bad action remains without effect, every stream of individual life finds its continuation according to the Kharma after death in a new existence. Moral action leads to gradual purification; realization and annihilation of thirst (will to live) to liberation, to nirvana.

Nirvana already played an important role for the Brahmins. It is the state that can already be reached during one's lifetime through the disappearance of the life drive, which makes rebirth impossible after dying. Nirvana is understood by the Brahmins as the absorption of the individual soul (Atman) into the absolute (Brahman), by the Buddhists as an incomprehensible state of bliss, in which all factors of existence that condition an individual existence are finally annulled, so that being in Nirvana is equivalent to nothingness.

Is that something to strive for?

7997

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»But „politismoV“ for civilization is interesting. Why did it get just this word?« ** **

I don't understand the question.“ **

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»And it must also be filled with ›life‹. But that's where I - like Spengler - see one of the problems: If the culture can no longer be ›lived‹, then it simply cannot be brought back..« ** **

Nothing can ever be brought back exactly as it was - even recollection has an element of something being lost in time.
I do not even believe in the eternal recurrence, or in reincarnation. Even if the cosmos goes in cycles it does not repeat in exactly the same way, due to the factor of chaos, i.e., randomness.
Every cycle is slightly different, so every repetition of a culture is never like the preceding one.
Without the factor of chaos not only is there no free-will but consciousness is irrelevant - the universe is described as a tape that repeats eternally and nothing, not even a god, can change it. It describes existence as a joke.“ **

Neither Spengler nor I said that something can be brought back.

Satyr wrote:

„Culture = genotype. Inherited memories, across the ages.
Civilization = phenotype. How the genotype, or these memories, reveal themselves in the present.“ **

Okay.

We need to know our different definitions - for reasons of understanding.

For me, civilization is that temporal part of culture in which culture descends, like the sun since the equinox at the transition from summer to autumn.

Accordingly, for me, civilization is a phenotype only then when the culture is setting, descending, declining, sinking, falling.

Satyr wrote:

„Martin Heidegger wrote:

»With regard to the Latin name for the true, verum, we shall keep two incidents in mind:
1. Verum, ver-, meant originally enclosing, covering.
The Latin verum belongs to the same realm of meaning as the Greek alhqeV, the uncovered – precisely by signifying the exact opposite of alhqeV: the closed off.
2. But now because verum is counter to falsum, and because the essential domain of the imperium is decisive for verum and falsum and their opposites, the sense of ver-, namely enclosed and cover, becomes basically that of covering for security against. Ver is now the maintaining-oneself, the being-above; ver becomes the opposite of falling.
Verum is the remaining constant, the upright that which is directed to what is superior because it is directing from above. Verum is rectum (regere, ›the regime‹), the right, iustum.
For the Romans the realm of concealment and disconcealment does not at all come to be, although it strives in that direction in ver, the essential realm determining the essence of truth. Under the influence of the imperial, verum becomes forthwith ‘being-above,’ directive for what is right; veritas is then rectitude, ‘correctness,’ we would say.
The originally Roman stamp given to the essence of truth, which solidly establishes the all-pervading basic character of the essence of truth in the Occident, rejoins an unfolding of the essence of truth that begin already with the Greeks and that at the same time marks the inception of Western metaphysics.«

**

Heidegger studied „alethia“ very intensively and discovered that it has to do with „Unverborgenheit“ („unconcealment“). According to Heidegger, science and technology have inherently the character of an organized assassination of hiddenness. Heidegger took the decisive hint for the development of this view from the ancient Greek word for truth, alethéia, which he translated as Un-Verbrogenheit (un-concealment) - in one respect probably rightly, since it suggests itself to analyze the expression as a composite of the word „lethe“, concealment, mantling, forgetting, and the negation prefix „a“.

Satyr wrote:

„In Greek the term means to re-call - to call forth into lucid memory - to negate forgetfulness, i.e., un-forgetting.“ **

Yes, as stated above. Heidegger has worked this out very well. Sometimes two words which are the same in meaning develop into two words which are opposite in meaning or even negate each other in meaning.

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»Their prejudices are consequences of their obedience to authority, their weakness, their convenience, their comfort, their pampering.« ** **

Yes.
This is the basic principle of how I define how and why nihilistic schools of thought emerge and evolve, viz., they emerge to protect individuals form their own growing self-awarness, exposing them to new sources of anxiety/suffering requiring the ego to be protected.
This is the fundamental principle connecting Marxism and Abrahamism - other than the obvious: it erases racial/sexual distinctions unifying the world's meek, i.e., the world genetically wronged; realizing they've inherited poor genes that require much effort to be compensated.
Inheritors of poverty always desire to share wealth.
»Exploitation« is an intrinsic part of evolution and natural selection. Man exploits other species, and hunters exploit the animals they hunt and consume.

The world sinners, begging for salvation, corresponds to the world workers, that must unite, across borders and creeds to create utopia, or paradise on earth.
Both are distinctly anti-nature, offering alternative realities; one in the beyond or in the occult hidden world, and the other in the eternal imminent future which is always but a "day away" but is never, ever, present; both gather to become a power all the worlds powerless; both have a messianic mission, to save those they most despise in secret; both must self-cotnradict to remain viable, their ideal man cannot survive in a world full of competitors but envisions a coming world free from all »tempters and temptations«where their ideal can finally unfold uninterrupted, i.e., ideal men, in ideal circumstances, creating ideal alternate realities - Christianity, for example, is founded on an anti-traditinola family text, yet presents itself as defender of family values; Marxism is founded on intelligentsia that secretly despises the proletariat they pretend to want to raise to power.“ **

Yes, one always has to pay attention to the contrasts here too. Most people don't even notice them. That's why they fall for it again and again.

Language itself is also filled with contrasts, and it has to be, because the world it is supposed to depict is too.

 

NACH OBEN 1437) Kultur, 09.03.2021, 19:08; Alf, 09.03.2021, 23:57 (7998-7999)

7998

I haven't addressed a post of yours that I think is important.

Satyr wrote:

„I agree with Schopenhauer the most, in metaphysics, with Heidegger next. Don't agree with Schopenhauer's solution.“ **

Schopenhauer wrote brilliant texts. He was a good observer, a good analyst. He anticipated the later emerging Darwin and described many things much better than later Darwin. He also anticipated Freud, who came much later (Freud was to deny all his life that he copied from Schopenhauer and Nietzsche). Schopenhauer has later often been „labeled“ as a pessimist, but he can also be seen as „the first thinker of the first rank who left the occidental church of reason“ (Peter Sloterdijk) or as „the first patriarch of Eurobuddhism“ (Peter Sloterdijk), because „optimism is cowardice“ (Oswald Spengler).

Satyr wrote:

„Goethe I haven't read, but gleaned what he thought from what others have said about him.“ **

It is difficult to assign Goethe philosophically. He likelly did not see himself as a philosopher (this also applies to the later Spengler, who almost idolized Goethe). But it is possible to recognize Goethe's philosophy from his writings.

Satyr wrote:

„Haven't read N. Hartmann nor N. Luhmann.“ **

N. Hartmann and N. Luhmann are a good addition to the others mentioned here, to which one could also add Carl Schmitt, Ernst Jünger, Friedrich Georg Jünger, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Arnold Gehlen and Ernst Nolte.

Satyr wrote:

„Nietzsche is a fantastic psychoanalysts and prose writer but offers nothing new in metaphysics that I cannot find in Hinduism and Schopenhauer - his solution was more heroic.“ **

Agreed.

Satyr wrote:

„Evola is next on the list with none of Nietzsche's romanticism that makes him so seductive to effete males. “ **

Nietzsche's romanticism - yes, that is exactly what Spengler also pointed out. Many of today's Nietzscheans don't like it at all when their beloved Nietzsche is outed as a romanticist.

Julius Evola belongs to the added ones (see above), I would say, but I have to admit that I do not know him as much as the others. The same goes for Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Edgar Julius Jung. I have only read something about them, but not from them.

A good book for an introduction to the „Konservative Revolution“ is the handbook „Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland, 1918-1932“ („The Conservative Revolution in Germany, 1918-1932“), by Armin Mohler (later by Karlheinz Weißmann). But I don't know if the book is also available in English.

Satyr wrote:

„Spengler is a fantastic socio-metaphysician, connecting the physical with the metaphysical.“ **

Yes, but instead of „socio-“ I would rather put „historical-“. The present is a matter of 3 seconds at most. The past and the future are more important in terms of learning and knowledge. Also, language speaks (cf. Heidegger) and all things speak, whether semiotically, linguistically, logically, mathematically etc.. In this sense, „socio“ or „sociology“ is superfluous, „psycho“ or „psychology“ too, by the way. Both are typical decadent phenomena, serve only fraud, corruption, reeducation, decline. It is enough to speak, think and know about history and language (everything else is included in it anyway). The old ones knew it very well, and they were definitely not sillier than the present ones.

The high meaning of development is very Heraclitean, and Spengler was Heraclitean too.

Satyr wrote:

„Heraclitus is my favourite of the Greeks.“ **

You have that in common with Spengler - and with me.

Satyr wrote:

„Sloterdijk is my favourite from the living. I haven't read as much as I should from him.“ **

You have that in common with me - not with Spengler, because Spengler had already been dead for eleven years when Sloterdijk was born.

Satyr wrote:

„Baudrillard is also good if you want to understand postmodernisms and how it corrupts.“ **

And it corrupts very much - just like many other „disciplines“ that are not coincidentally becoming more and more popular.

More from the point of view of a historian or philosopher of history, I see in postmodernism only late modernism as the third and last phase of modernism.


Language - from semiotics to mathematics inclusive - has a very high significance. Everything in it tells of itself to us, it speaks, and we are the ones who have to figure out how to properly retell what has been told (spoken, communicated). Also so the history. Everything we experience has a time frame, a frame of change, and that is history.

7999


Mags J. wrote:

„The mind’s eye gets activated when we look within, and the external gets blocked out.“ **

„The mind’s eye gets activated when we look within, and the external gets blocked out“?

That's just a metaphor, Mags.

Do you really believe in a „mind’s eye" that „gets activated when we look within, and the external gets blocked out“?

 

NACH OBEN 1438) Alf, 10.03.2021, 00:16 (8000)

8000

But if God can not affect your fate, e.g. as „universal-good-essence“ as you say (**), then he is really only an ethical being, probably rather physical than metaphysical.

 

NACH OBEN 1439) Kultur, 13.03.2021, 00:01, 00:59; Alf, 13.03.2021, 04:10; Kultur, 13.03.2021, 17:34, 17:59; Alf, 13.03.2021, 18:34, 22:23, 22:24; Kathrina, 13.03.2021, 22:52, 00:44 (8001-8010)

8001

Martha wrote:

„Anfang wrote:

»I know someone (around 30 years old) who got vaccinated and who got a fever for one day. This seems to be the usual reaction to the vaccine. I work for an intensive care service and thus belong to the group that is vaccinated first. Almost all of my colleagues were vaccinated and all, without exception, developed fever and flu-like symptoms in the days following.« **

And especially this can be fatal for older people, who very often have pre-existing conditions. While younger people may be more resistant and able to cope with the autoimmune reaction that takes place in the body as a result of this genetic vaccine, older people often don't have the defenses

Anfang wrote:

»I know someone who was around 90 years old and he died because he got infected by Corona (through their grand-children).« **

Perhaps he would have died from a ›normal‹ flu as well. In Germany alone, more than 25,000 people died during the last flu epidemic in 2017/18, most of them at an advanced age. Nobody talks about that anymore today.

Kvasir wrote:

»Now, at the risk of going down ›conspiracy ally‹ here, concerning the elderly population I do believe it's possible there is some eugenics program being enacted to wipe them out as "useless eaters" and they are using this FEAR-19 bullshit as the cover. It almost looks like it, I'm starting to fear that too.« **

.... And since even the »information sheet« that people get before vaccination says that it is absolutely not certain that vaccinated people are no longer infectious, it is complete nonsense to get vaccinated to protect other (older) people.“ **

A brief look at history:

February 28, 2020:
The Robert-Koch-Institut downplays the virus that allegedly arrived in Europe in January 2020 („Covid-19“, also called „Coronavirus“).

In the further course, this event is reacted to in the media as before: it is downplayed, and those who warn against the virus are insulted as „conspiracy theorists“ (this insult has become a habit for a long time).

March 9, 2020:
As a result of the drastic reduction in the price of oil, there is an enormous stock market collapse starting on this day (some say „like never before“!).

March 17, 2020:
The extent of the stock market collapse that began on March 9 becomes so clear that the Robert-Koch-Institut classifies the risk of infection by „Covid-19“ as „high to very high“.

In the course of the next few days, increasingly stringent measures are taken, including compulsory wearing of masks in public institutions, so-called „lockdown“, quarantine in certain cases, and much more. The alleged „pandemic“ and the virus „Covid-19“ can NOT be proven. Fewer people are dying than the year before, not more, and the excuse that this has to do with mask-wearing can be quickly debunked, because while no people have been dying from conventional flu since the end of March, they are now not necessarily dying from „Covid-19“ either, because neither a pandemic nor the virus „Covid-19“ can be proven - as said before - but the relatives of people who have just died are asked more and more often if the doctor may write „Covid-19“ as cause of death in the death certificate.

It is also interesting that today those who warned at that time - at the beginning of the alleged „pandemic“ - are now presented as „conspiracy theorists“, while those in power and especially the media say what what was considered a „conspiracy theory“ at that time and is considered „the truth“ today.

8002

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»A brief look at history:

February 28, 2020:
The Robert-Koch-Institut downplays the virus that allegedly arrived in Europe in January 2020 (›Covid-19‹, also called ›Coronavirus‹).

In the further course, this event is reacted to in the media as before: it is downplayed, and those who warn against the virus are insulted as ›conspiracy theorists‹ (this insult has become a habit for a long time).

March 9, 2020:
As a result of the drastic reduction in the price of oil, there is an enormous stock market collapse starting on this day (some say ›like never before‹!).

March 17, 2020:
The extent of the stock market collapse that began on March 9 becomes so clear that the Robert-Koch-Institut classifies the risk of infection by ›Covid-19‹ as ›high to very high‹.

In the course of the next few days, increasingly stringent measures are taken, including compulsory wearing of masks in public institutions, so-called ›lockdown‹, quarantine in certain cases, and much more. The alleged ›pandemic‹ and the virus ›Covid-19‹ can NOT be proven. Fewer people are dying than the year before, not more, and the excuse that this has to do with mask-wearing can be quickly debunked, because while no people have been dying from conventional flu since the end of March, they are now not necessarily dying from ›Covid-19‹ either, because neither a pandemic nor the virus ›Covid-19‹ can be proven - as said before - but the relatives of people who have just died are asked more and more often if the doctor may write ›Covid-19‹ as cause of death in the death certificate.

It is also interesting that today those who warned at that time - at the beginning of the alleged ›pandemic‹ - are now presented as ›conspiracy theorists‹, while those in power and especially the media say what what was considered a ›conspiracy theory‹ at that time and is considered ›the truth‹ today.« ** **

What is the motive?“ “ **

The last or deepest motive behind it is power (more friendly with Hegel: recognition or appreciation/acknowledgement/credit [I am not sure about the English word; Hegel wrote: „Anerkennung“, later, Nietzsche wrote: „Wille zur Macht“ {„will to power“}]). The motives before or above that include money (making profits to expand or at least maintain power) and fear (spreading fear ensures profits and ultimately power). The gap between the 0.0001-0.01% who are in power (globalists) and the 99.9999-99.99% who are not in power becomes even wider than it already is.

Especially when power threatens to wane (for example, in the event of a stock market collapse [what I have already said above]), the „fear arousal tool“ is used more often than in calmer times.

There are several such „tools“, e.g. lying and cheating and stealing or the „divide-and-conquer“ („devide et impera“) principle.

8003

We must take into account that people are always to be described in two ways: (1) natural and (2) cultural.

Peter Sloterdijk wrote:

„On the one hand, we can speak of a natural history of serenity, by virtue of which man was able to become the cosmopolitan, worldly animal; on the other hand, we can speak of a social (I say: cultural) history of taming, by virtue of which man originally experienced himself as the beings who gather together in order to correspond to the whole. The real history of the clearing - from which a deepened reflection on man beyond humanism must take its starting point - is thus composed of two larger narratives that converge in a common perspective, namely in the exposition of how the sapiens-animal became the sapiens-man. The first of these two narratives gives an account of the adventure of hominization. It reports how in the long periods of pre-human prehistory the viviparous mammal man became a species of early-born beings, which - if one may speak so paradoxically - emerged into their environments with a growing surplus of animal immaturity. This is where the anthropogenetic revolution takes place - the blasting open of biological birth to the act of coming into the world. .... For the fact that man could become the being that is in the world has genre-historical roots that can be indicated by the abysmal concepts of prematurity, neoteny and the chronic animal immaturity of man. One could go so far as to describe man as the being who has failed in his being and remaining an animal. Through his failure as an animal, the indeterminate being falls out of the environment and thus acquires the world in the ontological sense. This extatic coming into the world and this »appropriation« to being are laid into the cradle of man from genus-historical inheritance. If man is in-the-world, then because he belongs to a movement which brings him to the world and exposes him to the world. He is the product of a hyper-birth that turns the infant into a worldling.

8004

Modern Western society now sees itself as the globalist society and as a therapy society. Just think, for example, of the power of psychoanalysis, which sexualizes everyone, attributes a „disease“ to everyone, because it wants to treat (re-educate), and, for example, of the power of the Frankfurter Schule (Frankfurt School), which also attributes a „disease“ to society, because it wants to treat (re-educate). The globalists see in it the possibility to steer all people in one direction, as the communists have always been wanting. The trick is that the goal of this steering is the steering itself: the eternal therapy, the eternal re-education, the eternal cyborgization, the eternal terror and so on. In this all global players take part, because they can bring in gigantic profits with this. So all are in agreement up there, while the rest remains in disagreement and also should remain, so that there is always a reason for the therapy (this therapy can also mean war).

If you want to have power for as long as possible, then you must know what all previous „revolutionaries“ have done wrong: they all stopped terrorizing at some time. You must never stop with terror, never stop with re-education, never stop with therapy, if you want to succeed. The revolution is a self purpose: the permanent revolution.

That's absolutely terrible, isn't it?

8005

Satyr wrote:

„By »western« we mean American....not Indo-Euopean. American = Judeo-Protestant.“ **

I meant by „western society“the increasingly decadent occidental culture from which the globalists - the rulers of the world - come.

Why do you mean by „western“ only the „American“ or „Judaeo-Protestant“? Is it because you want to „separate the wheat from the chaff“?

8006

Art originally comes from skill, but took on a different meaning when technology, which originally also meant „just“ art, supplanted it. Later, art became roughly synonymous with aesthetics. In addition, it is often understood as the antithesis of nature. But with that, art touches the meaning of culture, and culture is more than „just“ art. In any case, art is a part of culture. The art is a language, and the language I understand very generally as something which reaches from the semiotics to linguistics and philosophy or logic to mathematics, thus as everything that is sign, and, if one disregards the fact that each thing has its being-in-itself, everything is sign. Art is thus the aesthetic of signs, the aesthetic of everything.

8007

Urwrong wrote:

„Pathetic, Kropotkin.“ **

Pathetic or, if learning is not possible, a too low IQ.

This is what IQ2 wrote for example too:

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„Facts change all the time and not only that, they don't mean anything ....“ **

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„I can hope they have some degree of self-awareness but the facts suggest that they don't ....“ **

Peter Kropotkin wrote:

„You don't know the value of facts and you don't know the value of the »TRUTH« ....“ **

I have never seen stupider statements on ILP than these three, which moreover are meant in context with each other.

8008

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Peter Kropotkin wrote:

»The conservatives looks backward, never forward .... They remember fondly the past and deny the future ... This is what drives their hatred of the vaccination programs: hate, fear and anger ..., the basic emotions which drives all conservatives ..., all conservatives ....“ **

In any serious cooperative (rather than merely competitive) debate, what you're doing here would be considered a massive ad nominem, a no-no, a sign that you have no relevant arguments and a reason enough for moderators to restrict your access to the forum. Instead of explaining why you disagree with other people's claims, you are presenting a psychological analysis of them. They are conservatives, and conservatives are dumb, and they are dumb because they are backward, and they are backward because they are stuck in the past unable to learn and adapt, and they are stuck in the past because they are full of irrational fear of the new, which is why they are anti-science technology-hating luddites and paranoid large scale conspiracy believing freaks, so don't listen to what they have to say, listen to me instead, I'm full of love and they are full of hate, even though I just shat on them like a boss.“ **

Peter Kropotkin is IQ2. Everyone here knows that. That's why you should excuse him. But you are right: actually he should be banned. He has offended every human being. Every human being is conservative. Every human being must conserve, i.e. preserve himself. Every human being has an immune system. IQ2 has insulted every human being. Probably he is a human-hater, a misanthrope. Every creature is conservative. Every creature must conserve, i.e. preserve itself. Every creature has an immune system. IQ2 has discriminated every creature. Probably he is a creature-hater, a life-hater. Consequently, he must be banned. The only thing that excuses him is his IQ. He is too stupid to know what an ad hominem is, what a misanthropy is, what a hostility towards all creatures is.

8009

Alf wrote:

„Peter Kropotkin is IQ2 ....“ ** **

Https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 0#p2689160.

Leyla wrote:

„Wendy Darling wrote:

»Let the elderly get it ....« **

You mean it doesn't matter so much with them anymore? Let them be the guinea pigs, if something happens to them, at least we won't have to pay their pensions anymore.
But I think I know how you meant it, no offense. :wink:

In fact, this vaccination is much more dangerous for people with weakened immune systems than for healthy people, and older people often have pre-existing conditions. It is proved that after vaccination with mRNA vaccine there is a massive decrease of white blood cells, and so far it is not possible to say whether this is permanent or temporary. The body has to fight a virus-like protein that it produces itself, so an autoimmune reaction takes place.

And as far as young women are concerned: the package insert of the Biontech vaccine states that women should not become pregnant during the first 4 months after vaccination. But what about after the 4 months? This vaccine has not been tested for more than 6 months.

I am an intensive care nurse, so I am in the priority group when it comes to vaccination. I would rather take losing my job than being vaccinated.“ **

You see and hear talk from everywhere about problems with the vaccine. In some countries in Scandinavia and in some other countries of Europe, vaccination with the vaccine from Astra Zeneca has already been stopped. There was also a nationwide vaccination in the U.S. in the 1970s that was stopped when it was found that too many people died or got sick from it.

8010

Encode Decode wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»It basically doesn't matter who you start with, Encode, one human, or all humans. This was also known in ancient times. But go ahead, please.« ** **

I had no idea of your level of knowledge and understanding when I started posting in this thread. As I read through your posts I get a better idea of where you are situated in relation to your original post and the rest of this thread.“ **

 

NACH OBEN 1440) Kathrina, 14.03.2021, 00:23; Kultur, 14.03.2021, 01:53; Great Again, 14.03.2021, 02:14 (8011-8013)

8011

Perhaps you mean something like this:

Simple Minds, Up on the Catwalk, 1984.

8012

Anfang wrote:

„I think the current rulership, in particular the ideological, moral, spiritual, is not good for European men (Indo-European descent) because it's alien to the European men, it's a parasitical relationship between this dying race and its rulers.“ **

By „rulers“, do you mean (a) those who pose as world rulers, and in a way they are, or (b) those who rule in the countries of the Indo-Germanic (Indo-European) area, e.g. as „politicians“, or (c) both a and b?

8013

Yes, one can say that art comes from the mind (**). But the mind is also a very general concept and one-sided when it comes to the question of the origin of art, because the things with which one makes art must also be there. Or are these things also only a creation of the mind?

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN