1451) Kultur, 01.04.2021, 06:20; Alf, 01.04.2021, 08:36, 08:45, 09:26; Kathrina, 01.04.2021, 10:21, 10:41, 10:58 (8048-8054)
Many philosophers - probably the overwhelming majority - have indeed remained childless. This is not exactly a sign of faithfulness to culture, to its future on the basis of origin. That would be comparable as if most of the philosophical cells in an organism had forgotten the genetic code of this organism. One knows what this means!
But Martin Heidegger, for example, had children.
He was completely normal as far as having children is concerned. He married
Elfride Petri in 1917. He was 28 years old then - quite normal for that
time. His first child, Jörg, was born in 1919, when Heidegger was
30 years old; the second child, Hermann, was born in 1920, when Heidegger
was 31 years old. All pretty normal. For thorough philosophizing (thinking),
Heidegger moved to solitude. His mountain hut was built from 1922 to 1923,
so it was ready for occupancy in 1923, four years before the publication
of Heidegger's main work Sein und Zeit (Being
and Time). Here in his hut in the mountains and forests near
Todtnauberg in the Black Forest, Heidegger's main work was written: in
a Lichtung (glade/clearing). Lichtung
(glade/clearing) is an important term in Heidegger's
»Playing with the dog.
Adorable puppy! Deserves more treats! **
1452) Great Again, 02.04.2021, 00:35, 00:41; Kultur, 01.04.2021, 00:46; Alf, 02.04.2021, 12:05, 12:57, 13:06 (8055-8059)
Kant, Kantianism, Neo-Kantiansimus is always good, but if the majority has nothing more to say and only globalists against the rest of mankind or soon probably also against itself the most terrible wars lead, is also Kant not much use.
When evil is in power, it follows its own reason and its own categorical imperative, namely without or/and against the rest of mankind. Or?
Concerning penis wars:
That's what I said in my last post (also with an addition of many pictures about Heidegger's hut / chalet / shieling / alpine hut):
It was exactly my point in my last post: to say that Heidegger, because he had a retreat, namely his hut in the mountains and forests near Todtnauberg in the Black Forest (**|**), and other philosophers are examples for being a fruitful, successful, prolific philosopher even with children. Maybe that Heidegger's children were sometimes at and in the hut (chalet, shieling, alpine hut - how would you call it?), but most likely not when Heidegger had to do his work.
Heideggers retreat in the Black Forest again:
Such a destruction usually comes from within, and this is because a destruction from without would not be possible if it were repelled from within at all times.
It is comparable to the immune system of an organism. Namely, the immune system of an organism is an internal defense system against attacks from the outside. If the immune system is weakened or is itself the attacker (as in the case of the current vaccine based on genetic engineering), then the attackers from the outside have an easy game, they have almost nothing to do, otherwise just be there, the rest is done by the immune system fighting against its own organism, thus the defense system inside.
It's like an US leader without an immune system volunteering to go to the bioweapons lab in Wuhan and then coming back to the US and throwing a party every day for everyone in the US.
A god is not always only good, he is also sometimes evil. Otherwise, he could not be a real God.
1453) Alf, 03.04.2021, 09:03, 09:32, 09:59; Kultur, 03.04.2021, 10:29, 10:47, 10:58, 11:24, 12:51, 20:07 (8061-8070)
Felix Dakat wrote:
Yes. Jaspers was a phenomenologist and existential philosopher. Heidegger too. It is said in Heideggers main work that ontology ... is only possible as phenomenology (cf. § 7, C, p. 35), that ontology and phenomenology are not two different disciplines beside others belonging to philosophy, that his investigations have only become possible on the ground laid by E. Husserl, with whose Logische Untersuchungen (1900) phenomenology came to its breakthrough (cf. § 7, C, p. 38).
Today the globalists are making the revolution, the permanent one, and the people are being fought as if they were the globalists, the rulers of the world.
Felix Dakat wrote:
Is it right that you are in agreement with Obsrvr, who says God is the situation, and Ierrellus, who says almost the same, although with emphasis more on dynamics (becoming) than on statics (is)?
Is it really that bad?
In the evaluation of children and their education on the one hand and intellectual work (here: philosophy) on the other, we seem to be very different from each other. For me, raising and educating children has never been a duty, never a must, but always a bliss, a matter of the heart and of the spirit, a spiritual challenge.
Concerning the art it was with the Ancient Greeks mainly the sculpture (see e.g.: Phidias, Polyklet, Praxiteles), in the later Occident mainly the music (see e.g.: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven). Therefore it does not surprise me that I myself am also a very musical person.
I like this film, because Sloterdijk says something right in it.
Here comes a film in which Sloterdijk answers questions about his book Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit (The Terrible Children of Modern Times) first published in 2014:
According to Sloterdijk's and also my philosophy of culture and history, it is valid in the human primitive culture, which Sloterdijk, however, calls early culture, that who dares to question, to criticize the own community and origin, is punished with death. Sloterdijk calls the condition, in which these groups of people find themselves, an obsession. What he calls the high culture mediates, so to speak, between the early culture and the late culture, because in the high culture the first terrible children - those who rebel against community and origin - emerge and their peculiarity increasingly breaks through, but does not yet come to dominance, because their dominance already belongs to the late culture. Whereas in the early culture copying errors are not allowed, in the high culture they are allowed for the first time, but still under reservation, which then no longer exists in the late culture, because the unrest triggered by the terrible children is then already chronic and with unflinching aggressiveness, not to speak of binding aggressiveness, already a synonym for modernity and civilization. In the late culture the hostility towards everything communal, all origin, all tradition, all genealogy, all history, all past and the like prevails. The development from the early to the late culture can be described according to Sloterdijk as a path from the absolute power of the conservative to the absolute powerlessness of the conservative, which will be reached with the end of the late culture, whenever that will be the case. According to my research, absolute powerlessness of the conservative can never be achieved in life.
Is it possible to develop without a conservative element? No. That is why I think that Sloterdijk's real message is the following:
Turn back, because your path is a bottomless dead end.
Sloterdijk knows that the terrible children of the modern age do not have much time left for the correction of their wrong development. It is a bottomless dead end.
For Sloterdijk, the abolition of corruption is the serious case of learning. He who is a learner does not merely accumulate information. He understands that real learning has something of a conversion. - If there were a counterpart in cultural theory to that which embodies the holy of holies in the Catholic altar structure, it could be nothing other than that most dilapidated term of the present day: learning. In the coming century, it should be guarded like a numinous presence in a revelatory tent. On rare days, it might be allowed to be unveiled for a few moments. Is not the suspicion well-founded that learning is the unknown God, of whom it was said at the time in a note of seer darkness that only such a one could still save us?.
Who seriously believes with the philosopher Neurath that ships can be rebuilt on the high seas? Yes, who still claims that there is a command bridge on our ship? - In short, in our day, no one can know what constitutes the factual content of sirenic words like sustainability and future viability. Anyone who would be able to distinguish between gait, drift and fall would have to be prophetically gifted. This is the condition to which Heidegger alluded when he made his remark that only a god could save us.
If one relates Sloterdijk's three stages of early, high, and late culture to the respective antecedents of past, present, and future, and subjects them to a strong spiritualization, the result is passéism, presentism, and futurism. But that passéism is fixed today as the loser of evolution, I doubt. I also doubt that the dispute between the futurism of modernity and the presentism of postmodernity should not be decided for the time being, because a postmodernity does not really exist yet.
If we connect on the one hand passéism and conservatism and on the other hand futurism and progressivism, one should immediately ask oneself how it should be possible without reference to the past - and that means just among other things: to the origin, to the tradition, to the genealogy, to the filiation, to the history - that the terrible children of the modern age practice themselves in the unlearned art of enduring. Such learning, which results from the practice in the art of endurance, can only go well in the long run if the past is taken into account in the process. It is, after all, precisely the past of which we know with the greatest certainty that it has lasted, is lasting and will remain. Who forgets the past, has no future. Against forgetting, against forgetting we must fight. **
I evaluate all of this in the same way, as I said before.
But the ideologies can delay the people. People wait and expect, but nothing really goes where it is allegedly supposed to go. In other words, people are being taken for fools. Most of them fall for the ideologies.
I learned to play the flute a bit at school, also the harmonica at home (my father taught me), later I also learned to play the guitar a bit in a self-taught way. But I have not done all this intensively enough, so I have remained at the beginner level. But my wife is good at playing the piano. It is beautiful, has a calming effect, makes one serene, like music in general. Music is for the soul.
My interest in music comes not so much from the active side (thus: playing an instrument), but all the more from the passive side (listening to music). Furthermore, I am interested in aesthetics, the philosophy of music and especially the cultural-historical context.
When I say I am a musical person, I mean first of all my strong interest in music and only lastly my own compositions.
1454) Alf, 04.04.2021, 00:00, 00:04; Kultur, 04.04.2021, 00:57, 01:36, 15:43, 15:50, 21:41, 21:43, 22:03, 22:03 (8071-8080)
Heidegger understands Dasein as the being that we ever are ourselves (Being and Time, 1927, p. 7) as the being of man (Being and Time, 1927, p. 25) and thus demarcates his philosophy against a philosophy of pure consciousness (cf. transcendentalism) and also against a merely material-empiricist conception of Dasein (cf. positivism).
Heideggers translator wrote:
Heideggers translator wrot:
Heideggers translator wrote:
The existence of the human being is used by means of an analysis of existence to reveal the essence and meaning of being (present in the human being).
The basis for being and the doctrine - the basic doctrine of being - is offered by Heidegger's fundamental ontology, laid down in his main work Being and Time, and denotes the results of his investigations of (human) Dasein for the purpose of opening up being (as a being that is also present in Dasein, a being that understands itself) and the meaning of being. The fundamental ontology shows how that is manifested in Dasein (see: existentials); it wants to be the basis for all empirical sciences.
The existentials are the ways of human existence, the categories of human being, with Heidegger above all the angst (fear, anxiety), furthermore the being-in-the-world, the concern (worry, care, welfare, getting, providing, managing, anxiety), the understanding, the mood, the thrownness and many others.
I once tried to approach music through science. One can do that, too, but there always remains a rest that science cannot explain and will never be able to explain, because science does not think: Science does not think (Martin Heidegger). One can also not explain physics with physical means. Such a thing can only be done by thinking (philosophy).
And it's the same with music. I have already said something in this thread about the things, phenomenons and situations and called all this language:
What do you actually think of the thesis of Pythagoras that the moving celestial bodies sound in certain intervals (harmony of the spheres) and that this harmony can not be perceived by us only because it affects us continuously?
That may be. Sloterdijk does not always say everything he knows. Sometimes he intentionally keeps a low profile, only to do the opposite at another time. But somehow these are also ups and downs that everyone knows about the own self. Nevertheless, sometimes it is exaggerated in Sloterdijk's case. Anyone who knows him well notices that.
Sloterdijk wants to assign the human being on the one hand like Spengler either only to one space, namely the nature (environment), or several different spaces, namely the cultures, on the other hand like Heidegger only to one space, namely the world, i.e. to understand it as an being-in-the-world (**), and therefore to assign only one society to the world, what Luhmann has also done in the context of his theory of society. According to Luhmann, since the beginning of the modern age - by which only the occidental modern age can be meant, which, however, remains unmentioned by Luhmann as well as after him by Sloterdijk (!!!) - there is only one society: the world society (**|**|**|**|**|**|**). According to Luhmann's system theory, before modernity there were societies with forms of differentiation by (a) segmentation (cf. descent, genealogy, filiation, tradition and the like), (b) center/periphery, (c) stratification, but since modernity there is only one society - the world society - with the form of differentiation by (d) function (**). **
But the point is that both Luhmann and Sloterdijk - Sloterdijk in particular - repeatedly let it be known that they also judge it in the same way as I do, so that my criticism would not even be necessary if there were not something like political correctness at work here.
But please do not get me wrong: I understand that they do it this way, because if they did not, they would never have become known worldwide, and almost all of us had to miss their magnificent philosophy.
I have already said that that Sloterdijk is wrong by making the world and all human beings occidental (**|**[**|**]). In connection with all humans and occidentals Sloterdijk does not always use certain words semantically correctly: antiquity, middle ages, modern ages, culture, civilization, modernity and others. I choose here as an example the use of the word modernity: Sloterdijk uses the word modernity in the sense of a modernity of mankind, although he means and can only mean the modernity of the Occidentals. The Occidentals have indeed tried to bring their modernity closer to all others, namely to the Non-Occidentals, but they have only rarely succeeded in doing so, and their prosperity-enhancing technology alone has not been sufficient to successfully pass on their modernity, the basis of which is their culture with all its values and norms, to the Non-Occidentals. It is still the case today that the Non-Occidentals want to have the technology invented by the Occidentals, because it brings high prosperity, but they strictly reject everything else invented by the Occidentals. The Non-Occidentals want the prosperity of the devil whom they hate. There is no mankind consisting only of occidental people, consequently there is also no modernity of a mankind consisting only of occidental people.
Cultures cannot remain separate and distinct only if (and because!) the history of the occidental culture - consistently thought to the end - is extended into the infinite space (because it should and must become according to the Ursymbol [see Spengler's concept of Ursymbol]). The globalists are westerners and want to dominate the globe and thus all people forever. Thus, all rhetoric is geared towards this. This does not mean, however, that this will actually remain so.
Moreover, one should not forget that Islam (part of the magical culture [see Spengler's concept of the magical soul]) and other civilizations (India, China) are still active and do not want to be westernized. Even Slavs and Hungarians do not or not really want to be westernized. Black Africans and others also do not want to be westernized. Well, they all have - as a people - not much to say, so that one can pass over them. But that still doesn't mean that globalism (which, as I said, is western!) will prevail forever.
When there will be no more money in or from the West for the non-westerners, it will become uncomfortable, very uncomfortable.
I also think that the attempt to mix the western peoples is counterproductive and will finally only ensure that the Great Chaos, which will inevitably come (in parts is already there!), can and will then be ascribed to false (!) causes. So this mixing of peoples is only good for the globalists. But I do not believe that they will have success with it forever.
With it we are back to the question of Spengler, whether there will still be a new culture in the future or not. - I don't know, but I doubt that globalism with its rhetoric (the One World as the One Civilizationã) will be able to hold its ground in the long run or even in the medium run. I say only: War!
Technology - even Western technology - can also be (made) forgotten.
If the globalists will fight among themselves, as the Caesar(ist)s once did, then, following these wars, everything is possible again, but in a wintry form. It is also possible that all humans will disappear - due to the Great Chaos.
What we are experiencing at the moment are really the last moves of history, giving it all once more, after which it will become quiet, very quiet. Whether this will happen in the sense of the One World, i.e. as the final stage (civilization) of the occidental culture, or rather even again quite primitively, I do not know exactly, but I know that it will be wintry.
Yes. Nihilism is very successful, it works like an exponential function. At first, only a few are infected, but suddenly the infection rate increases exponentially. Nevertheless, there are also people who are immune to it. Most people come from a high culture (I call them history cultures because they have a history based on writing, unlike primitive cultures), and that is why these are mostly affected by nihilism, even if the present nihilism is an occidental nihilism. Those who have the most immunity to any nihilism are the members of primitive cultures.
Let's go to the jungle!
Basically, I am also the one who always asks for the sources and reasons. I just learned at some point that sometimes it is better to surrender to the music.
So basically, I am a pretty rational one, but I can also be different.
I think I understand your meme theory pretty well, and admit that it was your writing that drew me to this web forum.
It looks like you have quoted Iambiguous, who keeps using the word dasein but does not know what it means.
Because I have just seen your signature: Kiergegaard's concept of existence is closest to Heidegger's concept of existence.
Only a God can still save us. - Martin Heidegger in conversation with Rudolf Augstein, 1966.
Heidegger is recognized worldwide. He also had almost nothing to do with the NSDAP, because he regarded it as an eco-party (something like the later party Die Grünen). One can sometimes get lost in a party. Many people were also once in a party and then realized that this party was not the right address for them. Heidegger was apolitical.
Heidegger's existential philosophy with its fundamental ontology (Daseinsanalyse, etc.) offers an alternative to positivism (realism/naturalism) and transcendental idealism. He came from the phenomenology of Husserl (a Jew who was allowed to stay in Germany until his death in 1939 - was he also in the NSDAP?), which is also recognized worldwide.
The way Heidegger understood existence is perhaps closest to the concept Kierkegaard had of it. Otherwise, Heidegger's philosophy is unique, one of a kind. He did something philosophically that no one had ever done before. As I said, Heidegger's existential philosophy, with its fundamental ontology (Daseinsanalyse, etc.), offers an alternative to positivism (realism/naturalism) and transcendental idealism. He knew very well what problems there were with regard to cognition and that for the sciences and all other alternatives to it that had arisen until then, much had been presupposed but always remained hidden, which is even more the case today. It is always good to be able to fall back on alternatives. The fact that this does not always happen has to do with financing, i.e. with money and thus with power.
Heidegger was in the history of mankind the first philosophoic ecologist, the first ecosophist, as one could say, and the first chrirotopologist.
By the way: Who is Kvasir?
I was looking for philosophical web forums - I don't remember with which search word/s - and got a link to this forum, among others.
The search words were probably genes, memes, genes versus memes or the like.
Is Abrahamism for you just another word for the so-called magical (Arab) culture?
Does this (**) mean a Buddhistic God?
Actually, the Buddhists have no god (in the sense of monotheistic or pagan religions); so by a Buddhistic God (**|**) I meant a god in the sense of a mix of Buddhism itself and a god or the God.
1457) Kultur, 07.04.2021, 01:09, 01:11; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 07.04.2021, 13:52, 14:11, 15:14; Great Again, 07.04.2021, 20:34, 20:47, 20:58; Kultur, 07.04.2021, 22:49 (8089-8097)
The only tense to which we can refer reliably, because we can know it after all, is the past tense. We know the past, at least to a certain extent (some more, some less), but above all we know our own past; but we know almost nothing about the present (if we knew anything about it, it would already be past) and almost nothing about the future. But it always serves only very certain people when this reference is reversed and everyone and everything is supposed to be related only to the present and the future.
It is a pity that Sloetrdijk's book Die schecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit has still not been published in English. I think you would like that book. The terrible children described in the book are similar to those you call Abrahamists or/and Desperate Degenerates. **
Heiner Mühlmann's book Die Natur der Kulturen - Versuch einer kulturgenetischen Theorie (The Nature of Cultures - Attempt of a Theory of Cultural Genetics), published in 1996, is also very worth reading. In it, the cultural decorum system is presented with the help of the natural science ranking model. At the center of The Nature of Cultures is the Maximum Stress Cooperation Thesis. MSC is the acronymic shortening of the term maximal stress cooperation. The MSC model was developed from the logic of decorum ranking systems and the physiology of stress behavior.The MSC theory has been adopted and further developed by other philosophers, for example just now by Peter Sloterdijk in his book Theory of Post-War Times (Theory of Post-War Times).The MSC theory was adopted and further developed by other philosophers, for example by Peter Sloterdijk in his book Theorie der Nachkriegszeiten (Theory of Post-War Times - or is the book not available in English either?), published in 2008.
Wendy Darling wrote:
Nietzsche called for and taught transhumanism, and did so very clearly.
I teach you the overman! Man is something that is to be overcome. (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 8 **).
Look, I teach you the overman! The overman is the sense of the earth. Your will say: the overman be the sense of the earth! (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 8 **).
Man is something that must be overcome .... (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 40 **).
Encode Decode wrote:
She did not ask you. And if she did, she would indeed not receive a useful answer in this case, as you have said.
Encode Decode wrote:
No, I am not.
I know it from your previous answers and especially from the fact that you yourself said that she will not receive a useful answer from you. Look:
Encode Decode wrote:
Strange that here (**) people who are themselves threatened by genocide see the genocide of foreign people, but not their own genocide.
Who would dare to be an ILP moderator?
By the way:
Han Chinese are about 92% of all Chinese.
The Han Chinese are one race, but culturally also not quite as uniform as is repeatedly claimed by the Chinese media, which is commanded by the Chinese government.
According to my theory or philosophy, there are two main realms, one is the realm of real things (the body, you could also say) and the other is the realm of signs (of language, you could also say). I call the directions in which they develop genetics and metagenetics. This naming, although only referring to the developments, has similarity with the naming of genes and memes, to which I also refer.
Decisive, however, is according to my theory or philosophy that I call the sign realm language, independent of which signs it is about. Luhmann has chosen the word communcation for it in his system theory. But this is, in spite of or - even more - because of all today's communication euphoria, more confusing than one would like to believe at first. I also use the word or the term language because the earlier philosophers did it too and in my estimation they knew more about this topic than today's newspeak functionaries who are on the money drip.
I come from the rural area, as you can perhaps see from my avatar. But I have also experienced urban and metropolitan life, but I must say that the rural life pleases me more.
The globalists have had time enough to plan transhumanism. They are not technicians themselves and are incapable in practical things. That is why they leave the implementation to others. But the globalists have the power, not any party, but pure private men, the richest of whom have more money than Italy and France in national income. They could easily buy Italy and France at any time - not to mention that they have already done so for the most part anyway.
1459) Herr Schütze, 09.04.2021, 01:01; Kultur, 09.04.2021, 23:33 (8087-8088)
Die Menschenverachtung, insbesondere auch den Kindern gegenüber, ist überall schlimmer als bei uns. Man muß trennen zwischen denjenigen, die in der Familie Verantwortung tragen und auch gerne tragen, und demjenigen die genau das nicht tun und beispielsweise ihre Ehefrauen vor den Augen der Kinder schächten (das ist im arabischen/islamischen Kulturkreis normal!). Die Gewalt wird in Europa, in dem man seit der Aufklärung glaubt - jedenfalls dann, wenn man sich als progressiv versteht -, immer besseren Zeiten entgegenzugehen, immer mehr unterstützt, weil die Europäer sowohl in Europa als auch in Amerika, Australien, Neuseeland und anderen Exkolonien der unmittelbaren Angst ausgesetzt sind, weil sie von keinem Mächtigen mehr ernsthaft vertreten werden, sondern als rassistische Projektionsfläche für alle, die ihren Rassismus ausleben wollen, zur Verfügung gestellt werden.
Alf und Kathrina, die hier auch schon kommentiert haben, raten jedem, der gerne im Internet kommentiert, in fremdsprachigen Internetforen zu lesen, um zu erfahren, wie unsäglich schlimmer es in anderen Teilen der Welt ist - in den USA zu leben z.B., ist mittlerweile ein großes Risiko.
Folgende Nachricht erhielt ich von Kathrina:
1460) Great Again, 10.04.2021, 01:12, 01:19, 01:59; Kathrina, 10.04.2021, 18:10; Alf, 10.04.2021, 20:00; Kathrina, 10.04.2021, 20:18; Herr Schütze, 10.04.2021, 20:22; Kathrina, 10.04.2021, 22:07; Alf, 10.04.2021, 22:12 (8101-8109)
Look, what you (**) have done:
But a really beautiful flower he has. Also a typical American house to blow away (okay). And the trees are already green (light green). What degree of latitude is the house on?
Imagine, Carleas (whoever he is or was) simply deletes, without publicly justifying this deletion, all those threads that violate his rules.
That (**) was the wind!
Why are the trees already green there (**)? Here is not much green in the trees yet.
He is incapable of using objective arguments! Moreover, he is very stupid, just illiterate, because he has shown in several threads that he is not capable of reading the texts of other posters at all. He is also not capable of reading his own texts properly.
But for that, as if he wants to set both off against each other, he uses all the more personal attacks, ad hominems, ugly words and phrases of commustic ideology. And he stalks me. Why does he do all that? Probably because he is jealous of me or the person depicted in the avatar. His case is pathological. He is ill.
He must be a very frustrated person - probably because of his ugliness, as you said, Leyla, or of his illness, his cancer, perhaps because of his childhood or whatever.
One can only feel sorry for him, because he is first and foremost his own victim.
Yes, you are absolutely right, Kathrina.
Someone who wants to insult Kathrina can only be sick in the head. Such a person is an imperson. I can only advise this imperson to post in another thread, for instance this one: »Mental« Illness (**). Maybe (or maybe not!) that thread will help the imperson Sculptor.
Where has this Sculptor used a single argument even once? Nowhere!
And why is Sculptor always after Kathrina? Why is he stalking her?
This has only subjective reasons, that is, reasons that have to do with his self. He has too little self-awareness, too little self-confidence, too little trust in other people, and projects this lack onto other people, especially onto those who, in contrast to himself (again: subjective), have a healthy self-awareness, a healthy self-confidence and also trust in other people.
Why does Sculptor post at all? He's always just frustrated!
There are many of these frustrated people here at ILP. But please: Why
don't they post somewhere else? Nobody forced these sick brains to post