1461) Herr Schütze, 11.04.2021, 01:19; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 11.04.2021, 22:42, 22:45; Otto, 11.04.2021, 23:18, 23:21, 23:37, 23:45 (8110-8116)
Manche haben wegen der Tatsache, daß sie ständig unter Leistungs- und damit auch Zeitdruck stehen, keine Kinder, obwohl gerade sie welche haben sollten, weil sie tendenziell verantwortungsvoller sind als andere. Andere dagegen haben Kinder, meistens sogar viele Kinder, weil sie gerade überhaupt NICHT unter Leistungs- und damit auch Zeitdruck stehen, obwohl gerade sie keine haben sollten, weil sie tendenziell verantwortungsloser sind als andere.
Wer mit Kindern nicht umgehen kann oder ihnen nur Gewalt antut, der sollte keine haben. Statistisch gesprochen, nimmt die Gewalt an Kindern hauptsächlich deswegen zu, weil die Verteilung der Kinder so ist, wie ich oben beschrieben habe. Dazu kommt, daß durch die Einwanderung von fremdkulturellen Menschen in die abendländische Kultur - nicht zufällig nur in diese -, der Umgang mit Kindern so sehr für die heimische Kultur entfremdet wird, daß niemand weiß, wie damit umgegangen werden soll - auch angesichts der Tatsache, daß es heute fast nur noch verantwortungslose Politiker gibt (und die Weltherrscher sind sowieso immer schon verantwortungslos gewesen). Angesichts solcher Entwicklungen kann man nur mit Graus auf oder in die Zukunft blicken: in nicht mehr ferner Zukunft wird mit Kindern wahrscheinlich so umgegangen werden, daß sie völlig schutzlos dastehen werden; das ist jetzt schon zu sehen, weil der Unterschied aus der weltweiten Sicht im Mittel schon gar nicht mehr so groß ist (fast völlig schutzlos und völlig schutzlos). Ich sehe gegenwärtig auch keinen Menschen mit Macht, der diese zum Himmel schreiende Ungerechtigkeit zu verhindern vermöchte.
That picture reminds me of this I found in the internet:
Looks pretty similar.
It is almost always the case that people only support those who are in their group. Group dynamics is the keyword.
Ah, group dynamics! That's one of my specialities, also the trolls in one of the four groups that always exist on the internet.
Yes, being funny is my job, but my job ethic has limits, moreover, I often have vacations.
23825 415519 208919 20818514 141520 715 1514, 615121119?
Ah, very good. I like forests very much. May they live forever not only in my heart, but also and especially on this planet.
18, 2251825 715154. 9 129115 615185192019 2251825 132138. 13125 208525 129225 61518522518 141520 15141225 914 1325 8511820, 22120 1121915 1144 519165391121225 1514 208919 1612114520.
Translation to others:
2619, 52292 20121223. 18 151816222 2112922878 52292 1462419. 14262 719222 1518522 21129225229 13127 1213152 1813 142 19222697, 2567 2615812 261323 228112224182615152 1213 719188 11152613227.
25519, 9 71520 920. 1 20251615, 9 72251919. 10211920 61518 1351415..
Note to others:
I just said: 25519, 9 71520 920.
Note to the other others:
I just said: 2228, 18 20127 187.
1 2251825 14935 4157.
2081141119 61518 2085 16932021185.
I like pets and forests very much. So thanks, friends.
Translation into a very special language:
9 619714 2147282 8415 331914827282 5249122 516261. 8231 728417182, 3919441582.
Can you (**) stand up?
The bullet is deep in the butt. I'll see what I can do. I used to be a doc.
Over there comes the sheriff with some citizens. .... But what is that? They are riding back! They are escaping! They are riding back! They are escaping too! Just like the moderators! Oh, my God ....
We have to hold on!
Can you stand up?
Hang in there!
I will try to stop them. Alone.
Too late to be saved.
I would only want to become a moderator under one condition: in a subforum only for trolls without access for others - and vice versa. In such a subforum I could continue my troll research and at the same time encourage the trolls to troll more and more.
But you (**) are 95% antisocial then - acording to your own words. .... Nice.
22482, 9 71413142. 223162 (**) 8914 9148616122 5185. 9 31416122 2161822 841 86723191 9131614 882 8 8287299198272.
(Yes, I know. You are really mad. I only play an actor role as a satirist.)
@ 16.25. **
2385185 1185 25152118 2081851419?
I am a programmer by profession.
In our culture, numbers have long since become functions. They are no longer numbers in the former sense. Letters can, indeed should, also have a large place in them. So it's okay if you (**) post an h.
So, I have to go now.
Three (or even more) cheers for the numbers!
1464) Otto, 14.04.2021, 01:05, 01:34, 02:19; Kultur, 14.04.2021, 02:48; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 14.04.2021, 03:54; Kultur, 14.04.2021, 04:02, 04:09, 04:34, 22:58, 23:15 (8130-8139)
If you (**)
really want to practice programming professionally, HTML, CSS, etc. and
Can dogs think phenomenally? **
Peter Sloterdijk is one of the best-known and most effective thinkers of our time. His philosophical diagnoses of the times and political interventions are risk-taking, contentious, and at least as illuminating as they are surprising. This could be witnessed once again last year, when he was questioned in numerous interviews about the pandemic and its social, political, and existential consequences.
The most important interviews and contributions are now collected here and document a learning process in which the seriousness of the situation and the search for appropriate interpretations are increasingly taking shape. For Peter Sloterdijk, the Corona crisis is not merely an economic or sociopolitical caesura. Rather, it marks the »beginning of an age whose basic ethical evidence is co-immunism, the swearing in of individuals to mutual protection«. This requires a new definition of togetherness, a »changed grammar of our behavior«, and a global immunitarian reason. What consequences this will have for us - that, too, can be gleaned from these clairvoyant, forward-looking talks.
Table of contents:
- Previous note.
- The Western system will prove to be just as authoritarian as the Chinese one.
- There is no more room for exaggeration.
- Co-immunism in the age of pandemics and climate change.
- Man is not prepared to protect nature.
- Man, the distant being.
- The state shows its iron fist.
- Please explain the time we live in!
- Is it legitimate not to be afraid of Corona?
- Are we living beyond our means?
- Humor, a civic vaccine.
- Of the discomfort in the fiscal culture.
- Life without excuses.
- One cannot live in revolt.
- Why are more and more people stepping out of reality?
- Instead of an epilogue.
- Life in the philosopher's cave. **
I think the impression of an always choleric Hitler came from the historical documents, from excerpts that showed him mostly at the height of his speeches. But his play with voice pitches, pauses and intonations was actually much more complex.
He was known for his initial silences, his silent perseverance at the lectern, his concentrated clearing of the throat. When he then broke the tense silence and raised his voice, it initially sounded calm and rather low. Only slowly did he increase, until his voice became resolute, aggressive and very loud.
This made it possible for him to whip up himself and the listeners, and perhaps people were more receptive to it at that time than they would be today.
On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if the sound of his voice was manipulated by the media in retrospect. **
1465) Otto, 15.04.2021, 01:26 01:34, 01:42, 02:00, 02:13, 02:40, 03:12, 03:15; Kathrina, 15.04.2021, 18:53, 20:17, Alf, 15.04.2021, 21:40 (8140-8150)
You (**) call yourself a website and email developer, not a programmer. I was talking about programmers.
Can you also be called a programmer?
Encode Decode wrote:
By inorganic systems I mean systems (and processes) of lifeless nature.
Sense exists exclusively as the sense of the operations that use it, i.e. only at the moment in which it is determined by operations, and neither before nor after. Sense is therefore a product of the operations that use it, and not a world quality that owes itself to a creation, a foundation, an origin.
I speak here as a system theorist, if you will.
Yes (**) . This process seems unstoppable. Nevertheless, it will stop because the people necessary for it will die out (this process is already underway - you can also call it intelligence destruction).
It is helpful not to think so much in terms of behaviorism. That does not lead very far.
When I speak of signs, I mean everything that those who have signs and thus meaning (see: semantics) or sense in their operations. Seen in this way, everything is language, e.g. in the semiotic, in the purely linguistic, in the strictly logical, in the mathematical sense.
Non-human creatures do this only on the semiotic level. They can, however, understand a little of the other systems, but only if they can incorporate it into their language system, i.e. assign it semiotically. Conversely, humans can also have access to the system of the non-human creatures, but not 100%.
CSS and HTML are only conditionally regarded as programming languages in the programming community. Why ever. That is not my fault.
Kathrina, you make some good points that resonate with me.
»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.« ** **
Are you using now as a reference point because things seem a lot crazier now than they did five years ago? Going back five years - things seemed a lot crazier then, as opposed to five years earlier than that...thus evaluating each era compared to its last up until a point back in time. It is true to say that among people there are those that romanticize over an earlier time/era because they perceive that this time or one earlier, even, is a worse time than the era they so wish was still operating within the current time frame(whatever that may be). A lot of neo-speak has not yet been officially recognized and a lot of it is temporary in nature. Only a few new words will make it through to become part of everyone's everyday lives.
Artifacts of getting older I am afraid - and possibly a feeling of less relevance.
»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. **
Look, what you (**) have done:
Fuckin photosynthesis or some shit how the fuck do i know? Do I look like a fuckin botanist to you, pal? (Anmerkung: So jemand schreibt so etwas in einem Philosophie-Webforum! Und das ist dort an der Tagesordnung!) **
1466) Kultur, 16.04.2021, 01:58, 02:55; Herr Schütze, 16.04.2021, 22:34; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 16.04.2021, 22:59 (8151-8154)
It is told now and then that Nietzsche might have had a father complex. He lost his father very early. Therefore, he could have seen substitute fathers in Schopenhauer and Wagner. I myself hold it with the psychoanalysis similar to Sloterdijk, but even more critical/skeptical than him. Why should a son want to kill his father? Nothing speaks for it. If anything, it is more likely that a father would want to kill his son. But I don't believe in that either in the sense that it should be made part of a theory or the building of a psychoanalysis.
Small side note: I also don't believe in making psychology a science. Psychology should remain a discipline of philosophy. The late 20th century has done a lot of damage here. The same is true for sociology. For me, psyche/soul remains a metaphysical concept and the social an ethical concept. To try to build into science is tantamount to trying to suppress the real sciences in order to keep the masses stupid.
Back to Nietzsche: Perhaps he had a father complex. But if, then, because I do not consider such a one as particularly dramatic, I would rather tend to the statement that Nietzsche was already at times in search of a father, this search also frustrated him partly, but did not really pathologize him. I believe that Nietzsche came to his results because he followed his own analyses, and in these the antiquity and the alleged rebirth of the antiquity - the Renaissance - have had an extraordinary importance. Nietzsche was a classical philologist and was on good terms with the Renaissance lover J. Burckhardt. He was also privately different than he tried to give himself in his books. And like I said: maybe it was something like a father complex that brought him into the defensive attitude towards Schopenhauer and Wagner, whom he had admired so much, even loved, as he said himself. But why then so late? Why not earlier, for example, when he was younger than 30 years? Well, Freud would now say, his »Über-Ich« did not let it happen sooner. But this can be said always and in any case.
Yes, I know, it is meant symbolically. I know psychoanalysis. But I don't think so much of it. As I said, I welcome some things in psychoanalysis, but I reject others. Sloterdijk, who judges this similarly to me, nevertheless got the Sigmund Freud Prize. Will I get it too?
No, I don't want it at all. My point is not so much psychoanalysis as such, but that one should sometimes analyze similarly to a psychoanalyst (because of language), but be careful with analogies to the Oedipus or Electra sagas.
Herr Münzhardt, woher nehmen Sie nur immer wieder Ihren Optimismus?
It is as if the head of the church had fallen down dead because it had just been announced that God was no longer responsible for him.
That passage on infertility is one of the most important in Spengler's major work. When the people of a culture begin to attach no more importance to offspring, then they are civilized, then the culture has become civilization.
Unfortunately, this also affects women - in their own way: just think of the increasing number of masculinized women, lesbians, etc..
Spengler said: They all belong to themselves and they are all infertile. (Translated by me.) **
In spring culture goes up as it does in nature, from the equinox to the summer solstice: birth, blossoming, upward striving to the peak.
Compared to summer and autumn, when harvesting is already possible, spring is not yet so stable for a culture, because almost everything is still under construction, while summer and autumn are already about deconstruction (decomposition, at last: degeneration), which is finished when winter begins.
It can be said that the masculinization of the females is also part (a side-effect, as you said) of the feminization. But if one says that, one should also say, whether and how one calls the process altogether, thus: as an umbrella term. Again the words nihilism, decadence come to my mind.
But because without the help of Western technology, pharmacy, surgery all this exaggerated build-up of muscles and sexual characteristics would not be seen at all or hardly at all, we now always have to look at these rebuilt people. If it were not so exaggerated, as it is meanwhile, one could find pleasure in it, but ..., I must honestly say: I don't like to see it. And as if that were not already bad enough: The greed for power functioning over the money will drive this decadent development further.
Who is that?
Fick means fuck and Witz wit resp. joke.
So: Fickwitzmust be a fuckwit or fuckjoke.
Blad 49R Pocket Bike?
It is because of this:
Or it is because of this:
Both reasons are very similar.
One wants recognition, as Hegel would say now. There are many ways to get recognition. One of them is for men to buy motorcycles that make an impression on women and possibly lead to some women soon sitting down on the very last, but very elevated seat of the motorcycle.
I would rather stay with my namesake's Ottifant:
There seems to be a lot of acting going on. If Jordan Peterson is really influenced by women and his audience, as you said, then it's no wonder to me if there's a lot of acting going on. Not all, but a lot of today's women like soft men, like female voices (Peterson has an almost female voice) and like it when men show emotions, only the soft emotions of course. And today's audience is feminized anyway.
To the appearance of the fatherless Jesus of Nazareth, the most terrible child of world history (**), as Sloterdijk calls Jesus. According to Sloterdijk, the attempt of Christianity to get out of the impossibility a possibility and thereby again the connection to reality had to fail. The attempt to make a genealogy again out of the anti-genalogy of the fatherless Jesus of Nazareth, the most terrible child of world history (**), who did not want to descend from a physical but from a metaphysical father, could not work or only under absurd, paradoxical, just contradictory conditions. The evangelists Matthew and Luke even wanted Jesus to descend from David to Abraham. This is not convincing, because thereby the descent from God becomes irrelevant. Jesus is said to have emerged unmistakably as the Son of God from asexual procreation and supranatural embodiment causality. At the same time, he is said to represent a descendant of Abraham and David in a direct line of procreation .... (**). This doesn't work. Matthew and Luke proclaim a re-genealogization of the anti-genealogical revolt (**), which could also be called the re-familialization of the anti-familial revolt. Jesus, rejecting all worldly origins, is to be returned to his origins: thus begin re-genealogization, re-familalization re-paternalization, although anti-genealogization, anti-familalization, anti-paternalization underlie them. This cannot go well in the long run. **
The revolution of what Sloterdijk calls the fatherless Jesus of Nazareth, the most terrible child in world history (**) was followed by a counter-revolution or restoration. The transformation of Christianity into a religion of sons who, by exercising pastoral power, pushed back into the father role forbidden by Jesus, reflects the unrecognized main spiritual event of late antiquity: one could call it the counterrevolution of the bishops - or the clericocratic restoration. (**). The episcopal reversal set in motion - beyond the re-genealogization and re-familialization of the message already sought by the evangelists - that extreme re-paternalization of Christian congregational life without which one would not be able to form an adequate picture of the physiognomy of Christianity between 300 and 1800 A.D., either according to its everyday or its doctrinal side. (**). In the sphere of influence of Roman Catholicism, as well as in the Greek and Russian Orthodoxies, this patrocentric image is still current today (**), which, according to Sloterdijk, speaks for the sexual neurotic heritage of Christianity, prefigured by Paul and Augustine, not to speak further of the sheer undying undercurrent of ecclesiopathic crankiness in the midst of spiritual cooperations (**). **
The secularization of original sin has indeed neutralized the metaphysical poison which, distilled in the witch's kitchen of Augustinism, was passed on in the »Occident« over one and a half millennia. But the elimination of the hereditary burden a priori has at the same time opened the view to numerous forms of ambivalent hereditaments in the secular realm. To speak more carefully: It has directed the awareness of the difficulties of being an heir, a descendant and a debtor onto new tracks. A mass rush to positions of »presuppositionless living« guarantees modernizations their influx. On this point, the entente cordiale between liberalism and socialism is palpable. The seemingly irreconcilable opponents are the best of friends when it comes to obscuring the familial, genealogical premises of 'social life' founded in successful filiations.(**). Since their rise as terrible children, libertarians and socialists are modern secular-Jesuists, modern secular-Paulists, modern secular-Augustinists, speaking and acting on behalf of modern financial-Jesuists, modern financial-Paulists, modern financial-Augustinists, who have become the most terrible children after their rise as terrible children. **
(**) Translation of: Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2004, S. 24-25, 288, 300-301, 302, 303.
With my theory, I set the dates for the cultural-historical seasons somewhat differently than Spengler did.
For me, the cycle of a culture already begins at the beginning of winter. The beginning of spring symbolizes the cultural birth.
Spengler's winter still largely coincides with my autumn.
Here it would be appropriate to recall Sloterdijk's book Zorn und Zeit (**), published in 2006. Original Christianity was also an opponent of anger, or at least an opponent of violence. However, the rulers did not adhere to this, neither in the Occident nor elsewhere in Christian areas. It is true that the people were educated in the Christian sense; but the political and above all the purely power relations - especially those between church and emperor or clergy and nobility - showed a quite different picture from the very beginning. Among the people, what had been brought up in the Christian sense may have been preserved in part and probably to an ever decreasing percentage, but the picture of the modern Occident shows that this percentage must have been very small already at the beginning of the Occidental modernity, indeed that it was probably only small even before that, and hardly anyone really believed the sermons (everyday life rather required a different faith). The fact, however, that today's Occident is ignorant of rage and also otherwise seems more like a space of primitive Christianity (tolerance towards everything) seems to prove Sloterdijk right. On page 32 of the book Zorn und Zeit it says, for example: No sooner do »symptoms« such as pride, indignation, rage, ambition, a high will to assert oneself and an acute readiness to fight appear in individuals or groups than the partisan of the thymós-forgotten culture takes refuge in the idea that these people must be victims of a neurotic complex. The therapists are here in the tradition of the Christian moralists, who speak of the natural demoniac of self-love as soon as the thymotic energies make themselves openly known. Have not the Europeans heard about pride as well as rage from the days of the Fathers of the Church, that such emotions are the ones that show the way to the abyss for the rejected? (**). **
Yes, thymos and eros are to be regarded like the two focal points in an ellipse. It is not only geometrically true for all points in the ellipse that the sum of their distances to the two foci F1 and F2 is constant and that the center of the distance between the two foci is at the same time the center of the ellipse.
The Sein of that Seiende, which is the Dasein, is the Sorge (care, concern, worry, ...). Heidegger devoted in his book Sein und Zeit an entire chapter to Sorge, entitled Sorge als Sein des Daseins (6th chapter, § 39-44, pp. 180-230).
Dasein is Besorgen (getting, providing, procuring, buying) in relation to the environment, and Dasein is Fürsorge (welfare, care, aid) in relation to Mitmenschen (withmen, other, fellow human beings). In the Sorge the three structural moments of Dasein are brought together: (1.) the Sich-vorweg-Sein (being ahead of oneself), (2.) the Geworfenheit (thrownness), (3.) the Verfallen (falling under, beholding, addicting). Sorge is something like a »hearing« of Sein. The call of the Sorge is the Gewissen (conscience).
So it is the conscience as the call of the Sorge that calls man to and back from the lostness to the Man (Man means man in the sense of the usual, unquestioned doing of the mass, also as it is often used in one, e.g. one does this, one does that, one reads the newspare as one raeds the newspaper etc.) into the freedom on the ground of the nothing(ness). It is this call that makes the movement of the actual self becoming possible. The wanting/will to have conscience constitutes the actual Seinkönnen (being can, thus: being able) of the Dasein.
In understanding Heidegger's philosophy, I think it is better not to translate the German words, because the English language has no equivalents for them, which is especially true of the many derivatives from a root word that can be used infinitely in German, but not in English. For example: Sorge, sorgen, sorglos, sorgelos, sorgevoll, Sorgen, sorgen, sorgend, besorgt, Besorgen, besorgen, besorgend, Besorgung, Fürsorge, Fürsorgen, fürsorgen, fürsorgend, fürsorglos, fürsorgevoll, fürsorgelos,, Umsorge, Umsorgen, umsorgen, umsorgend, Umsorgung, Versorge, Versorgen, versorgen, versorgend, Versorgung, Vorsorge, vorsorgen, Vorsorgen, vorsorgend, Nachsorge, Nachsorgen, nachsorgen, nachsorgend, Mitsorge, Mitsorgen, mitsorgen, mitsorgend, Rundumsorge, Rundumsorgen,, rundumsorgen, rundumsorgend, , Rundumfürsorge, Rundumfürsorgen, , rundumfürsorgen, rundumfürsorgend, Überversorgung, Überversorgen, , überversorgen, überversorgt, Unterversorgung, Unterversorgen, unterversorgen, unterversorgt, Zwischenversorgung, Zwischenversorgen, zwischenversorgen, zwischenversorgend, Entsorgung, Entsorgen, entsorgen, entsorgend, Hinterhersorge, Hinterhersorgen, hinterhersorgen, hinterhersorgend, Vollumsorge, Vollumsorgung, Vollumsorgen, vollumsorgen, vollumsorgend ... etc. etc. etc. ..., in principle derivable to infinity and composable like almost all German words, no matter what kind of word it is.
1470) Otto, 20.04.2021, 01:04, 01:20, 01:33; Kultur, 20.04.2021, 02:43, 02:53 03:30; Otto, 20.04.2021, 22:02, 22:37, 22:57, 23:08 (8171-8180)
Felix Dakat wrote:
Heidegger mentioned in his preliminary remarks to the seventh edition in 1953:
The historicity in which understanding of being is always embedded in a historical moment which conceals as much as it reveals (Felix Dakat) was already taken into account in Heideggers Sein und Zeit (Being and Time).
Heidegger's existentials (the ways of existing) are, for example: Sorge, esp. Angst, In-der-Welt-Sein (being-in-the-world), Gestimmtheit (mood, attunement), Geworfenheit (thrownness), Verstehen (understanding) and others.
I recommend Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics as a supplement (the second half - as mentioned above) to Being and Time.
By the way:
Everything is governed by history. Everything is historical. Everything is subjected to historicity.
It is not possible to explain with a physical method what e.g. physics is. It is not possible. But it is possible to understand it. But the understanding starts from completely different presuppositions. You can know what physics is when you speak and think about it, but not when you start an experiment or trial to show what physics is. All knowledge, and therefore all science too, is subjected to historicity.
Heidegger knew this, of course. His disciple Hans-Georg Gadamer wrote a book with the title Wahrheit und Methode(Truth and Method), in which he also points to the problem, which of course was also known to Heidegger.
Racing? .... Only for this purpose:
Nature opens its eye in man. (Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling).
I especially like the sentence that was written in Heidegger's hut in the Black Forest: Der Blitz steuert alles. (Hans-Georg Gadamer).
It is no coincidence that postmodernism and de(con)stuctivism, expressed in art and architecture, emerged at about the same time.
Postmodernism may hide behind as many excuses as possible: it is destructive. It suggests an anticipation of later (allegedly postmodern) times, but in reality it still belongs to modernity - more precisely: late modernity - and does not want to admit this.
Felix Dakat wrote:
A good film. Thank you.
Heidegger is right:
The question of being and the unfolding of the question of being presuppose precisely an interpretation of dasein.
According to Heidegger, behind the essence of technology hides the relation between being and man. And this relation could one day come to light in its unconcealedness.
Heidegger has never been against technology, but wants to understand the essence of technology. He interprets technology, namely the essence of technology, as a power that challenges man and towards which he is no longer free.
Heidegger knows that in the foreseeable future man (in his organic being) will be made accordimg to need.
Heidegger's new thinking, which he says is more difficult in execution than philosophy, demands a new care of language (!). He used the word Sorgfalt translated as care. Also the word Sorgfalt contains the word Sorge (**|**).
I made a little fun in order to be able to celebrate now my 100th post.