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 (8210-8216)

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.

Leyla wrote:

„LOL, look who's talking:

User avatar Sculptor (PhilosophyNow)

Have you ever considered making objective arguments instead of just attacking other posters personally?“ **

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.

I therefore invite you, the trolls too, yes, them even more: ** **

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?

141523, 16151920 1 16932021185 156 25152118195126!

1462) Otto, 12.04.2021, 02:07, 02:17, 02:41 (8217-8219)

Ecmandu wrote:

„A forest green 8.

May forests live forever in my heart.“ **

Ah, very good. I like forests very much. May they live forever not only in my heart, but also and especially on this planet.

Translation:

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.

Leyla wrote:

„You got it?“ **

20811411 251521.

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“.

Leyla wrote:

„Otto wrote:

»141523, 16151920 1 16932021185 156 25152118195126!“ ** **

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.

1463) Otto, 13.04.2021, 01:04, 01:14, 01:30, 01:59, 02:14, 03:11, 03:15, 03:49 (8220-8229)

Can you (**) stand up?

The bullet is deep in the butt. I'll see what I can do. I used to be a doc.

Group III (**|**) rebels have already conquered two subforums. The moderators have fled.

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.

Too late to be saved.

- Tremeloes (Blakley, Hawkes, Munden, Westwood, „Too late to be Saved“, 1972 -

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!

May the numbers continue to function as functions for a long time!

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 (8230-8239)

If you (**) really want to practice programming professionally, HTML, CSS, etc. and even Javascript are not enough. Java, Perl, C etc. are sufficient.
Well, that's another topic. So let's get back to the topic of this thread.

I said that in our culture numbers have become functions. There has never been such a development in relation to numbers before.

And you brought up „algebra“. It comes originally from another culture, but has been further developed in our culture and incorporated into the overall structure of functions. With us the term has been extended to links of a general kind, so-called „algebraic structures“, and so there is a lattice algebra, a switching algebra and other algebras - yes, one has to speak of algebras (plural!) by now -, and also inequalities actually belong to algebra. Ordinary algebra does not want to teach the pure calculation of numbers (see: arithmetic), but rather general rules of connection (therefore it often uses so-called „general numbers“, which are expressed by letters); it deals with numbers up to the complex numbers, and this is what I wanted to express with the first picture: the Gaussian number plane.

The illustrated examples in the coordinate axes are really only meant as an illustration for the fact that the occidental mathematics has become the mathematics of the world, which means just among other things that numbers are regarded only as functions.

„Can dogs think phenomenally?“ **

A note on language:

The question is not only whether dogs know and use a vocabulary, beacuse the question is also whether they furthermore use a grammar and thus a language, a dog language.

It's not only a vocabulary, it's even a grammar, albeit a very primitive grammar. Moreover, even a vocabulary is of no use at all without meaning and the grammatical linking of these meanings. All this must have a sense. All creatures have to do with a meaning. Life differs from death by sense.

Inorganic systems have no sense (besides a possible metaphysical one), but organic systems (systems of life) would not exist at all without sense, so they need a sense.

This implies that at least the higher creatures have a more complex grammar than the lower creatures. But all these grammars are of course as good as nothing if one compares them with the grammar of the human language.

The word „vocabulary“ here must not be understood humanly; also the word „word“ must not be understood according to human language.

The dog, which is to be talked about here in this thread, does not understand the human language as a „human language“. For example: „Words“ - regardless which one of them - are not understandable for the dog as „words“, but as something that the phonetic sequence means to the dog. The dog hears sounds that mean something, and relates - i.e. interprets - them in/to „dog language“, which in turn is based on what the dog has experienced; e.g.: „ball“ means then approximately: „my master and I go outside and play there with the ball“ or „I will fetch the ball, because I should/want to fetch the ball“ etc.. The phonetic series „ball“ means all this and much more to the dog. And in any case it means a good thing/situation.

So indeed, a creature’s language is just a very, very, very simple language, but a simple language - regardless how simple it is - is a language. Needed for a language are signs, consisting of the signifier and the signified, as well as their meanings (semantics) and relations as rules (grammar).

Do you (**) think then that you are isolated?

Nietzsche’s „eternal return“ means that every single life is eternally repeated. In the case of Nietzsche, who suffered from pain for about half of his life, this would not be particularly desirable.

Yes (**), I wrote that (**|**) and that is an useful answer (**).

Peter Sloterdijk has published a new book: „Der Staats streift seine Samthandschuhe ab„ („The state takes off its kid gloves“).

See: ** .

I will very probably buy the book.

Translation (**):

„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.“ **

And that's just the beginning! **

*

Have you ever considered the possibility that the Deep State of the USA was behind „Covid-19“ and tricked it so that the suspicion could fall on China?

Martha wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes.

Every actor learns something like that, and back then, too, every actor learned something like that. The broadcasting was not yet very old at that time, and that's why everyone learned in a pretty similar way how best to be heard (radio) or seen (television) via broadcasting. The only difference between the actor Hitler or Mussolini (for whom the shouting was perhaps even stronger) and other political actors was in fact the artificial, the artistic, the acting, and only in this way can it be properly understood. If they had been pure crackpots, no one would have taken them seriously and they might have been heard or/and seen in public once or twice, but not more often.

Most young people today don't understand this acting because they don't understand the historical background.They are not taught history in school, but ideology or religion. Everything is either „pathologised“ or „sanctified“, „our past“ is „full of mistakes and diseases“, „our present“ is „a constant therapy (re-education)“, „our future“ is „no-future, unless we get the right therapy (re-education) now - in the present„.

Illness is invented, produced, in order to get more power through it via money and to be able to control people more and more effectively.

This avatar (or whatever it is supposed to be) looks suspiciously like adolescent posturing. **

Does he not have any peers around him who were also not allowed to have a father or no real father?

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 (8240-8250)

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:

„A thoughtful and concise post Otto. I know you were communicating with Meno and not me but something caught my eye. I hope you don't mind me interjecting.

Otto wrote:

»Inorganic systems have no sense (besides a possible metaphysical one), but organic systems (systems of life) would not exist at all without sense, so they need a sense.« ** **

Are you talking about external sense here?

I am also curious what you mean by inorganic systems.“ **

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.

Bob wrote:

„»Hegel definiert in seiner Enzyklopädie Dasein als bestimmtes Sein (Qualität), als „die Einheit des Seins und des Nichts, in der die Unmittelbarkeit dieser Bestimmungen und damit in ihrer Beziehung ihr Widerspruch verschwunden ist, – eine Einheit, in der sie nur noch Momente sind“.
G.W.F. Hegel: Enzyklopädie der philosophischen Wissenschaften I, stw, Frankfurt am Main 2003, § 89 Anm., S. 194.«

Dasein – Wikipedia.

Translation:
Hegel defines Dasein in his Encyclopaedia as determinate being (quality), as »the unity of being and nothingness, in which the immediacy of these determinations and thus in their relation their contradiction has disappeared, - a unity in which they are only moments«.

Because Dasein is subject to becoming, to arising and passing away, and is to be regarded as something changeable, in Hegel's dialectic logic it is the basic determination of every something. For him, a something set in this way is what it is only through its boundary with respect to others. However, he points out that he does not mean the quantitative, but the qualitative limit.

I think that this is important because it isn’t a particular mode of being, except seen from the outside by others, but a Werdegang (development) in someone’s life. That is, it can seem to be a particular something from the outside, but speaking from the experience of Dasein, it is part of a flowing process.
It shows that clarification is needed when using the word, and that, taking Hegel and Heidegger as examples, it doesn’t mean one thing for all.“ **

Agreed.
________________________________________

A rather general note on the comparison between „Dasein“ and „Sosein“:

„Dasein“ (from: „da sein“ = „to be there“) = „being there“, existence„, „existentia“.
„Sosein“ (from: „so sein“ = „to be so“) = „being so“, „essence“, „essentia“.

There is no Dasein without Sosein and no Sosein without Dasein. All Sosein of something „is“ itself also Dasein of something, and all Dasein of something „is“ itself also Sosein of something. Only the something is not one and the same here. Example: the Dasein of the tree at a place is itself a Sosein of the forest, because without it the forest would be different; the Dasein of a limb at the tree is a Sosein of the tree; the Dasein of a branch is a Sosein of the limb etc.. The Dasein of the one is always at the same time the Sosein of the other. This series can be extended to both sides and also reversed.

Up to the 18th century, philosophy simply presupposed „das Seiende“ and „das Sein“ and thus also „das Dasein“, thus never questioned it, never investigated it, never explored it. Kant (1724-1804) was the first philosopher who dealt with it when he founded anthropolgy. Among others, Hamann (1730-1788), Herder (1744-1803), Goethe (1749-1832), Schiller (1759-1805) and with an even sharper investigation Hegel (1770-1831) followed. Then Hölderlin (1770-1843), Schelling (1775-1854), Schopenhauer (1788-1860), Stirner (1806-1856), Kierkegaard (1813-1855), Marx (1818-1883), Engels (1820-1895), Dilthey (1833-1922), Nietzsche (1844-1900), Husserl (1859-1938), Spengler (1880-1936), Jaspers (1883-1969) and others should also be mentioned in this regard. But it started really intensively with Heidegger (1889-1976).

Selected quotes in my translated form:

„This Seiende, which we ourselves ever are ..., we grasp terminologically as the Dasein.“ - Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 6, p. 25.

„Dasein, i.e. das Sein of (hu)man is ... the living (creature), whose being is essentially determined by the ability to speak.“ - Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 6, p. 25.

„In Dasein there is an essential tendency towards closeness.“ - Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 23, p. 105.

„Dasein understands itself first and for the most part from its world, and the co-existence (Mitdasein = Withdasein) of the others is often encountered from what is present in the inner world.“ - Martin Heidegger, 1927, § 26, p. 120.

Yes, for me JavaScript and its successors are programming languages. Some Java or Perl programmers don't see it that way - maybe for arrogant reasons.

Are you satisfied with your job?

The warmth of the fire symbolizes not only aggression or destruction at all, but also and, as I find, even more well-being (think of e.g. warmth at the campfire, Easter fire etc.), solutions and compounds by warmth/heat (compare physics, chemistry: elementary particles, atoms, elements etc.), warm-heartedness, love, also hot love, heat, eros and - not to forget - light: without fire (light) there would be nothing to see at all, there would be no sense of sight, no organs of sight (eyes).

Encode Decode wrote:

„Kathrina, you make some good points that resonate with me.

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.« ** **

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.

Kathrina wrote:

»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.“ **

It is about the one-sidedness of the evaluation. Only the one, eternal, infinite evaluation may always be taken: „it will go forward eternally“. This eternal „progressivism“ is not only wrong - future history will show it - but also treacherous.

The masses do not necessarily need a lie, but the rulers need a lie, so that they can rule the masses, and that is why there are mass media in particular, because the mass media make it look afterwards as if the masses need a lie. The masses are addicted to the „Man“ (Heidegger), they are „inauthentic“ (Heidegger), and the media make sure on behalf of the rulers that it stays that way.

But how are the masses supposed to become what we call „mankind“ or - even more problematic - „humanity“? They (a) are not allowed to do so, (b) are not capable of doing so, because they are addicted to the „Man“, are „inauthentic“.

We humans can live by nature in a small group (comparable with apes or wolves, lions and other pack animals), can live by culture even in a city (a big, global, world city is already a problem) and so just in a nation; but it is not possible in, especially not in the long run, to live as a „global community“, as „mankind“, and certainly not in a „humane“ way, as a „humanity“.

Great Again wrote:

„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?“ ** **

Great Again wrote:

„Why are the trees already green there (**)? Here is not much green in the trees yet.“ ** **

Promethean wrote:

„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!) **

I am pretty sure that Great Again was asking about the latitude! ** **

I would also be interested in the latitude of that location.

Let me guess: around 40 degrees north latitude.

1466) Kultur, 16.04.2021, 01:58, 02:55; Herr Schütze, 16.04.2021, 22:34; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 16.04.2021, 22:59 (8251-8254)

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.

„What has been called the spirit of utopia arises from the ineffable demand for the equality of all; it would be the restoration of social synthesis from the spirit of fraternity beyond envy. The motive of patricide, emphasized by Freud is in truth accidental in nature. What gives content to the effective unconscious is the annihilation, as fiercely desired as it is inconceivable, of the brother or sister who is directly to blame for your impoverishment and degradation. No coincidence, then, that the biblical narrative deals with fratricide - the thought that it might be the father who takes away some of the preference owed to you was impossible in this context.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Sphären III - Schäume, 2004, S. 770 - translated by me.) **

„There is no doubt that one day it will be understood what caused Sigmund Freud's epoch-making misreading of the Oedipus myth. It will have been the lectio iudaica of a Greek myth about the genealogical interval. The misunderstanding was artfully programmed since the antiquity, and still Freud was gladly ready to succumb to the cleverly arranged oracle deception of yore. The Greeks themselves, the first victims and consumers of the Oedipal misdirection, could have seen through it with a little turn to sobriety: Oedipus, from his point of view, had not murdered his »father«; he had put out of the way an overbearing road user who disregarded the right of way. He had never married his »mother«, he had taken a politically attractive widow as his wife and taken the vacant place in a dynasty at her side. Long ago his foster parents had become the »true« (quotation marks from me) parents, and the bodily producers insubstantial shadows. At no time had he considered liquidating his own father or begetting offspring with his own wife who would be not only his children but also his siblings. Oedipus himself, in the light of day, was already the consummate anti-Oedipus: a millennia-long conspiracy of misreading had brought about his fixation in the trap that became classic in the 20th century as the Oedipus complex. Without doubt, the fatally successful myth was from the beginning a fiction put into circulation by Delphic priests, with the help of which the declining authority of the oracle should be re-established. What was the myth of Oedipus but a machination to prove that the oracle was always right? It also performed a feint of the Counter-Enlightenment, which wanted to restore the dark majesty of fate in the dawn of the Greek culture of rationality.

The existence of the Theban child was overshadowed exclusively by the fact that his superstitious father had wanted to kill him. An Oedipus complex, had it ever existed: It would have consisted in the helpless child's worry of being murdered by his disloyal producer. Looking back at the 20th century, which was also the era of psychoanalysis as a historical Eldorado of half-truths, the question arises what crimes all these countless analysands could have committed to justify so many hours spent searching for the perpetrators of unpunished misdeeds.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014, S. 276-277 - translated by me.) **

Herr Münzhardt, woher „nehmen“ Sie nur immer wieder Ihren „Optimismus“?

Urwrong wrote:

„The head of Denmark's medicines agency, Tanja Erichsen, collapsed during the press conference announcing the Astra Zeneca vaccine discontinuation (**).“ **

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.

1467) Kultur, 17.04.2021, 01:01, 01:58, 03:03, 03:05, 03:57, 18:56 (8255-8260)

Lyssa wrote:

„Spengler wrote:

»And then, when Being is sufficiently uprooted and Waking Being sufficiently strained, there suddenly surges into the bright light of history a phenomenon that has long been preparing itself underground and now steps forward to make an end to the drama - the sterility of civilized man. This is not something that can be grasped as a plain matter of Causality; it is to be understood as an essentially metaphysical turn towards death. The last man of the world-city no longer wants to live - he may cling to life as an individual, but as a type, as an aggregate, no, for it is a characteristic of this collective existence that it eliminates the terror of death. That which strikes the true peasant with a deep and inexplicable fear, the notion that the family and name may be extinguished, has now lost its meaning. The continuance of the blood relation in the visible world is no longer a duty of blood, and the destiny of being the last of the line is no longer felt as a doom. Children do not happen, not because children have become impossible, but principally because intelligence at the peak of intensity can no longer find any reason for its existence.

Let the reader try to merge himself in the soul of the peasant. He has sat on his glebe from primeval times, or has fastened his clutch in it, to adhere to it with his blood. He is rooted in it as the descendant of his forbears and as the forbear of future descendants. His house, his property, means, here, not the temporary connexion of person and thing for a brief span of years, but an enduring and inward union of eternal land and eternal blood. It is only from this mystical conviction of settlement that the great epochs of the cycle pro-creation, birth, and death - derive that metaphysical element of wonder which condenses in the symbolism of custom and religion that all landbound people possess. For the »last men« all this is past and gone. Intelligence and sterility are allied in old families, old peoples, and old Cultures, not merely because in each microcosm the overstrained and fettered animal element is eating up the plant element, but also because the waking-consciousness assumes that being is normally regulated by causality. When the ordinary thought of a highly cultivated people begins to regard »having children« as a question of pro's and con's, the great turning-point has come. For Nature knows nothing of pro and' con...

When reasons have to be put forward at all in a question of life, life itself has become questionable. At that point begins prudent limitation of the number of births. In the Classical world the practice was deplored by Polybius as the ruin of Greece, and yet even at his date it had long been established in the great cities; in subsequent Roman times it became appallingly general. At first explained by the economic misery of the times, very soon it ceased to explain itself at all.« [Decline of the West] (**).“ **

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.

Kultur wrote:

„Infertility and Decay.

And now from the fact that existence becomes more and more rootless, the wakefulness more and more tense, finally that phenomenon emerges, which was prepared in silence long ago and now suddenly moves into the bright light of history to put an end to the whole spectacle: the infertility of civilized man. This is not something that could be understood with everyday causality, for example physiologically, as modern science has naturally tried to do. Here is a thoroughly metaphysical turn to death. The last man of the world cities does not want to live any more, certainly as an individual, but not as a type, as a multitude; in this total being the fear of death expires. That which afflicts the true peasant with a deep and inexplicable fear, the thought of the extinction of the family and the name, has lost its meaning. The continuation of the related blood within the visible world is no longer felt as the duty of this blood, the lot of being the last is no longer felt as a doom. Not only because children have become impossible, but above all because the intelligence, which has been increased to the utmost, no longer finds reasons for their existence, they remain absent.“ (Translated by me.)

- Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, 1918-1922, S. 678-679 (**).

According to Spengler, the civilization of a culture is its downfall and the time after that, if it still exists, i.e. the petrification, the freezing, the solidification in winter. When the culture becomes civilization, its urbanites begin to reject the community, all tradition and history, even the parents. And in the end, the culture/civilization consists almost entirely of city dwellers (except the most faithfully country people). The individual culture/civilization member just wants to be himself, not a member of his culture/civilization anymore.“ ** **

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.

Satyr wrote:

„When males are feminized the vacuum forces females to behave more masculine...though they cannot do more than pretend by imitating social caricatures.
Another by product of feminization is hypermasculinity, like that displayed in cRap.

Those who have no experience with real masculinity associate it with caricatures they were sold by pop-art, i.e., Hollywood; they hyperinflate some traits, like aggressiveness, because they have no clue what a man is or how real men behave.
Hyperbole is a sign of insecurity and ignorance.“ **

Satyr wrote:

„Both males and females are being feminized.
Masculinization - including hypermasculinity - is a side-effect of this feminization - imitating what is being eliminated.

In females and males this feminization is a regression to adolescence, when boys and girls complete their gender divergence.“ **

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.

„Fickwitz“ (**)?

Who is that?

In German:

„Fick“ means „fuck“ and „Witz“ „wit“ resp. „joke“.

So: „Fickwitz“must be a „fuckwit“ or „fuckjoke“.

1468) Otto, 18.04.2021, 01:01, 01:01; Kultur, 18.04.2021, 01:08, 22:45, 23:03 23:58 (8261-8266)

„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“.

Kultur wrote:

„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.

“ ** **

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?“ (**). **

1469) Kultur, 19.04.2021, 03:20; Otto, 19.04.2021, 20:33, 21:23 21:44 (8267-8270)

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.

Carleas?

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 (8271-8280)

Felix Dakat wrote:

„Heiddegger spent the entire book »Being and Time« explaining what he meant by dasein because he saw it as the key to fundamental ontology. However he never finished the book because along the way he realized that fundamental ontology is impossible because of the problem of historicity in which understanding of being is always embedded in a historical moment which conceals as much as it reveals.“ **

Heidegger mentioned in his preliminary remarks to the seventh edition in 1953:

„The marking »First Half« in the previous editions has been deleted. The second half can no longer be connected after a quarter of a century without the first half being presented anew. However, its path remains a necessary one even today, if the question of being is to move our existence.

For an explanation of this question, I refer to the »Introduction to Metaphysics« published simultaneously with this reprint by the same publisher. It contains the text of a lecture given in the summer semester of 1935.“

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 Heidegger’s „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 like the lectures by Jaspers (**|**) and especially Gadamer (**|**) that you posted.

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:

„Heidegger on Heidegger (**).“

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“ (**|**).

You have more space.

I made a little fun in order to be able to celebrate now my 100th post.

==>