1471) Alf, 21.04.2021, 23:43 (8281)

„Unterwegs zur Sprache“. Und das ist das ganze Geheimnis Heideggers.“ - Jean Beaufret, Heidegger-Übersetzer.
„On the way to language. And that is the whole secret of Heidegger.“ - Jean Beaufret, Heidegger translator.

1472) Herr Schütze, 22.04.2021, 01:31 (8282)

Wer weiß, welche Art von Leuten mittlerweile größtenteils im Öffentlichen Dienst und also auch in Schulen tätig sind, weiß auch, warum solche Leute dort tätig sind und warum sie auch bezüglich der Kriminalität in der Schule schweigen und nicht selten auch lügen.

1473) Kathrina, 23.04.2021, 15:29, 19:43; Kultur, 23.04.2021, 21:33, 21:54 (8283-8286)

Ichthus wrote:

„What came first, the word or the ability to produce and/or comprehend it?“ **

We can observe that small children understand certain words - more exactly: the meaning of certain words (in certain situations) - already when they are not capable of producing words themselves yet.

The prehistoric people probably already had certain meanings for words when they could not speak them yet. At that time these meanings were represented by other signs, e.g. by gestural or/and mimic signs, both more and more combined with phonetic signs (but these phonetic signs could not yet be combined into words at that time).

When they later realized that due to a physiological change (lowering of the larynx) they could produce many more phonetic signs than before, the meanings shifted from a system based on the combination of gestural, mimic and phonetic signs to a more complex system based on more phonetic signs that could be combined to words.

Evolutionarily said, the probability of words appearing and the probability of beings with the ability to use words appearing are about equally small. But if one of the two possibilities is there, then the other possibility is also there. Why should e.g. a being that can use words not be able to find corresponding words? Or the other way round: Why should e.g. words, if they have already appeared, not find beings which use words? Do you notice that the answer of your question presupposes the existence of beings which know what words are and at the same time presupposes just existence of words?

By the way: Words alone are not yet the only meaningful thing of a language. The meaningfulness of a language results from the combination of words to sentences and texts, i.e. to the syntax, to the grammar, to the linguistic language.

And again, exactly what I just wrote can be observed in small children too: When they speak words for the first time, these words are almost always already meant as sentences - one-word sentences -, and these one-word sentences are followed by two-word sentences, then three-word sentences up to multi-word sentences, with which syntax is then largely mastered.

So, (a) in one way the words are there earlier than the sentences (that is the way they interpret by the culture already educated elders), but (b) in the other way the sentences are there earlier than the words. With words, one usually does not want to say something word-like, but more: to express a meaning that goes beyond words, i.e.: sentences or texts.

As long as all this does not work linguistically, it already works semiotically. And this is also confirmed by the observations.

What throw-stuff is for language development, play-stuff is for language acquisition ().

Besides, the fairy tale (**) contains two fat historical errors.

1.) The ancient culture died already in the period from the 2nd to the 4th century, finally in 476 (deposition of the last emperor).
2.) Switzerland became independent from the German Reich (Holy Roman Empire of German Nation) only in 1648 - end of the Thirty Years War.

The information of 715 years and the information and 1300 years are wrong.

The deep state in the USA cooperates with the official government only when it suits it. It pursues strategic goals that often do not coincide, or only partially coincide, with those of the government.

The geostrategy against Germany, for example, has been existing since 1871. The enemy is an ally, is in NATO, is in the EU, the UN, etc., and is everywhere the paymaster, the world paymaster. And even that is not enough to abandon this geostrategy. On the contrary, it is one of the main reasons why this geostrategy is still a top priority.

The deep state is very powerful. **

1474) Kultur, 24.04.2021, 23:34, 23:47; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 24.04.2021, 23:50 (8287-8289)

Kvasir wrote:

„Postmodern deconstructionism of ideas and metaphors, points, not only to the attack on philosophy itself, but a cowardice to deal with the unknown. Because a symbol, a representation, cannot be absolute, the mind must reach a point where it confronts the darkness of existence, the abyss which forces them to face themselves in contrast to uncertainty, which is a glimpse at death. Death signifies the unknown, and so an intellectual conflict with uncertainty, is this anxiety with the shadow of death which looms over the psyche. The reaction must either be courage or fear. The courage to embrace the merciless divisibility of truth by allowing its stream of patterns to carry away those truths that we have no power to extract; or the fear of experiencing the dying process being swept away by this stream of nature, and desperately needing answers, a finality, an ultimate truth which will save us from our inevitable demise, desperately needing a way to stop the movement of this stream. Wisdom is making peace with the unknown, philosophy is making peace with death.“ **

The Greek word „sophia“, which is contained in the word „philosophy“, means first of all every activity based on expertise and knowledge, then every deeper insight into the relationship of things and the tasks of life - wisdom as knowledge from experience and understanding, as attitude to life arising from the correct assessment of things and people.

Kultur wrote:

„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.“ ** **

@ Zinnat.

Is the belief in the elements still very widespread in India?
Would you like it to stay that way?

1475) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 25.04.2021, 01:07; Great Again, 25.04.2021, 22:21, 22:24, 22:34, 22:42, 23:34; Kultur, 25.04.2021, 23:53; Great Again, 25.04.2021, 23:53 (8290-8296)

The best-selling philosophy book of the 20th century.
Do you know which book it is?

Spring pollen season is over when spring is over.

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„The best-selling philosophy book of the 20th century.
Do you know which book it is?“ ** **

Yes.

Otto wrote:

„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.“ ** **

Having such a moderator would be better than having no moderator.

Great (again).

Make jokes great again.

I celebrate each of my posts.

Kvasir wrote:

„Johann Gottlieb Fichte wrote:

»The majority of men could sooner be brought to believe themselves a piece of lava on the moon, than to take themselves for a self. Anyone who is not yet at one with himself on this point has no understanding of any fundamental philosophy, and needs none. Nature whose machine he is, will lead him, even without his own cooperation, into all the occupations that are his to pursue. Philosophizing calls for independence, and this one can only ever confer on oneself. Without eyes, we ought not to wish to see; but nor ought we to maintain that it is the eye that sees.«“ **

In essence, the bridging between therapeutic philosophizing and idealism already begins in the early work of Fichte, in whom, by the way, one finds a very beautiful polemical remark, relevant here, namely in that footnote to the „Grundlegung der gesamten Wissenschaftslehre“ (1794):

„The majority of men could sooner be brought to believe themselves a piece of lava on the moon, than to take themselves for a self..“

This sentence of Fichte speaks for itself. It tears open a scenery in which the entire modernity is in a certain way already foreseen, namely: that „to be modern“means, in philosophical terms, to be constantly washed by the temptations of this self-reification, to see the offer of the „lava“ before oneself, to have to wrestle with these demonic possibilities, to shrink the existential character of one's own existence and to hide under the things.

The undercutting tendency of the decaying, of the average Dasein, incidentally magnificently described by the early Heidegger, must be answered by a kind of therapeutics with which the medical art, left to itself, would be overwhelmed. Medicine must awaken from its dogmatic naturalistic slumber and see an existing human being as a patient before it.

Moreover, Heidegger's existential philosophy - whether fundamentally ontological or (after his „Kehre“) seinsgeschichtlich (existential-historical) - also represents with the concept of „In-der-Welt-sein“ („being-in-the-world“) the attempt to overcome the subject-object dichotomy.

What do you think about renewing the moderation (**|**)?

1476) Great Again, 26.04.2021, 01:03; Kathrina, 26.04.2021, 23:02, 23:29 (8297-8299)

Kathrina wrote:

„This thread is about the four elements fire, earth, air, water, not only in the sense of astrology or healing in the sense of treating temperaments, but also in terms of the environment you were born into and the preference for certain environments, and the question of which ecotype you belong to or wish to belong to. So it's also a philosophy of climate, if you like.

Climate zones.

       

By the way: I prefer the landscape and the climate zone III 1 / III 2.“ ** **

I like the climate zones I, II, III, particularly the cold zones I and II which I want to discover like Eric the Red (Erik der Rote) did.

I am in favor of Uccisore moderating again in the section „Society, Government, Economics“ and Only Humean moderating again in the section „Philosophy“.

Great Again wrote:

„I like the climate zones I, II, III, particularly the cold zones I and II which I want to discover like Eric the Red (Erik der Rote) did.“ ** **

Zone I is too cold for me.

1477) Great Again, 27.04.2021, 01:03, 23:12 (8300-8301)

What you (**) have just said assumes that there is no moderation, but such a premise is false; so you are assuming a false premise. What is true is that there is a moderation. However, according to some ILP members, this moderation leaves something to be desired. I am trying to remain neutral on this issue, but I know that the premise on which these people are starting, namely that the moderation is currently inadequate, is true. So my question is: Who wants what kind of moderation and for what reasons?

It sometimes looks as if there were no ILP moderation, but that is not right. What is right is that there is an ILP moderation.

Should the ILP moderation remain as it is now?
Should the ILP moderation even be abandoned?
Should the ILP moderation be renewed?

In the example you gave, I was not primarily referring to you (**).

It may also be that with more moderation, things will only get worse.

Maybe the time of ILP is simply over.

1478) Kathrina, 28.04.2021, 00:01; Great Again, 28.04.2021, 03:05; Kathrina, 28.04.2021, 04:36; Great Again, 28.04.2021, 04:52, 05:00; Kathrina, 28.04.2021, 06:07, 19:20, 19:37, 20:32, 20:56; Great Again, 28.04.2021, 21:52; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 24.04.2021, 23:23 (8302-8313)

Carleas wrote:

„My intent was to structure the discussion rather than to limit it. Great Again's poll (for which I am sincerely grateful) shows 11 people think we need some kind of change in moderation, but the discussion that follows does not get into specifics. The specifics are the rub.

It also helps to put differences of opinion more squarely against each other. Two people might state their general views very differently, but still agree on how those views cash out in specifics. If I want a moderator to clean out the trash and you want anarchism, we might be able to find a trusted anarchist user who will do nothing more than move meme threads to Rant that will satisfy us both.“ **

The differences, especially between two warfighter groups are meanwhile so dramatically hostile that it has partly taken on a satirical character, but also a character that is to be taken very seriously. A moderator would have to be able to steer these two warfighter groups in such a way that the exaggerated hostilities finally have an end, because these hostilities dominate meanwhile everything else, at least in the section „SGE“.

Do you think that in that case moving threads is satisfactory?

I was just speculating, because the downfall of certain web forums is a general trend, and ILP has no special status. We must be prepared for everything.

Do you (**) believe that ILP will exist forever? And if so: Where will it exist forever, in heaven or in hell?

You (**) are right. The biggest problem with this supposed philosophy forum is the fact that the non-philosophers are more than the philosophers. The non-philosophers are the absolute majority in a forum named „I Love Philosophy“.

Would you like to be an ILP moderator? I would support you. But keep in mind that here the non-philosophy-interested are more than the philosophy-interested.

A metaphor! **

I would support a moderator Magnus Anderson too. But does he want to be a moderator?

Magnus said: „This is a philosophy forum“ (**). I say: „This should be a philosophy forum“!

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„This forum needs a purpose, and until it acquires one, it makes no sense to look for moderators. The problem seems to be that those running the forum have no idea what they want from it (or they do but they hide it pretty well because it's not something that should be disclosed.)

The first thing to do is to decide on the purpose of this forum. The second thing is to discover the set of rules that maximize the chances of fullfilling that purpose. The third thing is to look for people to enforce those rules (moderators.) It"s the distant third stage. We're at the first (:“ **

Your „first thing“:

• This is already answered by the name of this forum: „I Love Philosophy“. So the first thing is unmistakable: Philosophy.
  If the leadership of this forum does not agree with this, then those who are interested in philosophy can either shoot the leaders dead or move to other forums.

Your „second thing“:

• The rules must be based on the purpose of the forum (see: „first thing“), i.e. if a text is obviously not meant philosophically, then either this text must be moved (to „Rant“ or „Non-Philosophical Chat“) or the poster must be warned or banned. In 2017 this was still the case, as you should know.

Your „third thing“:

• The moderators must be convinced of both the purpose (see: „first thing“) and the set of rules oriented to the purpose (see: „second thing“).

All this is basically a very simple matter. But if the ILP leadership doesn't go along, then we can bury this thing (resp. Magnus' „three things“ [**]).

Just keep describing yourself over and over again. And keep making yourself out to be innocent like you did when you accused Uccisore of what you must be accusing yourself of (**).

And ILP is not the „Wild West“ („only a dead Indian is a good Indian“ etc.): „only an ILP member with a bullet in his or her head is a good ILP member“.

No one has put all of this on the ILP leadership. But the ILP leadership is the ILP leadership. You (**) know? And a leadership does not mean nothing, as you are suggesting here.

It was the ILP leadership that ignored the problems in the first place.

There have been requests for moderation before, but they always came to nothing, because the motto „keep it up“ was always stronger. Now it is even worse than before, important moderators are gone, and some people have once again noticed that the moderation is too poor.

It is no longer possible to talk about many topics even approximately, because one must count at any time on being trolled and stalked by some nutcase.

It's the other way around: Uccisore listed good points against you (and Carleas confirmed it too [**]). I have also read the threads quoted back then - yea, back then already, because I wanted to know why you spread so much lies.

Do not play the innocent again. Or do you want to deny that there was this dispute with the moderator Uccisore? Should I quote all relevant posts from that time here? That would go beyond the scope here. Besides, you know exactly what I mean, only you do not want to admit that once again.

I am also not primarily about you, but about the topic here, in which you play only a minor role - but nonetheless as a Wild West cowboy wannabe.

Things can not be constantly rushed into nothingness or chaos either. We are really falling forward, to say it with Nietzsche, who already knew that very well (**). Modernity is a constant falling forward. This falling forward is much worse than falling backward. It is seriously about the conservative, namely about the fact that we finally protect the planet, the life (all creatures), instead of always exploiting it. This exploitation is a matter of falling forward.

We need to conserve, protect the whole planet and all life on it, and you can not do that if you are permanently rushing forward („being progressive“), because falling forward („being »progressive«“) means destroying the planet and all life on it.

Conservation does not mean „going backwards“.

In addition, going backwards can also be right:

If a way is wrong, then you have to make a U-turn. Go backwards then.

The internet alone has made so much happen in India? Or could it have been due to something else too? I think especially of the economic growth in India since a few years.

1479) Great Again, 09.05.2021, 01:39, 13:04, 13:20, 13:41 (8314-8317)

Topic: Can philosophy integrate the irrational as mathematics can?

Can the irrational be dealt with in philosophy in the same way as in mathematics?

The irrational is that which cannot be grasped by reason, which is considered „superrational“, „subrational“, „unreasonable“, but not „counterrational“, counterreasonable“, „anti-rational“, „anti-reasonable“.

N. Hartmann speaks of the „transintelligible“ and means that which is beyond the reach of human understanding.

Friedrich Wilhelm J. Schelling calls the irrational „in things the incomprehensible basis of reality, that which cannot be dissolved into understanding with the greatest effort, but remains eternally at the bottom. Out of this incomprehensible, in the proper sense, understanding is born“. Schelling teaches that all rule-like, all form arises from the rule- and formless.

Irrational numbers.

If one is to be able to perform exponentiation or root extraction with any rational numbers (in the exponent), it is necessary to introduce new numbers: the irrational numbers. There are algebraically irrational and transcendentally irrational numbers.

The totality of all irrational numbers (algebraic and transcendental) and all rational numbers gives the set of real numbers: „|R“.

For example:

In logic a set of statements is said to be consistent or non-contradictory if no contradiction can be derived from it, i.e. no expression and at the same time its negation. Since inconsistent sets of statements can be used to „prove“ anything, even nonsense, the absence of contradictions is indispensable for useful scientific theories, logical calculi or mathematical axiom systems.

If it has become necessary to ban the ILP mass, because the regulations require it (see for instance: „this forum is supposed to be a community that must maintain a level of tolerance and politeness“), then the question immediately arises why the ILP leadership has allowed the banning of the ILP mass. The responsibility has - one way or another - the ILP leadership.

Thus, the ILP leadership is always left with the question of whether or not to take the risk of applying the rules consequently and consistently.

And yet: this forum must be a community that must maintain tolerance and politeness!

Frank Zappa said:

„If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library.“

„A mind is like a parachute. It doesn't work if it is not open.“

„There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a longer shelf life.“

„So many books, so little time.“

1480) Great Again, 10.05.2021, 02:56, 04:06, 04:22 (8318-8320)

What is considered culture in one culture is not always considered culture in another culture.

Be realistic (**):

Impoliteness is booming in the ILP web forum.

Impoliteness can be detected, i.e. recognized as a fact. Intolerance is harder to prove, because there are too many possibilities for excuses on the side of the accused.

Probability tells me something that my experience also confirms: One can be polite and still be intolerant; but if one is impolite, one is usually also intolerant - at any rate, this is more likely to be the case than the reverse.

Intolerance is harder to fight directly than indirectly; impoliteness is easier to fight directly than indirectly; therefore impoliteness must be addressed first and directly, because that is the only way to get both, impoliteness and intolerance, under control.

If we were to start here with the solution of the problem of intolerance, most ILP members would discuss this issue almost endlessly and probably successfully to the effect that they would not be punished. That is the situation we have here.

If we were to start here with the solution of the problem of impoliteness, an important step would already have been taken to solve both problems: (1) the problem of impoliteness and (2) the problem of intolerance.

Those who have been suggested as (candidates for) moderators have not yet responded. Is that a bad sign? No. We have to be patient.

And how should the virtual have come into the real and the real into the virtual?

==>