Æon wrote:
Latin europeans arent white:
https://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/400805303
I expect to see your counter-arguments Kultur... **
What you say, Æon, are assertions, not arguments. Counterarguments
can only ever be based on arguments. Because you have not provided any
arguments, no counterarguments can be provided. Your assertion (please
do not confuse it with argument) can only be followed by a counterassertion.
This counterassertion can then also be supported by arguments; but it
does not have to be, because you have not supported your assertion by
arguments.
My counterassertion: Those people who you call Latin Europeans
are WHITE.
But the name Latin Europeans is very misleading. They should
be called differently. Strictly speaking, the Ancient Latins resp.
the Ancient Romans were the Latin Europeans, so they
have been extinct for more than 1500 years.
The Romans spoke Latin. The Catholic Church has made Latin its liturgical
(scriptural!) language, but this does not mean that the Catholic Church
leaders were or remained Romans (Latin). Certainly, the first Romans started
with it, but they were mixed long ago. In the last centuries of the Roman
Empire there were hardly any Romans left; the Romans were mostly extinct
or replaced by Germanic peoples.
If you mean the Europeans who still speak a Romanic language
today, then the same applies as said above. These Europeans are not Latin
speakers. They all carry also and in some areas even mainly Germanic blood
in themselves. Spaniards and Portuguese, for example, Gothic, Swabian,
Vandalic; French Frankish, Burgundian and Alemannic and partly also Gothic;
Italians Gothic, Vandalic, Lombardic and many others. In addition, Spaniards,
Portuguese and Italians are also intermixed by the Arabic, mostly Moorish
peoples. There is hardly anything of Latin substance left in these supposedly
Romanic countries (except just in the language). But the Germanic
peoples who conquered them took over the Latin cultural values of the
Romans, and gradually also the supposedly Romanic languages,
i.e. those which in fact go back in part to the Vulgar Latin that followed
Classical Latin, but only in part, because in reality they are all mixed
languages. The word Romanic is misleading here. French is
a language that consists of Germanic (more precisely: Frankish, Burgundian
and Alemannic and partly also Gothic) and Vulgar Latin (Romanic)
languages. The same applies for the other allegedly Romanic
languages (see above: Gothic, Swebian, Vandalic, Burgundian, Lombardic
and many others).
And that these people are White is certain. And apart from the Arabic
intermixing of the Spaniards, Portuguese and Southern Italians in the
Middle Ages, they are all Indo-Germanics (= Indo-Europeans) anyway, we
do not have to discuss the topic at all. If the world rulers spread a
lie about the Whites and the Indo-Europeans through their media, it is
not my fault. One of their main strategies is the one that all rulers
have used: Divide and rule. The Whites in North America, Europe (excluding
Eastern Europe), Australia and New Zealand shall be reduced to a minority
through divisions and secessions so that they can never again form a middle
class, accumulate wealth and thus power.
Therefore, in order to be particularly effective, it is advantageous
for the world rulers to additionally draw a ring of enemies around the
Whites. Those who are not White may say Black lives matter
- the fact that Whites also participate in this is not a coincidence or
something like that, but something that has always existed in history.
So the divide and rule principle leads to more and more isolation of the
group targeted by the division, in this case: to more and more isolation
of the Whites.
This thread is about cultures, not so much about skin colors; about
peoples, not so much about nations; and most of all, this thread is about
how cultures build up and break down. It is also more about a description
than about a political statement as you keep misunderstanding
it. But since both can not be completely separated from each other, it
should be said here that one can also speak of Indo-Germanics (= Indo-Europeans)
instead of Whites. But you always bring the whole topic where
you want it to go: into nationalism and racism. And you do that because
you do not want Germany/Europe to become more powerful than US/America
again.
The fact that individual nations do not like each other does not prove
what you say, namely that this would be an indication that Europe is not
able to unite, which is not true at all. There are forces that want to
divide and rule and do so, as I have said, and it is these forces that
want to destroy both North America and Europe (with a very high probability
Australia and New Zealand as well) by the divide-and-rule strategy and
other strategies. They call all this creative destruction
(Klaus Schwab), because they want to build something different - again:
new (the new man again). The think tanks have also long said
exactly what they intend to do.

Believe it or not, you are an Americanist. And that is not good, because
Americanism is against everything that is not Americanistic, that is,
it is a decadent (nihilistic) form like all isms - doomed to fail, and
by the Americanists themselves. What I also do not like: USA = mafiotic
war world champion (every day at least two new wars). The excuse that
US-America has always been a slave of money is of no use. It does not
work. And the US-Americans will never learn their lesson!

But I am for the alternativeless uniqueness of the Occidental culture,
which unfortunately exists only in its civilizational form since about
the end of the 18th century. I am a Faustian man.
Yesterday I saw that Dr. Ricardo Duchesne introduced himself as follows:
Dr. Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
Author of Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Canada in Decay
(best seller since 2017, though Amazon deleted 70 customer reviews),
Faustian Man. **
His name is what you would call Latin European and say that
he is not a White man, but that is wrong, because: He is a White man just
by the fact that he is the Author of Uniqueness of Western Civilization
and Faustian Man in a Multi-Cultural Age; and otherwise also
(see above), although I - unfortunately - do not know him personally.
Wikipedia wrote:
Duchesne was born in Puerto Rico; his mother Coralie Tattersall
Duchesne was a British citizen born in Calcutta, his father Juan Duchesne
Landrón a medical doctor of Afro-Puerto Rican and French heritage.
**
Despite his apparently multicultural background, Ricardo
Duchesne is a strong supporter of Occidental culture, of Europeans, of
whites. So that is how it goes, Æon.
Duchesne divides liberty or freedom - something typically Occidental
- into Positive Liberty and Negative Liberty.
The Positive Liberty is the liberty for which there is continuity
since the time when the Indo-Europeans came to Europe and which has been
developed in particular by the Germanic peoples and here again in particular
by the Germans. The Negative Liberty is precisely that liberty
of merely one or a few libertarians who prescribe, i.e. dictate
to the others who want to be free but do not want to be dictated to what
freedom should be, a freedom that for others is not freedom
at all, but the exact opposite. In other words: these dictators are precisely
the ones who are also referred to as nihilists, as globalists and so on,
who always only mean their own freedom and therefore have
nothing to do with the freedom that, according to Occidental tradition,
should be granted to everyone.
- https://youtu.be/LU4hR2a0ux4 -
Another person, who is white and also belongs to the Occidental culture
and is now Italian prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, said some days ago:
Why is the family an enemy? Why is the family so frightening?
There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines
us. Because it is our identity. Beacuse everything that defines us is
now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity
and to simply be perfect consumers slaves. And so they attack national
identity, they attack religious identity, they attack gender identity,
they attack familiy identity. I cant define myself as an Italian,
Christian, woman, mother. No. I must be citizen X, gender X, parent
1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when
I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave
at the mercy of financial speculators. The perfect consumer. ....
We will defend God, country and family. .... We will do it to defend
our freedom. Because we will never be slaves and simple consumers at
the mercy of the financial speculators. **
 
@ Æon.
You still have not answered my question:
Kultur wrote:
What solutions do you have at hand? The Catholic Church? Rome?
.... Trump? .... **
**
Freyja wrote:
Kultur
This may seem preposterous, but I thought there was a similarity in
You Must Change Your Life to L. Ron Hubbard's book.
He writes, Scientology is a religion(?) in its highest meaning as
it helps bring man to total freedom and truth.
Specifically his book Dianetics. (How your mind works and how to make
it work for you.)
Can you see any similarities between this and Sloterdijk's book on
the above.
There is a lot to unpack here.
However, kudos to you, but count me out. **
Similarities between Hubbard and Sloterdijk?
To me, similarities between Hubbard and Sloterdijk are just as much
out of thin air as those between Ignatius of Loyola and Sloterdijk. See
above (**|**).
One can always interpret seemingly correct things into the texts, when
the texts are written by people who write about almost everything in the
world almost everything in history, because almost everything occurs here.
That is why you have to be more specific about what your comparisons are
based on. So, as you have so far more claimed than argued (like Æon),
I can only always repeat my answers.
Do you have more conspiracy theories?
There is no doubt that cultures (advanced civilizations) existed and
- apart from the fact that the now still existing cultures exist only
in their respective forms of civilization - still exist. If cultures decline,
they can still preserve themselves in their respective states of civilization,
occasionally even for a very long time.
According to Spengler's cultural morphology, the forms and formations
of cultures can be recognized by their respective archetypal symbols and
soul images. These are formed on the basis of experiences of space, in
particular of the depth of space, of expansion and thus also of time.
These experiences are therefore bound to a landscape.
Thus, for Spengler, the emergence of cultures goes back to spatial experience.
This is transferable in a similar way as the memes for Satyr. They - the
cultures - are just as suddenly there as the ejaculation during the sexual
intercourse, with the consequence of the fertilization of an egg. It is
really true: Not only genetics (and therefore also, for example, intelligence
as well as death - both highly philosophical topics!) is transmitted in
sexual beings via sexual intercourse, but also the disposition for growing
up in a certain environment (and therefore also in certain mental [especially
fear - a highly philosophical topic! - all also highly philosophical topics!]
and spiritual [especially cognition, knowledge, art technology, etc..
- all also highly philosophical topics!] situations). The Occidental culture
could never have originated anywhere else than where it did!
When a living body has become very old, it turns more and more, in fact
much more than before, against itself and towards death. So it is also
with the cultures. So the fight of a culture against nature - against
gravity and against decay, chaos, entropy - becomes more and more a fight
for nature and against itself. The self dies, and before it reaches death,
it is already senescent, petrified, frozen, congealed. The only difference
between a living body and a culture is that the culture in a senescent,
petrified, frozen and congealed state can possibly continue to exist for
a long time, while the living body in this state canst continue
to exist for a long time.
Your (**)
knowledge of history is extremely poor.
No wonder, because he who as an US-American does not even know what
Bretton Woods is, let alone the Bretton Woods System, is not able to know
much about the rest of history either.
Nonsense - said by Æon, the KTS-Kropotkin.

The English are Anglo-Saxons, i.e. Germans. Nordic people are also Germans.
Please don't keep talking such nonsense, you KTS-Kropotkin!
There was and is no English, but only a Germanic alphabet, because the
English were and are Anglo-Saxons and therefore Germans and therefore
only knew and passed on a Germanic alphabet.
Englishmen never had anything to do with Rome, except for the fact that
after Christian conversion, when they themselves began Christian missions
- at the same time the Germans began Christian missions in their eastern
and south-eastern colonies.
You have absolutely no idea, KTS-Kropotkin.
If I did not know that your historical knowledge is extremely deficient,
I would now say that you are babbling an ideology here, probably the Anglo-Saxon-American
elite ideology, which is pure nihilism and wants to give the rest to the
occidental decline - and will, if it will not be stopped.
The question is, why USA/America, which has as good as no history and
as a pure function state controlled by the money mafia only does what
the high finance wants, should be more powerful. It is not powerful at
all, but only the functionary of the money mafia. Its highest function
is that of a deputy sheriff.
It is the current powerful position of the money mafia with its deputy
sheriffs USA and its "poodle" England and still some "donkeys"
in addition, which want to destroy the only possible competition - Germany
(already since the 19th century).
This is well known. But you, as an ignorant person, of course do not
know anything about it either. As I said above, even the strategic think
tanks of the money mafia (not the USA and certainly not the people of
the USA) say that it is as I say.
Why do you never pay any attention to it?
Answer: You know nothing about it, and if someone tells you about it,
you ignore it.
This is exactly what the rulers want. The divide-and-rule strategy is
successful even among those who are directly subordinate to them. And
you support it as well.
Your civilization (**)?
It's yours too, you traitor!
You work for nihilism.
And since you bring up the church again (**).
Germany, and subsequently all other Germanic countries, were the only
ones to break away from the Catholic Church. This is especially true for
England and Scandinavia, because Germany itself remained divided (Catholic
and Protestant) after that, which means that Church-Rome could nevertheless
exercise less and less power over Germany. Church-Romes power became
less and less since Luther's Reformation. The next defeat of Church-Rome
was against Napoleon. After that, it just crept along, and it still does
today.
Your church-example clearly shows your ignorance of history
again. If you had even a little bit of knowledge about history, you would
know that Church-Rome never ruled alone, that in the Occidental world
there have always been two sides of rule: the secular and the ecclesiastical.
Your arguments about history and culture are nonsense. They
once again show knowledgelessness, ignorance, so they are no arguments.
Æon wrote:
And yet, people are the carriers of culture. **
Yes, people are the carriers, but that is all they are. The decision-makers
have always been others.
Æon wrote:
Why should Germany/Europe become more powerful than US/America
again? **
Why should an entity without history - USA/America - rule over Europe?
There is no history of the USA. No wonder there are so many US-Americans
who know nothing about history.
Æon wrote:
I can be American and against decadence. America revolves around
'Choice'. I believe people should choose against decadence; but this
is not human nature. Human nature seeks-out hedonism, pleasure, and
easy life. This is the lure, a false offering. Americanism offers pleasure,
but at a price. Just because I am born here in the New World, doesn't
mean I agree with this premise. I do not believe a person can be 'free'
to be castrated, and genitally mutilated. Therefore, no country/nation/ideology/culture
is perfect, of course. **
An Americanist is always a nihilist and a victim or accomplice of the
globalists. An Americanist is always part of the decadence, no matter
what excuses he uses. An Americanist destroys his own foundation and with
it also himself.
Æon wrote:
There can be no Occidental culture to compete, without a similar
offer, and to whom? To all humanity? Equally? Or, as per German compulsion,
as a matter of Race? Is not your Blood, your Bond? **
You are lying! There is no German compulsion. But there is an US-American
compulsion. There is the globalist compulsion, and embedded in it is the
Americanist compulsion. Both - Globalism (including Genderism and the
like) and its right arm, Americanism - are something that should be rejected.
For it is they - and only they ! - are the evil, which will destroy the
world.
There may be other isms, but they all have the same source.
You must first learn to understand what culture is in the first place.
You see - typically Americanist - cultures as nations. But cultures are
something quite different from nations. If you had read my texts here,
then you could know that.
Also you must know, in order to understand the ancient Greeks, that
they knew no nation at all in our occidental sense. So, according to your
misunderstanding, there should have been no Greek culture at all. And
there really was not, but what existed was a Greek folk (people, ethnicity-
do you understand?), an ethnic group, whose culture centered on city-states
and spread across the Mediterranean, including even distant and initially
completely alien Rome captured.
If I should name a wish to shape the world, then this: My wish is a
multipolar world where America is completely isolated (wonderful!).
An example of a multipolar world is the tripolar world:

Freyja wrote:
Scottish philosopher David Hume: I am apt to suspect the
Negroes to be naturally inferior to the Whites. There scarcely ever
was a civilised nation of that complexion, nor even any individual,
eminent either in action or in speculation. No ingenious manufacture
among them, no arts, no sciences.
Whilst some changed slightly over time, there were still some who
continued to hold these views.
In the 19th century, the German philosopher Hegel simply declared:
Africa is no historical part of the world.
Later, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of History at Oxford University,
expressed openly the racist view that Africa has no history, as recently
as 1963.
The revolutionary Amilcar Cabral from Guinea-Bissau wrote colonial
force required not only military control but also an ideological conquest
and this necessitated the undermining of older histories and cultures
on the continent. **
What Amilcar Cabral says is a lie.
When we talk about history and culture, we mean exclusively the high
cultures as history cultures, that is, the history of the cultures
that have history - and also civilizations - and these are exclusively
the high cultures.
So what Hume, Hegel and, much later, Trevor-Roper said was correct -
it was the prevailing linguistic rule at that time, and basically this
linguistic rule has not yet been changed (overturned revolutionized).
It should not be changed in the future either. Otherwise every and every
culture would really be finished and the world would be back to a primitive
life. According to the globalists, this dominant rule of language is to
be changed with linguistic weapons of war, and one of them is Black
Lives Matter. Those are racists that bring Black Lives Matter
on Earth or/and believe in it. Hume, Hegel and Trevor-Roper meant by Africa
the Black Africa, so not the Non-Black Africa (Egypt, Carthage,
the rest of North Africa).
It does not make much difference whether animals fight among themselves
or whether Negro tribes in Africa, Indian tribes in North America, Aborigines
in Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, the Pacific Islands and in all
jungles fight each other. The biggest difference to them is the one that
we have been experiencing since historically short time: a tiny group
of people have been playing with the rest of the people, as if they were
chess pieces, of which only pawns shall remain. They give the instructions
to the whole historical game, to the history on this globe (even parts
of the natural history - see: highly technical wars of the most disgusting
and terrible kind, environmental pollution, weather production, earthquake
production etc., space pollution).
So it is out of question what Black Lives Matter really
means. Black Lives Matter means White Lives Shall Not
Matter. It grew out of the same finality thinking as similar slogans
that are just as false and only meant to suggest, to make lies seem like
truth, e.g.: Female Lives Matter (means: Male
Live s Shall Not Matter) or Homosexual And Gender Lives Matter
(means: Heterosexual And Sexually Normal Lives Shall Not Matter)
or Proletarian Lives Matter (means: Bourgeois-Capitalist
Lives Shall Not Matter) or Progressive Lives Matter
(means: Conservative Lives Shall Not Matter) or Bourgeois
Lives Matter (means: Aristocratic/Noble Lives Shall Not Matter).
And every time it turns out to be a lie, and those who created all these
false advertising slogans do not want to be affected by them themselves
- if one leaves aside being gay, pederastic, privileged, super rich, super-mighty
etc. -, because they are male and White.
Black Lives Matter is a declaration of war and a weapon
of war at the same time - as we know it from history, e.g. from Western
history during the conquest of North America by the Europeans, when the
Indians declared war on them by digging up a hatchet called
war hatchet and at the same time using hatchets for the war
itself. They themselves had no history - and this is also true for the
Black Africans and many others, who were and are also at the stage of
primitive culture (this cannot be changed anymore, because by now the
whole globe has been historicized!). Fact. Historical fact, thus something
which can never be changed any more.
In order to change these facts at least apparently, there is only the
possibility to change the words history and culture
in such a way that the impression is created as if all cultures are to
be valued equally, which does not correspond however to the reality. Also
animals have already culture, even if in primitive way. People without
high culture have also only a primitive culture. This is not meant pejoratively
at all. But it is like this. Fact! So Hume and even more so Hegel, even
much later Trevor-Roper were right with what they claimed.
X Lives Matter and all the other semantic (thus: linguistic!)
wars are waged not only because of the pure linguistic forms, but also
and especially in order to create relations, which shall make 99,9999%
of the humans completely dependent on 0,0001% of the humans. The main
means for this is the divide-and-rule strategy. First they have separated
the bourgeois from the rest, in order to be able to fight the nobility/aristocracy
more effectively; then they have separated the workers (proletarians)
from the rest, in order to be able to fight the so-called capitalist,
by which the bourgeois is meant, more effectively; then they have separated
the women from the rest, in order to be able to fight the men more effectively;
at about the same time they they started to separate the Non-Whites from
the rest, in order to be able to fight the whites more effectively; then
they have separated the alleged sexless and sex selectors, including even
and increasingly children, from the rest, in order to be able to fight
the normals and adults more effectively (so at last there will be no one
who is capable of resisting). And in each time and case the world rulers
became richer and more powerful whereas the goup of resistance became
poorer and smaller. This has reached already a very terrible dimension.
So if this comes true, there will be no single adult, no single male,
no single White, no single aristocrat, no single bourgeois, no single
bourgeois-capitalist (i.e.: no middle class); but there will be only children
(thus: with no parents), women (thus: not as adults), Non-Whites and precarious
workers (who can easily be replaced by machines).
So whoever names Black Lives Matter supports the war aganist
the Whites until all Whites are dead and with it a world that will be
very primitive again - for 99.9999% of all humans then living at all.
 
Giorgia Meloni said:
Why is the family an enemy? Why is the family so frightening?
There is a single answer to all these questions. Because it defines
us. Because it is our identity. Beacuse everything that defines us is
now an enemy for those who would like us to no longer have an identity
and to simply be perfect consumers slaves. And so they attack national
identity, they attack religious identity, they attack gender identity,
they attack familiy identity. I cant define myself as an Italian,
Christian, woman, mother. No. I must be citizen X, gender X, parent
1, parent 2. I must be a number. Because when I am only a number, when
I no longer have an identity or roots, then I will be the perfect slave
at the mercy of financial speculators. The perfect consumer. ....
We will defend God, country and family. .... We will do it to defend
our freedom. Because we will never be slaves and simple consumers at
the mercy of the financial speculators. **
@ Freyja
You do exactly what the world rulers do. On the one hand, you proceed
according to the divide-and-rule strategy, and on the other hand, you
seek allies because the world rulers themselves are of very, very, very
small numbers. The world rulers belong to the upper class, which is very
small, and those who are supposedly also disadvantaged belong to the lower
class and are therefore the ideal ally, because they let the number become
larger by this alliance, while the world rulers promise them (but of course
never keep this promise) to help them by causing the states and thus their
middle class, the only class which pays taxes and is without exception
occidental, to take in immigrants and to take other measures, which however
in the end all only lead to the fact that only (! ) the upper class becomes
even richer and thus even more mighty, and that until there is no middle
class left. That is behind the campaign against the Whites (only the Occidental
middle class people are meant!). After that the upper class can only slaughter
itself.
And to disguise your own ethnicity, you choose the name of a Germanic
goddess as a pseudonym. But well, it is a pseudonym, thus a false name.
 
 
Except for the wording the soul-means, which I would replace
with the wording the spiritual-means, I completely agree with
what you write and consider your contribution to be one that could also
have been written by me.
Humanize wrote:
People today have lost too many IQ points to be able to understand
Heidegger.
»HEIDEGGER: From our human experience and history, at least
as far as I am informed, I know that everything essential and great
has only emerged when human beings had a home and were rooted in a tradition.
Todays literature is, for instance, largely destructive.«
Heidegger's understanding is vindicated by peoples' predictable inability
to grasp it. Most people are already "technologized" sufficiently
to be incapable of having intact souls and intact minds, although thankfully
there are still some authentic remnants out there. In the end it is
the transcendent that remains outside the bounds of all this nihilism
and madness and decay, a transcendent that loops back into and through
the remnant points of authentic human being still populating the meta-conscious
field of the truth-reality. Great Saturn-like rings emerge from these
loops, splendidly colorful and remarkable. Diamonds shine in the rough,
I suppose.
God gives all the ability to make choices, to maximize or at least
express their own nature as aligns most accurately to whatever happens
to be the case with that particular nature in all its relevant aspects,
intricacies and complexities. We are deeply idiosyncratic and have the
soul-means available to energetically push through the gross techno-homogenization
if that is something we want to do, if that is something we are capable
of doing (or capable of wanting, perhaps is the main issue). The contradictory
multi-conditionality of the human soul-mind is a nice reflection of
Newtonian thermodynamic principles, we are always enacting Hölderlin's
observation of being the saving power that grows only from that danger
itself which would require such a saving power. Weird shifts in the
aesthetics of being.
Heidegger will be vindicated first, then surpassed. What comes next
is not yet written for almost no one alive today has the intelligence
to philosophize at that level, and those that do are concerned with
other matters and do not seem all that interested in pushing philosophy
to its maximum. **
Instead of the wording the soul-means the wording the
spiritual-means. Why?
You probably know that Heidegger as a young philosopher was Husserl's
assistant, thus a phenomenologist and opponent of psychologism (**|**).
He maintained this position also as a fundamental ontologist and as a
philosopher of the history of being, perhaps only in his later time, so
from 1959 on, when he began to help the Swiss psychiatrist Medard Boss
to establish an existential analysis from a psychiatric point of view
and thus to support a little bit the psychologism that had regained some
strength.
I am also an opponent of psychologism.
Mags J. wrote:
Iambiguous wrote:
»Gib,
Look what we have wrought here!!!
And not just philosophically, right?« **
You always do that ^^^ and not reply, when youve been caught
out and/or made a fool of.. you really arent that smart, are you.
Gib hasnt acknowledged your mention and Magnus A is acting ignorantly-blissful..
alarm bells, much. **
Yea.
Gib wrote:
We haven't defined dasein because we (Biggy and I) have been
through it a few times before--pinning down what exactly he means by
dasein--and though he took it initially from Heidegger, he's since run
with it in his own direction. **
Yes, that is right: Iambiguous has misinterpreted Heidegger's understanding
of Dasein and uses this word in a pure Iambiguous-meaning,
that is, valid only for himself. Iambiguous is a subjectivist, if not
a solipsist, and his understanding of Dasein has nothing to
do with Heidegger's understanding of Dasein, Heidegger's analysis
of Dasein within his fundamental ontology.
Magnus Anderson wrote:
One's »being-in-the-world« is a strange expression.
**
Only for those who do not understand what is meant by it.
Magnus Anderson wrote:
It seems unnecessarily wordy. Where else can one's being be
but in the world? Nowhere, right? So it can be shortened to "one's-being".
But then, "one's-being" itself can be shortened to »oneself«
because that's what one's being is -- oneself. So »dasein«
obviously means »Me, myself and Irene«. **
Only for those who do not understand what is meant by it.
Being-in-the-world can't be shortened, because every single
word in it is very well thought out and makes a very strong philosophical
sense that you just do not understand. The term In-der-Welt-Sein
(being-in-the-world) is about the preposition in,
which has been studied here word-historically and means in der Nähe
von ... (in the nearness of ...); and it is about the
noun Welt (world) in the important sense that
only man has Welt (world) and not, like other
living beings, only a Umwelt (environment) and
that man is geworfen (thrown) into this Welt
(world) - cf. Geworfenheit (thrownness);
in and Welt (world) belong quite closely
together; and even more closely together with both belongs the substantited
verb Sein (being), because only the human being
who is in the Welt (world) can understand Sein
(being) - which means: one needs a complex brain, and only
humans have it, and humans are the only beings who are in der Welt
(in the world).
Almost the whole world has dealt with Heidegger's philosophy, Europe,
North America and Australia anyway, but also Central and South America
and East Asia in a very intensive way, West Asia and North Africa less,
Black Africa not at all.
Are you from Black Africa, Magnus Anderson? Your name does not look
and also not sound like that.
Humanize wrote:
People today have lost too many IQ points to be able to understand
Heidegger. **
Absoluetely agreed.
Magnus Anderson wrote:
If you believe X, it makes no sense to think that someone who
believes not-X is right. It's a logical contradiction, so it's no wonder
if you feel »fractured and fragmented«. Do you agree?
But since you are always possibly wrong, regardless of how justified
you are in believing what you believe, there is a need to listen to
what the other side has to say.
You have raised a possibility here. And this is also what Heidegger's
Dasein is about: Dasein is exposed as a run-up into the actual
possibility and at the same time as transcending the inner space of subjectivity.
For Heidegger, the subject is not the starting point of In-der-Welt-Sein
(being-in-the-world). This is primarily directed against the
Cartesian subject-object dualism. According to Heidegger, Dasein is always
already In-der-Welt-Sein (being-in-the-world).
Heidegger has determined the existential that stretches it out, in which
it finds its Ganzsein-Können (being-whole-capability),
as Sorge (care).
The unique way of man to be is to be understood by Heidegger as Dasein
(being-there). This is especially given by the adverb da
(there), which brings us to being-in and thus
basically back to being-in-the-world (see above). What Leibniz
achieved with the term pre-established harmony, Heidegger
achieved with the term being-in-the-world: overcoming the
subject-object dualism. This is higly, very highly philosophical stuff.
Understanding is more than you believe.
|