WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE
Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz

<= [651][652][653][654][655][656][657][658][659][660] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
2017 150
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
14
14
70
150
300
380
610
849
990
1140
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
16,67%
 
400%
114,29%
100%
26,67%
60,53%
39,18%
16,61%
15,15%
 
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0050
0,0044
0,0198
0,0384
0,0702
0,0819
0,1219
0,1581
0,1726
0,1869
 
K.  
1
1
1
3
2
2
2
4
0  
158
97
246
169
1614
1580
1949
1101
 
S.
1
2
3
6
8
10
12
16
16
174
271
517
686
2300
3880
5829
6930
 
P. Z.
 
100%
50%
100%
33,33%
25%
20%
33,33%
 
987,50%
55,75%
90,77%
32,69%
235,28%
60,70%
50,23%
18,89%
 
  K.  
S. E.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
0
2,82
1,21
1,64
2,11
7,02
6,61
13,82
7,34
 
  K.  
T.
0,0039
0,0027
0,0027
0,0082
0,0055
0,0055
0,0055
0,0109
0
0,4328
0,2658
0,6721
0,4630
4,4219
4,3288
5,3251
3,0164
 
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1,143
1,143
2,486
1,807
1,723
1,805
3,770
4,570
5,888
6,079
 
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
0,0039
0,0032
0,0030
0,0044
0,0047
0,0048
0,0049
0,0057
0,0050
0,0491
0,0693
0,1210
0,1479
0,4596
0,7227
1,0116
1,1361
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 651) Arminius, 27.02.2015, 02:35, 03:08, 19:03, 23:55 (2615-2618)

2615

At that time - in the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th century - it was not possible to become such a huge empire without violence. And by the way: a huge empire has always been the result of violence.

**

Islamic expansion from 622-750 - with nowadays borders overlaid.

2616

And the following map shows the areas that came under islamic control after the 10th century:

**

Current borders are overlaid.

2617

If the speed of light were adjusted so that it matched closely its region, although not completely, then the experiments would indcate an observer-dependent speed of light. And by the way: that would explain the so-called „stopped clock paradox“ as well. The light that incidents in the area of each observer is changed so that it adapts to the speed of this area. If that were true, the stopped clock paradox would not exist anymore.

2618

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Some possible answers:
1) The person with such a dream has much to do with rivers and lakes. And that's all.
2) The person with such a dream lacks the „element water“. It is associated with the qualities of emotion and intuition.
3) The person with such a dream can move very well (perhaps too well).
4) The person with such a dream is not able to move (and wants to solve this problem).
4) The person with such a dream is very much (perhaps too much) interested in development, espcially in a flowing or fluvial development.
6) The person with such a dream hates development, especially a flowing or fluvial development (and wants to solve this problem).
....
n) The person with such a dream wants to kill his father and to marry his mother ().« ** **

Or possibly the person merely needed to go pee, really really badly.“ **

Yes, that is the possibility „n-1“.

Erik wrote:

„I had a dream that Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe and I were inside of a haunted house, slaughtering degenerates with fire axes.....It was very gory, blood spattered all over the walls ....

Can someone interpret this for me?“ **

Did you read Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's „Faust“ while watching a horror film before you fell asleep? And did you have to kill anybody in that dream?

 

NACH OBEN 652) Arminius, 28.02.2015, 02:44, 04:28, 19:27, 19:50, 20:27, 20:53, 21:41, 22:11, 22:29 (2619-2627)

2619

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»If the speed of light were adjusted so that it matched closely its region, although not completely, then the experiments would indcate an observer-dependent speed of light. And by the way: that would explain the so-called "stopped clock paradox" as well. The light that incidents in the area of each observer is changed so that it adapts to the speed of this area. If that were true, the stopped clock paradox would not exist anymore.« ** **

Fresnel, Stokes, and Lorentz all had Aether theories. Those were the closest theories to actual reality. And due to the Michelson-Morley experiment began thinking in terms of "aether drag". Their error was only their lack of understanding of exact what Aether really must be. And thus they presumed many thing about aether and tried to prove or disprove it based upon false presumptions. They didn't understand that matter and all of the "forces" had to be in fact made of that aether substance rather than merely being mediated by it. And their "aether drag" theory, better defined as "ambient affectance", resolves the issue raised by the Stopped Clock Paradox.

The beauty of Affectance is that there is no option but for it to exist. It is not a "perhaps it is like this or that" kind of theory. There is a total lack of alternatives. Affectance absolutely must exist if anything exists at all and regardless of what else might exist. Aether was proposed as a possible medium for other things to travel through and by which things could affect other things. That made if different than Newton's proposition that magically mass reached out, without medium, and affected distant things. Einstein didn't like that thought, nor did most of the world.

The Fresnel, Stokes, and Lorentz crew were the most accurate and on target of all of them (or of those noted). Einstein and Minkowski proposed a brand new ontological basis for science involving a change in what the definition of space and time actually meant (change the definition to match the presumed observation). An alteration in fundamental definition can allow for a new ontology to be exactly correct while the old id still exactly correct. It is like changing languages, yet saying the same thing.

The problem is that Relativity turned out t be logically incoherent, but useful for specific circumstances. It isn't that it was ever exactly true, but rather it was easier to get right. And since the earlier aether theory didn't have aether defined quite properly, the aether theory and experiments could not compete against the media's preferred authority.

Affectance Ontology completely resolves the entire issue from beginning to end, philosophically and scientifically. It has no match, although Aether theory comes close. The one „field“ of Affectance automatically gives rise to all of the laws of physics and formation of matter and energy and their aberrant properties. RM:AO gives foundation to all existence. In RM:AO nothing is presumed. And because of that, as long as its logic has been properly verified, RM:AO will always be 100% true without exception or need to cheat or play mind games such as »bending space« or »dilating time«.

Do you feel like a „public enemy“, „mainstream enemy“?

2620

The pantheism has four mainstreams:

1) Theomonistic pantheism: only God exists; the self-existence of the world is repealed.
2) Physionomistic pantheism: only the world exists (but is called „God“); the self-existence of God is repealed.
3) Transcendental pantheism (also called „panentheism“): the world is an appearance of God who contains the world; the self-existence of the world is not repealed but relativised.
4) Immanent-transcendeental pantheism: God realises himself in (the things of) the world; the self-existence of God is not repealed but relativised.

2621

Arminius wrote:

„Back to the topic („can someone interpret my dream?“) with a dream of an adult man:

He wants to get his lovely person (girlfriend, wife, daughter) back. But another man tries to prevent that, partly with success, especially with brutal viloence, partly with no success. But more and more the man who wants his loevely person back and fights for her as much as he can thinks that he has lost her because of the violently influence by the other man and his »crew«. This dream has an open end nut not a happy end.“ ** **

How do you interpret that dream?

One suggestion:

The person with that dream loves his lovely person.

2622

By the way:

Heinrich Heine compared Kant with the French revolution, Fichte with the Napoleonic empire, Schelling with the Restauration, but in Hegel he saw the philosophical king, the finisher of all philosophical revolutions, of all philosophy. - Compare: Heinrich Heine, Zur Geschichte der Religion und Philosophie in Deutschland (Religion and Philosophy in Germany), 1834, S. 33-34.

Right or wrong - it is an interesting comparison.

2623

Erik wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Did you read Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s ›Faust‹ while watching a horror film before you fell asleep? And did you have to kill anybody in that dream?« ** **

No, I wasn't reading Faust, but rather a text on Weimar Classicism, which he contributed to. I also listened to very hard-core death metal music the same day, so, perhaps, they amalgamated in my psyche and the corollary was the brutal dream ....“ **

Yes, that is probable. I think that the main function of dreams is to to destress the (brain of) living beings, especially human beings; so that they help them to get along with stressful or other complicated experiences.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What does it mean when rivers and lakes are always present in dreams?« ** **

Those are wonderful images. When I see them, I think of the words stillness, flow, refreshing, healing, fertile, depth, undercurrent, circular, motion, organization...silence, solitude, adventure .... The list can go on from there.“ **

Yes, of course. But what does it mean when a person has this dream again and again? Perhaps nothing more than the fact that this person likes rivers and lakes very much.

2624

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Well, that may be true. Or it could mean that the unconscious is trying to tell the person that »you haven't gotten it yet?« Look again. We usually dream in metaphors. I think that it really is helpful for the person to write down as many words which are suggested to him through association with these images. Those words might also come from the unconscious. It's very helpful to us.“ **

Well, that may also be true, but probably our unconsciousness is not as important as many people think (caused by wrong interpretations of Freud and all the Freudian or even Freudistic „movements“). Let's have nerve enough to try to go the Non-Freudian and Non-Surrealistic way!

In addition:

Please, just watch and enjoy the beauty!

2625

James S. Saint wrote:

„In the Land of Lies, any truth is »the enemy«. Those who thrive on diseases, die by cures.“ **

Very well said.

2626

It is always the same:

The group „X“ commits crime, and instead of the group „X“ the group „Y“ gets punishment for that crime.

(Put in the right real groups for „X“ and for „Y“.)

2627

Gamer wrote:

„So today I ask you to share why you love philosophy. Version 2015.“ **

Are you interesetd in the „Version 2014“? I asked the following question and put it in the topic of one of my threads on 30. July 2014: „Do you really love philosophy?“ ** **

 

NACH OBEN 653) Arminius, 01.03.2015, 00:31, 01:21, 02:12, 02:12, 02:51, 05:09, 15:58, 16:12, 16:12, 22:45 (2628-2637)

2628

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Some possible answers:
1) The person with such a dream has much to do with rivers and lakes. And that's all.
2) The person with such a dream lacks the „element water“. It is associated with the qualities of emotion and intuition.
3) The person with such a dream can move very well (perhaps too well).
4) The person with such a dream is not able to move (and wants to solve this problem).
4) The person with such a dream is very much (perhaps too much) interested in development, espcially in a flowing or fluvial development.
6) The person with such a dream hates development, especially a flowing or fluvial development (and wants to solve this problem).
....
n) The person with such a dream wants to kill his father and to marry his mother ().‹ ** **

Or possibly the person merely needed to go pee, really really badly.« “ **

No, James, that would be a waterfall - like the Niagara.“ **

Or it would be something like that which is shown in your avatar - because it can also be interpreted in a similar way.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„... Heresy ... preach ... stop ....“ **

Your „unconscious“ told me that you mean your strange comments when you use words like „heresy“, „preach“, „stop“.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„Show me that way.“ **

It is pretty simple for most people but obviously too complicated for you.

In your case, „show me that way“ means to explain to you how to start with the very first step which could be the following simple advice: Try to use your consciousness instead of your subconsciousness or unconscious(ness), especially then, if the situations are similar to situations on the webforum „I Love Philosophy“, because philosophy has much more to do with consciousness than with subconsciousness or unconscious(ness).

Oh, such a coincidence: I was writing those last sentences, when I suddenly looked under your avatar and saw that you pretend to be e a „consciousness seeker“. So, please, take the simple advice I wrote in the last sentences - because that simple advice is the very first step when it comes to „show“ you „that way“. You wanted me to „show“ you „that way“, and I firstly do it by saying that you have to start with the very first step (see above).

2629

Jr Wells wrote:

„Sorry, I am not going to read other threads.“ **

Do you also not read other posts?

Jr Wells wrote:

„If I needed to read other threads then I do not see why you made this one.
... I would have responded to those.“ **

You joined ILP on 9. November 2014, and my thread „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ (**|**) started on 3. April 2014.

2630

Mr. Reasonable wrote:

„Erik wrote:

»Kant vs. Nietzsche.

Who is the better philosopher, in your opinion? I know many consider Kant to be the greatest ever, but what do you think?« **

„It depends on if you think philosophy ought to be about understanding the world as best it can be or if you think philosophy ought be more about understanding your place in the world as best can be. Kant is like a scientists. Nietzsche is like an emo band.“ **

I agree, if „Emo“ really means an „Emotional hardcore punk band“.

More seriuosly, the time of GREAT philosophy ended at about 1800 when the NIHILISTIC philosophy started. Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi used the word „Nihilismus“ („nihilism“) already 1799 in his „Sendschreiben an Fichte“. So since about 1800 or e.g. with Schopenhauer's „Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung“ (1818) there have been being either nihilistic or just eclecticistic philosophers. We really have to separate the period of pre-nihilistic philosophy from the period of nihilistic philosophy in that case.

It may be up to each person to value that. The historians of philosophy, provided that they are not corrupt, speak more about facts than values.

2631

Erik wrote:

„Nietzsche can't, really, be construed as »emo«, though some of his followers can be; Nietzsche wasn't pessimistic in the »emo« sense, as he believed in affirming life. He did believe in something called „pessimism of strength“, but it's not the Schopenhauerian „emo“ pessimism that you seem to insinuate.“ **

Yes, but one does not have to be pesimistic in order to be nihilistic. Nietzsche turned Schopenhauer's pessimism into optimism but remained a Schopenhauerian.

2632

Back to the op:

Orb wrote:

„Last night i had a very disturbing dream. It had very little content but it was packed with dark meaning. I was someplace unknown, a dark area with many 'pockets of reality'. I heard weird noises, and fear took hold of me. I told myself, Imust go on, in spite of my fear, which consumed me. As Icame upon what looked like some kind of partition, from which strange odorurs drifted out, i became aware of creatures, that i knew were demoms. I approached the demons and they became still and like rats, scattered away. Other places had similar demons in them, and i became more fearless as I approached them , knowing by now, full well, that they were powerless against me. Then Iremebered a similar »real« event which happened to me, and thought that perhaps demons fear me. The thought occured to me that perhaps they did not harm me because I may be »one of them«, or that perhaps they fear me because i am a good person, with a very strict religious training, harboring an inherent ,nurturing goodness. I woke up, thinking, maybe I am possessed of evil spirits. Thank You for commenting.“ **

How do you yourself interpret your dream?

AND AGAIN:

Arminius wrote:

„Back to the topic („can someone interpret my dream?“) with a dream of an adult man:

He wants to get his lovely person (girlfriend, wife, daughter) back. But another man tries to prevent that, partly with success, especially with brutal viloence, partly with no success. But more and more the man who wants his loevely person back and fights for her as much as he can thinks that he has lost her because of the violently influence by the other man and his »crew«. This dream has an open end nut not a happy end.“ ** **

How do you interpret that dream?

2633

The more change the more cycle.
The more development the more repetition.
The more evolution the more mimicry.
The more history the more eclectics and eclecticists.

It is not Kant's fault that he lived later than the first philosophers of human history.

Kant was a typical Occidental philosopher; he was an enlightener and at last an overcomer of enlightenment, the first modern, especially modern-idealistic philosopher of the Occidental culture.

Some thoughts of Kant can be found in Ancient thoughts too, but that is not preventable, if they are not too many and not core-thoughts. Kant thoughts and ideas were Occidental thoughts and ideas, regardless of whether he had some Ancient non-core-thoughts too.

History shows the greatness of philosophers.

The current world institutions like UNO, WTO, World Bank, and many other global institutions have their origin in Kant's philosophy. Compare for example Kant's „Ewigen Frieden“ (1795) - „Perpetual Peace“ (1795). How to value it is one point, but the historical fact of the influence is another point. Another example: Platon was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher, but would you live according to his philosophy, especially his ideas, today, just because he was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher? To value philosophies are meaningful in another sense but not in the sense of greatness.

2634

Prismatic wrote:

„It is the future that will unfolds Kant's greatness.

Yes, thus the history.

2635

Referring to the topic of this thread - Kant vs. Nietzsche - I say that Kant belongs to the pre-nihilistic period and in his latest stage also to the nihilistic period whereas Nietzsche belongs merely to the nihilistic period.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche:
1) What did he say about the philosophy of technique / technology / engineering?
- Nothing at all.
2) What did he say about the philosophy of physics / kosmology / astronomy?
- Nearly nothing.
3) What did he say about the philosophy of economy / economics?
- Nearly nothing.
4) What did he say about the philosophy of sociology?
- Not much (his statements about the fact that he was really terrified of socialism have not much to do with sociology).
5) What did he say about the philosophy of law / right?
- Not much (his statements about ethics and moral have not much to do with law / right - but much with his concept "will to power").
6) What did he say about epistemology?
- Not much.
....

2636

Arminius wrote:

„Well, I think Nietzsche was a great life philosopher, a great scepticist, a great psychologist (and b.t.w.: the real or original founder of the psychoanalyse), a great immunologist, a great writer, a graet aphorist, a graet essayist, a great poet, a great philologist, but that's all. I don't know whether he overcame nihilism, but I know that it is nearly impossible to overcome nihilism in nihilistic times because it is impossible to eliminate the thought of nihilism in times of nihilism. (Cp.: Zeitgeist). When you think you do not want to think about nihilism, you think about nihilism.“ ** **

2637

„Wenn »es« den Menschen »gibt«, dann nur, weil eine Technik ihn aus der Vormenschheit hervorgebracht hat. Sie ist das eigentlich Menschen-Gebende .... Technik, hat Heidegger doziert, ist eine Weise der Entbergung. Sie holt Ergebnisse ans Licht, die von ihnen selbst her so nicht und nicht zu dieser Zeit an den Tag gekommen wären.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Nicht gerettet - Versuche nach Heidegger, 2001, S. 224, 228.
Translation:
„If there »is« the human being, then only because the technique / technology has brought him out of the pre-humankind. That is actually the human-giver. .... Technique / technology, Heidegger has teached, is a way of unconcealing. It brings results to light that would not have come to light by themselves and not at that time.“

 

NACH OBEN 654) Arminius, 02.03.2015, 00:35, 01:04, 02:55, 03:44, 03:55, 04:36, 16:10, 19:40, 21:16 (2638-2646)

2638

James S. Saint wrote:

„Humans live in 3 »parallel realities« at the same time;
1) physical,
2) psychological,
3) social.

Each has its own design and set of rules.“ **

What do you think about a quadrialism?

I) natural (physical and chemical),
II) natural-cultural (biologic[al] and economic[al]),
III) cultural (semiotic[al] and linguistic[al]),
IV) cultural-natural (philosphic[al] and mathemathic[al]).

So your „1)“ would be in my „I)“, your „2)“ would be a part of the last part in my „II)“ and a part of the first part of my „III)“ , your „3)“ would also be a part of the last part in my „II)“ and a part of the first part of my „III)“, and my „IV“ is what is called „consciousness“, „mind“ - we already discussed this (=> „Geist“).

Maybe that some parts do not belong to reality, but that doesn't matter, because it is plausible, if all that parts are interpreted as parts of our world (universe and so on).

2639

James S. Saint wrote:

„Biological and economical seems an odd grouping.“ **

Yes (and the concept „natural-cultural“ [**|**] already indicates it), but it simply means that living beings try to remain living beings, thus try to do their self-preservation biologically and economically - biologically by the processes in the organism (cells and so on), economically by getting food (e.g. hunting and gathering), making and getting goods, money, war, and so on.

2640

Turtle wrote:

„I have been thinking about all the fighting going on about religion ..., all the talk about god ..., and all the problems people face ..., it doesn't really matter at all ..., the important thing is KINDNESS ..., how we treat each other...that is what it is about .... it doesn't matter about any god....what kind of person do you want to be ..., the only rewards are how it works for you ....“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„What matters is how you get it to be and stay that way.“ **

Yes. The Ancient Greek philosophers said: „be moderate“.

Here are some examples of modern Occidental imperatives like Kant's Categorical Imperative and other's imperatives:
(1) „Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.“
(2) „Be revolutionary.“
(3) „Trust in the absolute spirit and the dialectic processes.“
(4) „Relinquish.“
(5) „Be yourself.“
(6) „Persevere.“
(7) „Be autarkic as much as you can.“
(8) „Take care of you, your relatives and dependants, your surrounding and ecolgical environment.“
(9) „Participate in the discourse.“
(10) „Take care of your foam, because you live in it.“
....

Modern imperatives of ILP members:
(A) „Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them.“
(B) „The important thing is KINDNESS.“
...?

2641

My grouping is more centered around:

1) Physical laws, objects, motions, and situations (would include physics, mechanics, chemistry, biology, physiology, physical tools, medicines, diseases, weapons).

2) Mental reactions, beliefs, incentives, and conditions (would include psychology, spiritualism, hopes and fears, strategies (»angels«), mental tools (mathematics, logic, romance), personal philosophies).

3) Group interactions, agreements, devotions, and current states (would include economics, language, semiotics, religion, politics, diplomacy).

**

Although I often separate physical from physiological (due to the fluid molecular mechanics involved), each of those categories obey the exact same inherent laws ....“ **

Yes, I know. It is just another approach of the same issue. Our „groupings“ can be easily arranged, I think. There are merley little differences which can be neglected, at least in most cases. In former times (before 2000 when I started to design my quadrialistic spiral-cyclical philosophy) I had an approach which was very much similar to your approach.

2642

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Modern imperatives of ILP members:
(A) ›Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them.‹
(B) ›The important thing is KINDNESS.‹
...?« ** **

Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.
Repeat it to yourself twice a day (a mantra) and the varied meanings and serious significance of it comes automatically.“ **

Oh, sorry, James. How could I forget that!

So we have the following modern imperatives (in chronological sequence) of ILP members:
(I) „Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.“
(II) „Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them.“
(III) „The important thing is KINDNESS.“
...?

2643

I did not go wrong. And as I said before: our approaches are compatible ....

I am not going to go into the details, because I do not want this thread to derail.

2644

Thank you for your interpretation (**).

We ourselves can solve most of our problems and do it in many various ways. We do not need any Freud, Freudian, Freudianist, or other preachers. Most children grow up without any negative results of problems, because they solve their problems themselves and with the help of their parents and other relatives. If the revers were true, then there would be more problematic children or more so-called „experts“ who design problematic children. And indeed: since we have so-called „experts“ the problematic children have been becoming more and more. So-called „experts“ design problems and problematic humans, and I know the reason behind it. For the same reason we also do not need any Marx, Marxian, Marxist, or other preachers. If you start to consult a so-called „expert“, then you start the misuse.

2645

Ierrellus wrote:

„Live and let live.“ **

That all leads always to the same imperative, namely Kant's Categorical Imperative.

The first formulation: „Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.“
The second formulation: „Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.“
The thrid formulation: „Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.“

The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative appears similar to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim, ethical code or morality.

The Golden Rule (in its positive form) says: „Treat others how you wish to be treated.“ One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (directive form).
The Golden Rule (in its negative form) says: „Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.“ One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (cautionary form, also known as the Silver Rule).

2646

Orb wrote:

„Well, yes to degree. However, dreams of falling are common, and may mean something else than merely »falling down«. Country folk have had myriad issues of reports, especially the female of the gender, who have awful dreams on account of a broken and irredeemable love affair, where, the loss of a lover may signal by appearance of a dream, the total collapse of the young woman's psyche. It used to be very common for such country folk to throw themselves down into a well, on account of a loss of this sort. Other dreams have meanings, as well, and psychoanalytic »literature« is full of them. The dreamer, usually, is in no position to interpret their own dreams, and the experts and »preachers« you mention, have been called upon by social and individual psychology's application to attempt to solve these kinds of enigmas. In many cases, a careful analysis may save a person's life.“ **

In most cases, a person gets more problems than this person had before the „careful analysis“ you mentioned. Such cases are not or mostly not published, because publishing such cases is forbidden or at least a taboo.

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»In the Land of Lies, any truth is »the enemy«. Those who thrive on diseases, die by cures.« **

Very well said.“ ** **

In the Land of Lies war is „peace“, ideality is „reality“, dreams are „non-dreams“, deseases are „cures“, ..., and so on.

 

NACH OBEN 655) Arminius, 03.03.2015, 01:11, 13:46, 14:43, 15:00, 15:22, 15:46, 17:03 (2647-2653)

2647

Orb wrote:

„Freud had his wolfman, Jung Rowland Hazard, Bingswanger his Ellen West, and Friedrich Nietzsche, and on the contrary my friend, analysis of patients are very much published in articles for others' edification. Living persons are not so, most would consider such revelation nowedays as violation of personal ethics. However i do not get Your state,ent that an anylisis brings more harm then good, but agreed that it can, if the analysand has little or no insight.“ **

If all those damaged people were mentioned in published books or even in newspapers, then the so-called „experts“ would be ruined. But that did not happen and that will not happen as long as desease will remain „cure“.

By the way: Friedrich Nietzsche's psychiatrist was Otto Ludwig Binswanger, the uncle of Ludwig Binswanger who was the psychiatrist of i.e. Ellen West.

2648

Orb wrote:

Whether they were more damaged before or after analysis is not mentioned in Your observation.“ **

It is mentioned. They were and are more damaged after the therapy. We don't have to talk about the „patients“ of the so-called „high society“, whether i.e. John Lennon went to Arthur Janov and screamed primally - that's promotion, public relations, propaganda.

Orb wrote:

„I can not see in what way an analysis can damage people.“ **

That was also my impression: You can not see it.

Would you agree, if I said that language can damage people? You do not need medicines or drugs in order to become damaged, if you have a language. Language is as effective as or even more effective than medicines and drugs are. The effect of language is a lengthy one, is awful long. Therefore it is very suitable when it comes to influence anyone and everyone, each person and a whole society. Look into societies where is no psycho-„market“ (for example in Amazonia or other non-urban regions) - the people of this societies have almost no problems, because they are not damaged by the psycho-„market“, the socio-„market“, and other hyper-modern „markets“ nobody needs. This „markets“ indicate the modern civilisation and its abnormality. Civilisations as urban societies yield such „markets“ which „market“ the abnormality. So again: The Occidental culture in its modern or civilised forms designs, constructs, produces patients in order to „market“ them, because there is no other possibility anymore to control them. The main effect of that is a society of damaged people, of patients.

Patients are made. Therefore some psychiatrists imitated lawyers by calling their patients „clients“.

Orb wrote:

„The only approach to that way of arguingmwoud be, that repressed materialcan hurtsome people if brought to light, not make them better. but what of that line of argument. Or is there another? Perhaps the stygma attached to psychiatry in general will tend to make people into »patients«. Is that what You mean?“ **

I mean that people who are normal become abnormal because of the psycho-„market“, the interests of those who become rich and powerful, because they really make patients, problematic humans ... - as I said before. This finding is a historical fact!

But note: We are not only talking about psychiatry but about the whole psycho-„market“.

2649

Back to the dreams:

There is i.e. a dream in which certain images always repeat themselves and one wakes up just in order to stop this repetition. Do you know such a dream and how do you interpret it?

2650

I did not say that „live and let live“ is the same, but that it leads (leads!) to Kant’s Categorial imperative.

Augustinus is right: Prosperity inevitably leads to depravity.

2651

Read some ILP posts and you will know how important kindness is.

2652

LOL-ly pop, why are you that offended and by what? Do you not have a sense of humor? Therefore the lots of LOL’s? I could rather be offended by your nonsense, but I am not. What is wrong with you? Do you not have a sense of humor?

You inefficiently tried to insult me and deleted the insult. Great! It's okay. But, please, leave me alone with your nonsense. And, please, stop stalking!

2653

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„I wasn't trying to insult you at all -- though indirectly I can see how you might take it that way. I was speaking of the undercurrent and sometimes quite blatant pettiness in ilp that so often goes on.

The only reason I deleted most of the post was because it had no bearing in what I wanted to say...what I was saying to you.“ **

No, no, no, little girl LOL-ly pop! You are not telling the truth - as usual!

As I said before: You inefficiently tried to insult me, and the accent is on the word „inefficiently“, but the fact is that you tried it. That's all. As I also said before: You deleted the insult. Great! It's okay. But, please, leave me alone with your nonsense. And, please, stop stalking! ** **

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„You little boys really need to grow up. Aside from that, first impressions are just that and not based necessarily in any kind of reality. I won't even bother to explain how that came about. But maybe I will. I was looking for some particular line for something I wanted to put in Erik's forum.

I DO NOT STALK. It's a really sad thing when a little boy needs to feel like a man in the only way he can - insulting people. GROW UP ALREADY!!!!“ **

YOU have to grow up, you little girl, LOL-ly pop.

Please, leave me alone, girl! Stop stalking and trolling!

 

NACH OBEN 656) Arminius, 04.03.2015, 00:49, 03:34, 04:19, 20:33, 22:36 22:54 (2654-2659)

2654

Mags J. wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What does that exactly mean? ›Non--denominational‹ does not mean the same in every country. So is it possible in the UK that even members of Non-Christian religions can join a Christian church by keeping / maintaining their Non-Christian religions?« ** **

All are welcome.“ **

Mags J. wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»And you do not value it by saying i.e. ›that's not good‹ or i.e ›that's good‹?« ** **

It's not about assigning a value to it, but about why this is happening in (mainly) inner-city areas ..., those who inter-marry can now worship without the need for converting to/choosing the others' religion. A case of modern day problems getting modern day solutions.“ **

Yes. But nevertheless: it is about tassigning a value to it, because one values such developments, if one has enough mind for valuing it. Therefore I asked the question which is about tassigning a value to it. To be honest, I say that it is not a good development, because the other people who don't want it will probably become fundamental and more fundamental, fanatic and more fanatic, extreme and more extreme, thus dangerous and more dangerous. There are always Non-Christian people who do not want to join a Christian church, and mostly this people are more than those who want to join a Christian church. Do you know what I mean? I am talking aboout a religious „arms race“.

Jr Wells wrote:

„Moreno wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Brahmanism /Hinduisms, Buddhism, Jainism and others are syncretistic religions or metaphysics (philosophies); and Judaism, Christianity, Islam are - more or less - also syncretiistic religions: Judaism because of the Babylonian / Persian (cp. Parsee, Zoroastrianism), Egyptian, and Ancient Greek (cp. especially Platonism and Stoicism) forms, Christianity because of Judaism (see there), Manichaeism which is also Persian (see there), and Neoplatonism which is also Ancient Greek (sse there), Islam because of Judaism (see there) and Christianity (see there). Beside this famous religions we have also not so famous religions which are also - more or less - syncretistic religions. So you are right when you say that ›we already have many‹ syncretistic religions. But if we consider all aspects, we have to say that they are also not syncretistic religions, because they have developed their own forms too. And in some cases we have to say that all religions are syncretistic religions, because they all trace back to one primeval religion (primitive religion), the first religion.

'Will we get a syncretistic religion?'as the title of this thread postulates ›singly‹ religions, regardless whether they are already syncretistic religions or not; so the question means whether all this ›singly‹ religions will lead to merely one syncretistic religion.‹ ** **

Ah, no, I dont think so. Even if there was some generalized merging, there will likely always be new things popping up and getting followers. That said, if we get programmed cyberized merged with AI - re, your other threads (**|**|**|**) - then this will come with an implicit (and possibily explicit) metaphysics. Then you might have unity and there are certainly forces that want unity of belief.« **

Agreed.“ **

I don't know whether I agree or not, but that doesn't matter, because I am merely the questioner. So let me ask you another question: What could those „forces that want unity of belief“ be?

2655

Phoneutria wrote:

„It just seems like men and women alike are at odds with societal expectations as well as in denial about the fact that life will never be as carefree as childhood again and then end up venting the frustration that this causes on one another as if »I chose to live with you« implies »you have an obligation to make me happy«.“ **

What or who caused that? And if there is a human cause: Who is guilty?

2656

Human beings are group-living animals - just like pack animals. Since the human beings came into the world - whenever their „birth“ was - they have been being such group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally). So it is very difficult for them to not differentiate themselves from others, especially from other group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally). They can not give up their attitude of „we-are-not-them“, „we-do-not-want-to-be-like-them“, „we-are-against-them“, „we-fight-against-them“ and so on.

2657

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Human beings are group-living animals - just like pack animals. Since the human beings came into the world - whenever their ›birth‹ was - they have been being such group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally). So it is very difficult for them to not differentiate themselves from others, especially from other group-living animals (naturally) and group-living humans (culturally). They can not give up their attitude of ›we-are-not-them‹, ›we-do-not-want-to-be-like-them‹, ›we-are-against-them‹, ›we-fight-against-them‹ and so on.« ** **

It's hard to give it up when it is true. Geography, who you pay taxes to, ideology, these things really do create competing interests defined by your group.“ **

Cecil Rhodes

Yes. And there are some more problems which have to do with „these things“. For example: if such a group becomes too large, then it becomes less controllable; if such a group becomes too small, then it also becomes less controllable, because it can easily be conquered /captured by a foreign group. Now, „put 1 and 1 together“ and think of the current Occicental culture which is too large because of its economic restraints (i.e. expansion) and too small because of its individualism, extreme egoism. So you have a too large group with too much too small subgroups as one phenomenon. This group can very easily be conquered /captured by a foreign group.

Cultures, empires, nations and other large societies are too large; but if there are already different cultures, empires, nations and other large societies, then they also have already changed their strategy in order to defend themselves. Ideally a human group should consist of not more than about 100 members, but the history of the last 6000 years shows which strategy more and more humans chose in order to defend their groups: some groups became large (too large!), many groups remained small (in an oriiginally ideal sense which became a disadvantage), and many of this many groups got conquered / captured by the large groups. And each time when this large groups became „civilisations“ with economic restraints (see above) - „expansion is everything“ (Cecil Rhodes) -, then the small groups becamne less and less. So today we have some very large groups and some very small groups, and one of the very large (very much too large) groups is a group of individualsm, thus exists of too much very too small subgroups. That's dangerous. Another very large group which is not a group of individualism behaves like every large group which has not too much very too small subgrous, thus wants to expand and to prevent individualism. That's dangerous. too. - So the Occident has many strategic problems: enemies inside (the very too small subgroups) and outside (foreign groups), economic restraints (i.e. expansion) which strengthen those enemies, .... The West is both very too large and very too small (because of too much individualism), and that means tendentious weakness, thus "feed" for those groups which are strong, large, and intelligent enough to conquere / capture it.

2658

The more a group grows the more strategies are needed to control this group. If a group has its enemies both outside (foreign groups) and inside (i.e. its own subgroups and parts of foreign groups) of itself, then this group is tendentially weak and destroys itself from inside (demographic facts are included - of course), so that this group's enemies just have to await their best chance.

2659

Jr Wells wrote:

„I do not have enemies from outside.“ **

Where are you from?

 

NACH OBEN 657) Arminius, 05.03.2015, 01:45, 04:16, 05:06, 05:28 (2660-2663)

2660

Orb wrote:

„Recurrance is caused by a fix, whether it be tragic or funny orwhatever the mood may be. An unresolved conflict usually associated by a disturbngn event, like in PTSD, may cause the 'demons'inside to censor them, so as to avoid a re-experience of the original trauma. In fact humor tends to soften the countours around which the pain has a vested interest. I have had a dream or nightmare just like that, and re-occured for years after the original hurt. In this case, the evil psychic content works in an enigmatic protective mode, where they will stop the dream, a seemingly cruel move, to stop the content to re-appear. On one hand it appears as of a devilishly evil move, but on the other, maybe the overall psyche isnot ready for any such resolution. My feelng is,that the interpretative capacity of the dreamer does not get the true symbolic significance of the dream. It reminds me of the Faustian myth, whre the devil was tricked, because IT coud not appreciate the true meanng of the capacity for deception. Why not? Becaue deception has been vested with evil, and It could not understand the dynamics involved, because of the patent techniques by which thedynamic of deceptin is made possible. This is in reverse, the negative achieves by virtue of cross purposes. Evil and good intentions at times effect different resuts. Repetition is based on such incohate types of dream content.“ **

Repetitions or recurrences belong to development like cycles or spiral cycles to change in general. That's fundamental. So the question is whether repetitions or recurrences can really be „caused by a fix“ or „based ... on such ... types of dream content“. If you have a pain and a dream and think they depend on each other, then it is probably not in that way that your dream is the cause of your pain and the repetition or recurrence of your dream and pain, but in that way that your pain causes your dream, and both are under the „control“ of repetition or recurrence. If you try to delete repetition or recurrence, you will fail, because you can not delete them as such, but you can i.e. change „negative“ repetitions or recurrences into „positive“ repetitions or recurrences by changing your actions and thoughts. Try to change your actions and thoughts, so that your dream contents can also change. In that case, a tiny part of your development changes, what means that the repetitions or recurrences also change.

2661

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arc is certainty not a stalker or troll or whatever.“ **

Arc? .... Ah, you mean this little girl LOL-ly pop, this very young little princess who is allowed to do anything and everything she wants - because all men always obey her. Stop! All men? Always?

James S. Saint wrote:

„She merely prefers to keep things on a more pleasant note.“ **

UNpleasant. Read her posts (although some sentences of her posts are deleted now).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Perhaps sometimes her humor is taken too seriously when she had no such serious intent.“ **

She has no humor - therefore her „lols“ and „Mr.Greens“ and other „laughings“: they cover her humorlessness.

James S. Saint wrote:

„She types those LOLs so often in an effort to relay that she is trying to keep it fun and light hearted. But then, I imagine that even she has her limit.“ **

Trying, ..., yeah, ..., maybe. Maybe she did her „misunderstood spiritual exercise“, formerly know as „religion“, James?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Presume evil and evil appears.“ **

Yes, she presumed it, but I don't care, because she is a little girl who seeks consciousness.

I have merely one request: Please tell her that she shall leave me alone with her nonsense! I bet that she will reply this post which is merely a reply to your post. So it is up to you ....

2662

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I don't know whether I agree or not, but that doesn't matter, because I am merely the questioner. So let me ask you another question: What could those »forces that want unity of belief« be?« ** **

Inside many religions and certainly in the monotheisms there is the idea that everyone should have the same God(s)/religion I have. So there are forces interested in marketing and coversion within these. Then in general you have a worldview that is trying to cover the entire planet. This worldview sees everying and modular, physical, marketable, controllable, sum of its parts, empty and, in a sense' inorganic or engineerable and best engineered. This is a religion and one that is promoted via media, advertising, many films, technological replacement of nature, patenting of life both at the organismic level and in terms of parts (for example, genes). Since this is not a theist worldview it is often seen as not religious (let alone insane) but it is. So I see forces amassed behind spreading this. Hence the irritation caused by other kinds of (insane or not) regimes or holdouts - communist, islamist, pagan, anarchist/libertarian, vitalist or whatever.“ **

So you mean somethimg that is not that new in the history of the last 6000 years, but what has really become new since the modern Occidental times is the huge dimension, the technical development, especially the enormous acceleration of the technical development, and - as a result - the possibility that machines replace all human beings (**|**). Humans have always tried to design a new religion, but this time the designers will probably either integrate or exterminate all humans of this planet, and this will probably include a huge reduction of the number of the humans.

2663

Orb wrote:

„I suppose here, this being my forum, it may be expected of me toake some kind of commentto the above. All my life i felt certain situations have placed me into compromising situations, however, not having been prevy to the above interchange, except by connection to it's effect, i can just express that in hope disagreements can inn timem tuen around, forthwynreallyn are just disagreements, and innthis venue, there is no arbiter, except the mods, who may at this point interceede, so as to effect minimum damage.

Humor is the best medicine, and maybe a proper infusion of it would be a good idea. I think, it may serve the purpose of this forum well, that dreams may turn into nightmares, and as far as i am concerned, i beg to differ with those who give up on the intent and purpose of some dreams, which lietrally bring out useful finction ofthe devilish andthe demonic. I really believe in the saving grace of the most evil intent, as it can actually show the way, through the light which shines all around it. Evio is not inherently so, it is onlyn a form of ingnorance impersonified, incapable to appreciate the comic relief, it's nemesis. Itpaies to tryn to be funny, but a pleasure when knowingly seeing the bathos, when what is thought as the true nature of man is exemplified as nothing else but the thin veneer of a comedy, a comedy delicately hinging between assumptions and errors. It has beenn the dream, on a sunlit afternoonj, of a faun reclinig in the nemerald grass, a shadowmof a man, like a satyr, not being in this world, but neither in the underworld. It is for dreams as those, that we have been extended to this reality,and there is at that moment only the very slightest buzzing of one admirably unforgettable little fly with an emerald underbelly. Whatever You did since or after is forgiven , but not forgotten, almost as if an act of charity. And then »buzz« and it is gone into that other world.“ **

Therefore:

Arminius wrote:

„Orb wrote:

»Recurrance is caused by a fix, whether it be tragic or funny orwhatever the mood may be. An unresolved conflict usually associated by a disturbngn event, like in PTSD, may cause the 'demons'inside to censor them, so as to avoid a re-experience of the original trauma. In fact humor tends to soften the countours around which the pain has a vested interest. I have had a dream or nightmare just like that, and re-occured for years after the original hurt. In this case, the evil psychic content works in an enigmatic protective mode, where they will stop the dream, a seemingly cruel move, to stop the content to re-appear. On one hand it appears as of a devilishly evil move, but on the other, maybe the overall psyche isnot ready for any such resolution. My feelng is,that the interpretative capacity of the dreamer does not get the true symbolic significance of the dream. It reminds me of the Faustian myth, whre the devil was tricked, because IT coud not appreciate the true meanng of the capacity for deception. Why not? Becaue deception has been vested with evil, and It could not understand the dynamics involved, because of the patent techniques by which thedynamic of deceptin is made possible. This is in reverse, the negative achieves by virtue of cross purposes. Evil and good intentions at times effect different resuts. Repetition is based on such incohate types of dream content.« **

Repetitions or recurrences belong to development like cycles or spiral cycles to change in general. That's fundamental. So the question is whether repetitions or recurrences can really be „caused by a fix“ or „based ... on such ... types of dream content“. If you have a pain and a dream and think they depend on each other, then it is probably not in that way that your dream is the cause of your pain and the repetition or recurrence of your dream and pain, but in that way that your pain causes your dream, and both are under the „control“ of repetition or recurrence. If you try to delete repetition or recurrence, you will fail, because you can not delete them as such, but you can i.e. change „negative“ repetitions or recurrences into „positive“ repetitions or recurrences by changing your actions and thoughts. Try to change your actions and thoughts, so that your dream contents can also change. In that case, a tiny part of your development changes, what means that the repetitions or recurrences also change.“ ** **

In this reply to your post I also meant humor when I wrote „change your actions and thoughts“, because humor is a good putty between actions and thoughts. But do not force humor and do not confuse humor with excuse!

 

NACH OBEN 658) Arminius, 06.03.2015, 03:31, 04:44, 05:56, 14:33, 14:47, 15:40, 16:35, 16:35, 16:37, 17:45, 18:28, 19:05, 19:46, 20:09, 23:55 (2664-2678)

2664

Ornello wrote:

„Nietzsche isn't really a philosopher, just a social critic.“ **

Are you saying that Nietzsche was not even a little bit a philosopher?

Fact is that most ILP members are not interested in philosophy but in social criticism.

Is that funny? .... No.
is that an accident? .... No.

Nietzsche was a nihilist respectively - because he was at least „a little bit“ a philosopher - a nihilstic philosopher.

If Nietzsche had been an ILP member, in which subforum would he have posted the most?

Fact is that Kant had an entire philosophical system and that Hegel was the last philosopher who had an entire philosophical system. Since then there has never been a an entiere philosophical system and all entire philosophical systems have systematically or not systematically been deconstructed or destroyed - by nihilists respectively nihilistic philosophers.

Philosophy was „born“ in the Ancient Greece and means „love to wisdom“ („to“ - not „of“). So we have to interpret and measure philosophy and philosophers mainly according to the Ancient Greek interpretation. So Nietzsche's question „Were there already such philosophers?“ (in: Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211, my translation) is more rhetoric than a serious question, because Nietzsche wanted the philosophers to be „commanders and lawgivers“ (ibid) and the philosophy to be a „hammer“ (ibid.). According to the the Ancient Greek definition of „philosophy“ and „philosophers“ philosophers are primarily not „commanders and lawgivers“; and when philosophy comes in like a „hammer“, then it is not a real philosophy but a nihilistic philosophy .

If Nietzsche is a member of the „third league of philosophy“, then Kant is the „champion“ of the „first league of philosophy“.

2665

I often say that those who say or/and think that they are not religious are more religious than those who say or/and think that they are religious. Not the truth but the lie is the easier and more effective way when it comes to get, to keep, and to expand power.

2666

Please compare (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**): Human beings are luxury beings.

2667

Omar wrote:

„As I was walking in all the ice left over by yesterday's storm, I found myself thinking about Nietzsche's skepticism about truth. He found even skepticism too stable that it could serve as a truth. Nietzsche denied any stability and he compared the situation to dancing. I thought it is more like walking on ice. Truth gives our steps, our life, sure footing and stability. We prefer walking on stable ground. After the world and it's appearance are abolished, the ground turns to ice. Every step is then tentative and balance a challenge. We walk because we live and even when we manage to glide, or even dance on ice, the ice remains a danger that can put anyone on his ass.“ **

Instead of „walking on ice“ one could also say „walking on a rope“.

2668

Arminius wrote:

„Fact is that most ILP members are not interested in philosophy but in social criticism.“ ** **

2669

Prismatic wrote:

„One of the fundamental element that Kant revealed in his system of Moral and Ethics is the following System with control feedback.

**

You insist no actual humans thinks and act this way?
In reality all humans has such a natural system within them and such a control feedback system is intellectualized and applied in every aspect of life mentally and technologically.

B.t.w. most people think Kant’s Moral System is deontological, but it is not. In the applied aspect of his system, i.e. ethics, it can accommodate any existing ethical system, i.e. utilitarianism, consequentialism, etc..

Kant's approach is the same as those of theoretical scientists who focused more on theories rather than applied science. Note Newton and Einstein who focused on theories and left it to other scientists and technicians to verify their theories, and technologists to translate the theories into practices for the progress of humanity.“ **

The word „progress“ is a bit problematic, because the development is spiral cyclic, not simply linear or even exponential. So the so-called „human grogress“ is merely in our thoughts and not the real development, but we have to keep the process in motion, and therefore we need such thoughts.

Sauwelios wrote:

„But supposing you're right about that development, why is it good? I asked you if it was good because it facilitates humanity's survival (which it does according to you), and you answered: Yes, its survival and progress. I then asked you what you meant by "progress", and as I suspected, you meant that very development! To see the circularity thereof even more clearly, forget about survival for a moment. You are then saying that that development is good because it facilitates that same development. This is not an answer; it's like saying slavery is wrong because it is slavery. So I ask again: is the only reason why the development you describe, including the content of your list, is good the fact (I will suppose that it's a fact) that it facilitates humanity's survival?

Criticism, scepticism, and (as the extreme form) nihilism are historically justified as well but lack of solutions - that's tautological, because they are what they are: criticism, scepticism, nihilism. The solutions come from history itself. The „next Kant“ will come in about 2000 years or will not come (because humans will be too stupid or not live anymore).

2670

Erik wrote:

„Apart from Fixed Cross coming in here with a chip on his shoulder, this has turned out to be a great thread thus far!

I'm enjoying the correspondence between Prismatic and Sauwelios.

Prismatic appears to be a Kant expert and Sauwelios a Nietzsche expert. Perfect match.

Keep it going!“ **

„Experts“? The word „expert“ is as problemnatic as the word „progress“. One has to be an „expert“ or even a „super-expert“ in order to decide whether another one is an „expert“ or not.

Do you really know whether this one or that one is an „expert“? Maybe this or that „expert“ is simply a fanatic or an impostor.

Try to find it out! Ask questions! Ask them as if you were i.e. Peter Sloterdijk in his German tv show „Das Philosophische Quartett“, Erik.

2671

Again:

Arminius wrote:

„»Experts«? The word »expert« is as problemnatic as the word »progress«. One has to be an »expert« or even a »super-expert« in order to decide whether another one is an »expert« or not.

Do you really know whether this one or that one is an »expert«? Maybe this or that »expert« is simply a fanatic or an impostor.

Try to find it out! Ask questions! Ask them as if you were i.e. Peter Sloterdijk in his German tv show »Das Philosophische Quartett«, Erik.“ ** **

And by the way: The ILP Nietzschean(ist)s are more than the ILP Kantian(ist)s. The majority is always right? No!

2672

„Nietzsche ... next to Nietzsche“ (**)? ...?
Do you mean Nietzsche's mental illness?
Like: Binswanger ... next to Binswanger?

Again:

Arminius wrote:

„Referring to the topic of this thread - Kant vs. Nietzsche - I say that Kant belongs to the pre-nihilistic period and in his latest stage also to the nihilistic period whereas Nietzsche belongs merely to the nihilistic period.

Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche:
1) What did he say about the philosophy of technique / technology / engineering?
- Nothing at all.
2) What did he say about the philosophy of physics / kosmology / astronomy?
- Nearly nothing.
3) What did he say about the philosophy of economy / economics?
- Nearly nothing.
4) What did he say about the philosophy of sociology?
- Not much (his statements about the fact that he was really terrified of socialism have not much to do with sociology).
5) What did he say about the philosophy of law / right?
- Not much (his statements about ethics and moral have not much to do with law / right - but much with his concept "will to power").
6) What did he say about epistemology?
- Not much.
....“ ** **

2673

Erik wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»›Experts‹? The word ›expert‹ is as problemnatic as the word ›progress‹. One has to be an ›expert‹ or even a ›super-expert‹ in order to decide whether another one is an ›expert‹ or not.

Do you really know whether this one or that one is an ›expert‹? Maybe this or that ›expert‹ is simply a fanatic or an impostor.

Try to find it out! Ask questions! Ask them as if you were i.e. Peter Sloterdijk in his German tv show ›Das Philosophische Quartett‹, Erik.« ** **

Good point

But I don't, really, think Prismatic is a fanatic or imposter; he has been cool-tempered and even honest ( he made jabs at Kant ).

If anyone is a fanatic, imposter, pompous, it's Fixed Cross.“ **

You forgot one, Erik.

Erik wrote:

„Prismatic appears to be a Kant expert and Sauwelios a Nietzsche expert.“ **

2674

Obe:

Number of my last questions: 9.
Number of your last answers: 0.5.

Your „answers“ are very deficient.

2675

Amorphos wrote:

„For me the »love« can be a kind of joy [sometimes despair] in the mind, it feels warm and it rewards us when we resolve something. Not thinking like a philosopher is a dullness in the mind [to me anyhow] just like not being in love with a person is.

Probably just that we are an instrument with those kinds of responses and rewards. Then however we express that gives us said rewards and responses, possibly the same thing in religion when people love god, or in children when they love a teddy bear.“ **

That „sounds“ good, but it could be something between loving a teddy baer, the parents, the sisters, or God on the one side and loving in the sense of liking (interestingly this can not be used as a verb with the ing-form) philosophy on the other side.

Orb wrote:

„The fact is there is the effect of the uncertainty which undermined not only a complete and lasting resolution, but that of love of God, ergo Man, and Love of anything is seen nowedays as a very precarious and recurrent phenomena having little stability or even meaning.“ **

In a world of a society that lives in a „foam“ (Peter Sloterdijk), everything has merely „little stability or even meaning“.

2676

Orb wrote:

„So are yours to my implied questions. You do not have a monopoly on questioning.“ **

Everyone has a monopoly on questioning. Everyone is allowed to ask questions. Everyone has the right to note that his questions are not sufficiently answered.

2677

I did not say that the questioner has the right to force an answer. Did you notice that? .... Oh, that was a question.

And where are your „implied questions“? And if there is any: Why do you not ask directly? .... Oh, questions.

B.t.w.: Your English is not always clear. Excuse me, please.

Okay, we should not derail this thread.

Prismatic wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»History shows the greatness of philosophers.

The current world institutions like UNO, WTO, World Bank, and many other global institutions have their origin in Kant's philosophy. Compare for example Kant's ›Ewigen Frieden‹ (1795) - ›Perpetual Peace‹ (1795). How to value it ist one point, but the historical fact of the influence is another point. Another example: Platon was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher, but would you live according to his philosophy, especially his ideas, today, just because he was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher? To value philosophies are meaningful in another sense but not in the sense of greatness.« ** **

It is the future that will unfolds Kant's greatness.

Kant's philosophy is too far ahead of his and our time.
I agree UN, WTO, World Bank [crude but OK] are the slow unfolding of Kant's philosophy towards the future.

The human brain has appx. 100 billion neurons each with up to 10,000 connectors [synapse]. Just imagine the possible number of serial combinations and permutations from them. It is also possible the connectivity of the media in the brain may not be serial, thus a greater potential.

It is obvious the average human has not yet exploited the full potential of its brain power. The often speculated usage is we are only using 15% of our total brain power. It is definitely a crude guess, as it is quite impossible to know the total brain power, but we can be quite sure there is a vast potential to be tapped from our brain power. Note the exponential and expansion of knowledge since the last 100 years and its possible in the next 50, 100, 150, ...into the future years.

There will be a greater realization of Kant's critical philosophy as the mental potential of the average humanity increase from its current base and continue to increase in the future.
IMO, this where Kant's ideas will slowly merge with Nietzsche's Übermensch.“ **

Will there ever be any tiny institution with an origin in Nietzsche's philosophy?

2678

Arcturus Descending, you are bathing in your victimism - congratulations, girl - and telling lies, because I did not say i.e. that you were not a consciousness seeker - the reverse is true. I have all posts as copies, because I often have to permutate some words or whole sentences and to translate into my first language. And the first fact was that you Insulted me, although inefficiently (see below), but - of course - you did not know that it was an inefficient insult.

Mags, you would have done better, if you had not deleted the posts.

 

NACH OBEN 659) Arminius, 07.03.2015, 01:28, 01:45, 13:20, 13:50, 20:41, 21:46, 22:08, 22:36 22:58, 23:41 (2679-2688)

2679

Amorphos wrote:

„None of that made any sense and I don’t know why you would talk to a lady like that. It sounds like she deleted what she wrote because perhaps she felt it was provocative? I am bias because she’s a friend, yet you are a good poster too.“ **

„None of“ what?, Amorphos, I do not know what your point is. You haven't read my last post, have you? Please read it! Probably and unfortunately you don't know what she wrote and what I wrote some days ago, because - unfortunately - Mags has deleted the posts (but I have the copies!). And why should I response to this nonsense in general? Can you tell me that? And why do you not write me a pm? Is this thread the „thread of the Last Judgement“ or the „ILP kindergarten thread“?

There is no problem at all, except an ballooned one. I hope we can call it „Problem Descending“ (do you have humor?), because now it is still a „Problem Arising“. But why should I care about it? it is an almost empty problem, Amorphos!

Amorphos wrote:

„Why was there a need for your emotional outburst if you don’t want to be part of it? Why the need to act in such a way regardless of the content of the argument.“ **

If you really (really!) want to know why she had that emotional outburst, then read my post above or/and write me a pm! Do you not know that also princesses are able to insult?

Howsoever, Amorphos, I hope I get some texts from you.

Hey ...!

Amorphos wrote:

„A Shieldmaiden wrote:

»Mags J. wrote:

›Not at all honey, and don't swear at me... control your temper won't you. You could have just said that you copied the article title word for word, but you chose to swear at me? and, from the look of your photo, you're the lazy one not I.‹ **

Got a chip on your shoulder.
Are you black?
I thought so.
Now fuck off. Idiot.« **

Wow, is it really possible for human beings to think like that.“

Be very careful, dear Amorphos: she is a „lady“!

Mags J. wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

„Mags, you would have done better, if you had not deleted the posts. Is it okay, if I quote some of them?« ** **

They were way off-topic.. hence the deletions, but I see no reason why you shouldn't quote them, so please feel free to.“ **

Thanks, I had already quoted and then deleted them in this thread (not in my personal computer), because I thought that you would delete them again. :lol:

I do not know what I am going to do in this case, because this ballooned problem of nearly nothing is a strange experience.

2680

Amorphos wrote:

„A Shieldmaiden wrote:

»Mags J. wrote:

›Not at all honey, and don't swear at me... control your temper won't you. You could have just said that you copied the article title word for word, but you chose to swear at me? and, from the look of your photo, you're the lazy one not I.‹ **

Got a chip on your shoulder.
Are you black?
I thought so.
Now fuck off. Idiot.« **

Wow, is it really possible for human beings to think like that.“

Be careful, Amorphos: she is a „lady“!

2681

I begged her six times that she should leave me alone with her childish nonsense, but she did not.

2682

Prismatic wrote:

„It is very difficult to gain a comprehensive understanding of Kant's ideas in its full perspective.
Henry E Alison a supposedly Kant scholar expert with 40 years of experience still missed [he acknowledge that] a critical point as pointed out by one of his student.“ **

If he can't speak or at least read German, then he has a huge problem with the understanding of Kant.

Everyone should know the language of the author he is concerned with.

2683

Mags J. wrote:

„All she had to do was point out that the title was from the paper, but she chose abuse... the classy option? I love being me/my heritage (I am fucking awesome) so your posts are moot... that whole 'non-whites are inferior' propaganda doesn't work on those of superior intelligence, but I applaud you for your attempt at trying that angle.“ **

I didn't call myself a narcissistic ascetic for nothing.

You are my favourite one, Mags!

Kriswest wrote:

„As you should love who you are.
I just want want to know how its wrong to be racist about Jewish people but, not about black people,,, what if you are Jewish and black or Jewish and Asian????? Does one wipe the other out????“ **

That are interesting and important questions, Kriswest.

By the way: I think A Shieldmaiden has - probably as a suck puppet (and I have already an idea whose suck puppet „she“ is) - entirely other interests than it seems and wants to start a discussion with an entirely different goal. You know what I mean?

2684

Erik wrote:

„All of this talk about how one needs to study Kant for thousands of hours and that one needs to know the German language, if one is to truly understand Kant, kind of reminds me of how Christian and Muslim apologists will say similar things, when they feel threatened. For example: An atheist will point out a contradiction or something unflattering about the Quran, and the Islamic apologist will just resort to, say, »You need to read the Quran in Arabic in order to understand that«.“ **

That is pretty much right, Erik, although i.e. the differences between two Germanic languages are not as large as the differences between i.e one Germanic language and one Romanic language. Very huge are the differences between one Indogermanic language and i.e. one Afroasiatic language.

To know i.e. the language of the Koran is very useful in order to understand the Muslims and their religion, their „spiritual exercise“ (Peter Sloterdijk).

To study Kant does not necessarily mean to invest „thousands of hours“, but you need more time for studying Kant, if you do not know the German language, than you need, if you know the German language. So it is a huge adavantage to know the German language when it coems to understand Kant, his country, his culture, and - last but not least - his philosophy. This does not only concern the time you need or other special aspects but also general aspects.

2685

Another example:

If a child has to go to a foreign country, then it will soon be adapted to this country - mainly because of the learned language.

That is not debatable at all, my friend.

Learning a language (the first one, the second one, ... and so on) has nearly always consequences, and this consequences are always positve consequences.

2686

Mags J. wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Mags J. wrote:

›All she had to do was point out that the title was from the paper, but she chose abuse... the classy option? I love being me/my heritage (I am fucking awesome) so your posts are moot... that whole 'non-whites are inferior' propaganda doesn't work on those of superior intelligence, but I applaud you for your attempt at trying that angle.

I didn't call myself a narcissistic ascetic for nothing. ‹ **

You are my favourite one, Mags!« ** **

Oh stop it Arminius ... actually no ... no ... carry on.

The title change.“ **

Yeah, great, Mags!

Mags J. wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»By the way: I think A Shieldmaiden has - probably as a suck puppet (and I have already an idea whose suck puppet "she" is) - entirely other interests than it seems and wants to start a discussion with an entierly different goal. You know what I mean?« ** **

Oh? Do tell ...?“ **

Well, Mags, I do not know it for sure. Let's say: about 80% sureness.

Mags J. wrote:

„I did find it odd how quickly the exchange descended into profanity from the op, when there were less abrasive routes that could have been taken, or perhaps the hate was just strong in that one.“ **

Yes.

„She“ is not perfect in „her“ role.

2687

Mags J. wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»›She‹ is not perfect in ›her‹ role.« ** **

Are you insinuating that »she« is not a »her«?“ **

Uh-huh. Yes, and according to „her“ other avatar „she“ has i.e. no long blond hair.

Mags J. wrote:

„I think I know who you think it is.“ **

Uh-huh. Yes ....

2688

Mags J. wrote:

„Hmmm, him.. yes. What's next.“ **

What's your suggestion?

Perhaps „A Shiledmaiden“ will never post again. But I don't think so. Probably „she“ will post soon and attack you and me. Oh, lovely Mags, what will we do then? Maybe „she“ will come to another decision and never post again, because she will have read our last posts. Oh, lovely Mags, what will we do then?

What's your suggestion?

 

NACH OBEN 660) Arminius, 08.03.2015, 00:17, 00:51, 02:40 (2689-2691)

2689

Mags J. wrote:

„She has posted since ... but not in this thread - would you if you were her? I think not.“ **

If I were „her“. .... That's difficult to say.

Mags J. wrote:

„I'll be playing it by ear my dear, as no firm plan of action is needed, so let's continue to enjoy our day. “  **

Yes. Let's continue to enjoy our day.

And by the way: Today is my first ILP anniversary!

2690

Mags J. wrote:

„Wine and funny TV... my day is continuing to be enjoyed.

Happy ILP anniversary Arminius.“ **

Thank you, Mags.

Mags J. wrote:

„How are you celebrating?

Oh, I don't know, maybe I am drinking a bit and, of course, posting on-ILP. “  **

2691

Ecmandu wrote:

„I actually tried to send some information to feminist sites about sexual dynamics and hierarchies, point out that if these changed, they would be less oppressed. They LOVED my abortion arguments though LOL. They're hypocrites.“ **

Yes, of course, they are.

Ecmandu wrote:

„And the analogy to what religion websites do is a perfect analogy.“ **

Yes, although I know merely few religion websites. I seldom read websites, and I never joined a webforum or anything else before I joined ILP. So ILP was the first one I joined. 8. March 2014. So today is my first ILP anniversary!

 

==>

 

NACH OBEN

www.Hubert-Brune.de

 

 

WWW.HUBERT-BRUNE.DE

 

NACH OBEN