Many people overestimate him.
Is it not a little bit boring?
What Mutcer does in his threads has nothing to do with philosophy, nothing to do with logic, nothing to do with science, nothing to do with reality, nothing to do with ... (put in whatever you want) .... So it has not even anything to do with atheism, although he is always talking about it. If ILP had not merely ad hominem rules but also and beyond them logical rules, then it would not be possible for him to misuse ILP (remember that ILP means I Love Philosophy), and there are many ILP members who misuse ILP in a similar way.
Tweaking the definitions:
An example of a definition is the word theism. In order to be a theist one has to be capable of (A) believing, (Aa) believing in a god or more gods (this makes you a believer in god or gods), and (B) processing this in an intellectual / professional way (this makes you a theist). If you are a theist, then you can become an antitheist, and an atheist, if you fulfill some further preconditions. This was - b.t.w. - what I meant when I said Mutcer was implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause (**|**). The theological cause is always the belief, and the succession of this theological development is always: => (1) belief => (2) godbelief => (3) theological knowledge, for eaxmple as => (3a) theism => (3b) antitheism => (3c) syntheism (synthesis of theism and antitheism) or (3d) atheism.
So it is not possible for one to be a godbeliever, if this one is not capable of believing. And it is also not possible for one to have theological knowledge, if this one is not capable of a god(s)belief. Furthermore it is not possible for one to be a theist, if this one is not capable of the required theological knowledge. In addition it is also not possible for one to be an anthitheist, if this one has not been a theist before. And it is also not possible for one to be an atheist, if this one has not been an antitheist and a theist before. If you want to deny something, you have to know this something. If you want to form a synthesis out of theism and antitheism, you have to know what theism and antitheism mean and be capable of forming a synthesis out of theism and antitheism. But if you want to be released from theism, antitheism, and syntheism, know what they mean, and are sure you can ignore them, then (and only then) you can honestly call yourself an atheist. So in reality there are merely few or even no atheists.
James S. Saint wrote:
This is my strong conviction too.
Yes. His arguments are very irrational, full of false definitions, false pemises, false conclusions, contradictions, fallacies, and other falsities.
In other words, is this thread only for serious philosophers? Or, perhaps, serious objectivists? **
742) Arminius, 14.06.2015, 01:12, 01:44, 02:37, 03:15, 04:18, 04:39, 12:48, 13:02, 13:15, 13:15, 13:15, 13:15, 13:15 (3185-3197)
Europeans averagely see guns all 70 or 80 years - when the rulers bring their war to Europe.
I was told - many years ago - that two cities in the US with almost the same number of inhabitants had very different criminal statistics because they had different gun laws: one city had a very high crime rate and a very strict / tight gun law, while the other city had a low crime rate and a lax / slack gun law. I have never been to the U.S., so I please the US ILP members to tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country.
I do not feel that this sort of exchange is not appropriate for this thread (**); I just asked you what your point is, because I did not exactly know why you mentioned the difference between serious philosophers and serious objectivists.
At this point of your text a respond to my request would have been good.
According to my request it is primarily about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country:
Perhaps you did not read this last sentence of my last post in this thread. First of all I want to know some facts about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country. Afterwards it is easier to say what can be done and what should not be done. Please take into account that the most people in Europe have no experiences with guns, except in the time of war, as I already said.
The topic of this thread is 10 US States with the MOST Gun Violence.
I am referring to the topic of this thread and especially talking about gun laws and crimnal rates in the US and in several states and cities of the US; in addition: crimal rates include gun violence and also your deaths caused by guns. So what is your problem?
I read your response very well.
I pleased the US ILP members, not Google, the false god of many ILP members. So again:
Is there any US ILP member who can sreiously tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country?
Why are you so petulant then? Are you a non-American?
That is more disinformation than information. .... Thank you!
It is funny that you are so much interested in driving all other ILP members against yourself. Is this already typical for English professors in your country? It is unbelievable that you claim to be an English professor. Or did you not mean English professor but Englsih pupil?
How many ILP members are on your ignore list? 90% or even 99%? However. 100% must be your goal, pupil.
I am not interested in your ad hominems and your trolling.
According to my experience with so-called atheists there are merely a few or even no atheists, because this so-called atheists turn out to be antitheists: they are against theism, against god, against Christianity, against religion insofar as it is Christian, against ..., against ..., against .... The Ancient Greek word for against is anti. So this so-called atheists are antitheists.
Another phenomenon is that this so-called atheists create their own god or gods, a false god or false gods. This so-called atheists are syntheists insofar as they have overcome their antitheism as the opponent of theism and come to a synthesis of theism and antitheism, namely syntheism (later: the new theism). But they have not come to atheism. I do not any atheist.
God is perhaps an atheist. That would at least mean that the so-called atheists are merely godwannabes.
Einstein did not use the word infinite, because he did not believe in an infinte universe. There is no other meaning behind it than a religious, theological, metaphysical meaning.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. People love letting out that third option.
You non-Americans can do that can't you? Please take into account, some of us Americans don't automatically shift the conversation at the demand of petulant non-Americans. **
»The topic of discussion was gun laws and deaths caused by guns ....« **
The topic of this thread is »10 US States with the MOST Gun Violence«.
743) Herr Schütze, 15.06.2015, 18:45, 20:42, 22:18 (3195-3197)
Nein. Die im Komparartiv benutzten Adjektive höher und niedriger sind schon genau die richtigen Wörter. Außerdem kann sich fast jeder darunter etwas ganz Konkretes vorstellen. Dagegen sind die Wörter komplexer und weniger komplex mißverständlich, weil zu allgemein und zu ungenau. Außerdem ist der Ausdruck weniger komplex für den Komparativ, um den es geht, nicht gut genung geeignet.
Der Mensch? Welcher? Es ist doch so, daß überhaupt kein Mensch Verantwortung übernehmen will, also auch keine übernimmt und von daher de facto keine trägt. Zwar ist Verantwortung de jure gefordert - also: auf dem Papier (!) -, aber de facto schert sich kein Mensch darum.
Geniedichte ist eine viel zu sehr verwissenschaftlichte Komposition, als daß man sagen könnte, was beide Wortteile im wissenschaftlichen Sinne genau bedeuten. Der eine spricht von Genie und meinet einen Bekloppten, der andere spricht von einem Genie und meint einen Gottmenschen, wieder ein anderer kann mit dem Wort gar nichts anfangen. Das verwissenschaftlichte Wort Dichte verweist zunächst auf die Physik, wo das Wort Dichte seine Wissenschaftsgeburt hatte. Wie will man aber exakt bestimmen, was Geniedichte bedeutet, wenn man sich noch nicht einmal einig darüber ist, was ein Genie überhaupt ist? Sollen wir über die Autistendichte oder lieber über die Gottmenschendichte sprechen? Sollen wir den Begriff im Sinne des Deutschen Idealismus und speziell im Sinne der Deutschen Romantik verwenden? Die Komposition Geniedichte ist viel zu komplex (siehe oben), als daß man wirklich wissenschaftlich Brauchbares mit ihr gewinnen könnte. Mein Einwand in meinem letzten Beitrag bezog sich insbesondere auf Ihre Aussage, daß in den klassischen Zeiten des antiken Griechenlands fast jedes Dorf, jede Stadt ein Genie hervorbrachte (**|**). Ich finde nach wie vor, daß es übertrieben ist zu sagen, jedes Dorf des antiken Griechenlands habe zu klassischen Zeiten ein Genie hervorgebracht.
Heute werden Genies weggesperrt, mit der chemischen Keule behandelt, zu Opfern der pharmazeutischen Industrie gemacht und ansonsten völlig ausgemerzt. Das politische Programm der negativen Eugenik, der Dysgenik also, läuft auf Hochtouren. Wer wagt es da noch, eine möglichst hohe Geniedichte anzupeilen?
Ich beschreibe nur, und das hat mit Pessimismus und Optimismus erst einmal gar nichts zu tun.
Kennen Sie das neue Buch Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit von Peter Sloterdijk und einige Rezensionen dazu? Viele Rezensenten glauben in dem Buch einen pessimistischen Peter Sloterdijk gesehen zu haben. Pessimismus wird viel zu oft als ein Totschlagargument benutzt. Da auch Sie dieses benutzt haben, werden Sie es mir sicherlich nicht verübeln, wenn auch ich es jetzt benutze: Ihre Texte beinhalten viel Pessimismus, besonders im Sinne einer Prämisse. Aber mich stört es nicht, weil es darauf gar nicht ankommt. Möchten Sie lieber ein Optimist sein? Optimismus wurde und wird ja auch stets in Diktaturen verordnet, ja befohlen.
Mir geht es um die Wirklichkeit, um die gewordene, um die werdende und um die werdend werdende Wirklichkeit.
Sie scheinen ja eine sehr lockere Interpretation zu bevorzugen. Ich habe lediglich von Beispielen gesprochen und zuvor bei der Auswahl darauf geachtet, daß sie möglichst unähnlich sind. Ihre willkürlichen Interpretationen lassen mich bestimmte Schlüsse ziehen und hindurchspüren, daß Sie von einem anderen Boden als dem der Wissenschaft aus argumentieren.
744) Niegeboren Niegestorben, 16.06.2015, 22:07 (3198)
Besonders steht Angela Merkel beispielsweise für Ingo Bading.
Angela Merkel wuchs als Kommunistin auf und wurde kommunistische Jugendführerin. Im Kommunismus war und ist das Christentum verboten!
745) Arminius, 17.06.2015, 01:00, 01:53, 02:18, 02:40, 03:38, 03:57, 16:23, 17:01, 17:35, 18:12, 18:42, 19:55, 20:49, 20:51, 21:14 (3199-3213)
James S. Saint wrote:
If a man (or a woman!) wants to rape a child and to make the rape of children legally, then the easiest way is that he (or she!) tells again and again the lie that children are atheists, because the probability that this will become a law is not low, if the situation allows it. This was the case in the so-called comministic countries (especially in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia), because all people of this societies had to be atheists. If all people are believed (!) and have to be atheistic, then it is very easy for the rulers and their functionaries to capture all children by removing them from their allegedly theistic parents and all other allegedly theistic members of their families in order to legally rape this children. The definition of theist is arbitrarily dictated by the dictators, and that means everyone and anyone who does not conform to this dictatorship can be called a theist and be punished by death because of being a theist. So the rapists of children can - and do (!) - become more and more.
This tendency exists, and it exists more than ever before.
The so-called free will:
The so-called free will is merely a relatively free will. The whole history of philosophy is full of that topic. According to it there have always been philosophers of determinism, philosophers of indeterminism, philosophers of a mixture of both determinism and indeterminism, and all of them have always taken turns.
What is nonsense?
Do you have any argument?
Topic: What is your attitude towards theism ...?
What is your attitude towards theism ...? What are you according to your attitude towards theism?
Topic: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?
Do human beings have a free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?
Excuse me, Phyllo, but obviously you have no idea what happened in the history of the so-called communistic countries, especially in the Soviet Union, in China, and in Cambodia.
If anybody had a cow, then this one was called a bourgeois and then killed. This happened, for example, in Ukraine (at that time a part of the Soviet empire) many times, because the Ukranians were not as poor as the other Soviet subjects yet (in other words: they were not equalised yet). And if anybody was suspected (merely suspected!) to be religious or theistic (and the dictator dictated the meaning and interpretation of these words), then this one was also punished and then killed.
Those who do not know or have forgotten what happened in the so-called communistic dictatorships do not change anything of the historical facts. It is this ignorance that opens the floodgates to the demands of all dictatorships.
By definition there are merely three possiibilities for the will: (1) to be free, (2) to be relatively free, (3) to be unfree. Most humans know that there is a will, and even those who do not know it but know the word will ask themselves or others whether the will is free, relatively free, or unfree.
Which communistic country was it where you was born, Phyllo? Did you, your parents, or your grandparents live during the dictatorship of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot or during the dictatorship of other communistic dictators? If one was conformed (not striking, not conspicuous), then this one could have luck, because whether one was punished or not depended on the the other people around this one as well, on the situation, on the fact whether they wanted this one to be punished, ... and so on, thus not only but mainly on the dictators and their functionaries.
How I know this? Not by experience but by science: I have studied history - among other academic disciplines - at the university.
James S. Saint wrote:
Free from all, so that you can say: one is free, because one can do what one will.
But you can also do what Kant did: divide the world into two parts, one for the senses and one for intelligibility. According to the first part humans have an unfree will, thus no free will, because they are slaves of the causality; but according to the second part humans have a free will.
James S. Saint wrote:
So Kant also said that nothing is free from causality, thus also human beings are not free from causality; but he said humans have an intelligible freedom, thus they have a free will according to their intelligibility. In other words: Kant was both a determinist and an indeterminist, because he said humans have an unfree will because of the causality, but they have a free will because of their intelligibility. Therefore he demanded: You shall because you can! (loosely translated).
The CSSR became communistic in 1945.
In the countries I mentioned it did: Soviet Union, China, Cambodia. In Cambodia it was not even allowed to wear glasses because that was interpreted as being intellectual, and being intellectual was punished by death. Have you never heard of the killing fields?
History is science, a science discipline. Of course. And science is also history, because science has its own history. Of course. Studying science history was one of my favorites.
The Soviets came into that country in 1945, so it became communistic in 1945. It does not matter whether the communistic dictators were Soviets, Czechs, or Slovaks. What matters is the historical fact that the Czechoslovakia (later called the CSSR) became communistic in 1945 when the Soviets occupied it. And in my last post I correctly said that it became communistic in 1945; so I was not talking about a state.
SSSR? ??? A state called SSSR has never existed!
Did you mean the Swiss Society for the Study of Religions (SSSR)?
And China had Mao's terror regime and cultural revolution: 100 000 000 people in China were killed, many of them because of theism.
How would you call history then? Art? No, history is a science discipline. It is not like physics or chemistry. But that does not matter in order to be a science discipline.
B.t.w.: I also studied economics and linguistics.
What he seems to be calling »intelligible freedom« can only refer to a greater degree of freedom to decide on life choices (intelligence and available opportunities), freedom from oppression (legalistic traps), or freedom from social manipulations (disinformation, limited information, hypnosis, chemicals/medications, radiology, ...). **
What many people seem to believe is that the human will is free from causality. That is entirely irrational. **
A) there is never freedom from causality
B) other types of freedoms are circumstantial. **
SAM provides the greatest degree of stable social freedom. **
At seems Kant lost the battle, Arminius .... **
... Facts speak louder then words. **
»Providing« means establishing the means or method. If the means are not established, then they were not provided. There is no promising involved.
When you fully understand SAM, there is no need for promises. **
746) Arminius, 18.06.2015, 03:18, 03:31, 03:51, 05:19, 17:03, 17:49, 19:34, 20:12, 21:01, 22:04, 19:34, 19:34 (3214-3226)
So you are even a so-called gnostic theist, because you are saying that you know that gods exist. Would you mind explaining this a little bit?
Obe / Orb / Orbie (I wonder what you next username will be: Orbi? Urbi? ... URBI ET ORBI ...).
Please tell me what your point is.
What caused the universe?
The universe was never »caused«, as in coming from a prior nothingness. It was never »started«. The cause/reason of the universe is the logic of the situation (referred to as »God«).
I see nothing but pure determination, which is not of the self. Self determination has become a myth. **
Meaning has lost its associative bearings .... **
And the reader is asked to work with the writer .... **
Literature is becoming less literal, as a result of the effects of entropy, on all forms of art. **
Anti psychiatry could as well be as will be a rallying cry of the new disassembled world of meaningful communication. **
Where does this duality take us? **
Into the darkness of bedlam, or the lightness of new art forms, reacting to the seemingly bottomless re-entry into Plato's cave, of literal forms? **
Psycho analysis is seen as a failed endeavor, in part). **
Time has the same »cause/reason«.
Time is merely the measure of relative changing. The physical universe IS the changing of which time is the relative measure. There can't be one without the other. **
In a nutshell, till my late twentieths, like most of the modern youngsters, I was firmly of the opinion that scriptures are fairy tales and created by religions to keep folks under morality. And, science and morality are enough to lead an ideal life.
But, fortunately or unfortunately, circumstances pushed me into completely untapped territory, where I came across and learned a lot of new things, both mentally and physically too. Those experiences compelled me to change my opinion about R&S. **
Good OP. **
Topic: Can economics explain more than sociology or/and psychology?
748) Arminius, 20.06.2015, 02:07, 02:47, 03:24, 03:44, 04:59, 17:20, 18:27, 18:46, 20:02, 20:53, 21:57, 22:28, 22:51 (3225-3236)
The spirit is very much more connected with the processing of the informations in the brain, whereas the soul (originally it was the correct English translation for the Ancient Greek word psyche) is more connected with the Platonic, the Platonico-Christian realm (heaven as the Christian example).
Yes. (See also above: the English translation for the Ancient Greek word psyche was the original and the correct one.)
No. (See also above: distinction between spirit and soul.)
They are not simply aspects of the human psyche. Additionally the modern meaning of the word psyche is different from the meaning of the Ancient Greek word psyche. (See also above: soul as the English translation for the Ancient Greek word psyche was the original and the correct one. And see also my thread: Suggestions to the question: »What is psyche?«. [**|**])
Culture is a bit different to nature. And the human culture is like an island in a huge ocean (nature).
I am a theist: 3 => 33%.
Arm (er meint Arminius; HB),
Thanks for the clarifications. Do you believe we have souls?
May I have an example? **
Yes ^^ but its been disconnecting. **
Arminius, you are aware that the exact same image is in both your signature box and your avatar space, right?
I think that's a bit extraneous and repetitious and I would like to ask on behalf of ILP that you remove the image from one or the other spaces.
It's like wearing a grey shirt while also wearing grey sweat pants.. **
You just don't do that. You wear a blue or green or white shirt. **
The tonal aspect of a language is important but not as important as some people think. The Germans are the people of poets and thinkers, scientists and philosophers, technicians and engineers, musicians and inventors, also of sports and work, okay, and, for example and not to forget, of the real Faust as well as the concept Faust. No surprise that the German language sounds more abstract, distant, accurate, and perfect. German is a language for science and philosophy and other abstract aspects. French, for example, expresses more emotions, if one compares it with Germanic languages (German, English, Duch, Flemish, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, ... etc.). .... But why should we value this like we value money, cars, books, or music (for example music from Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or Zappa)? If one shows emotions while speaking and has not the suitable language for emotions, then this one is at risk of being falsely classified, because it is said that this one is not allowed to show emotions because of this one's language. If one has the suitable language for emotions and does not show emotions while speaking, then this one is at risk of being falsely classified, because it is said that this one must show emotions because of this one's language.
And one more point:
Europe has a miserable demography, and the people from other continents, especially people of afroasiatic languages invade and intrude Western, Northern, and Central Europe. So maybe that the Europeans will experience something that the Indians experienced a very long time ago. And the economic development in Europe will probably become disastrous and end in a tragedy with Europe as a Third World continent. We should value this in the first place.
I believe the psyche is not much more than the soul. Mind is much more than psychology (**|**). Both mind and body have not much to do with psyche and psychology. But soul has much to do with psyche and psychology. Like I said:
What are your own daily practices? **
What I am trying to work on, is applying through communicating philosophy with practicality, by getting feedback through those with whom I am sharing thoughts. If this process progresses the way as it I would like to, I will be able to enhance my ability to unify philosophy and the way of understanding. After understanding, application of it may follow. **
James S. Saint wrote:
»All philosophy leads to politics and religion.« **
And the residual leads to psychology. **
The capitalistic countries or empires do not always have the same degree of capitalism. Some of them have also a relatively high degree of socialism. But capitalism and socialism are merley the two sides of the same faked coin. If there is merely capitalism, then the market is a liberalistic market or something like a place of Darwin's survival of the fittest; but if there is merely socialism, then it is a dead socialism because of the lack of capitalism. So capitalism is always before (although not long before) the socialism. The socialism depends on the capitalism, and the capitalism is not capable of expanding its markets ad infinitum without being stopped by a huge catastrophe. Should it be in the interest of the capitalists, at least the late capitalists, to prevent the disappearance of the socialism (because a coin must have two sides)? Yes and no - because it depends on the development stage of the said faked coin, and e.g. in its last development stage it is not possible anymore to prevent the disappearance of the socialism. The situation of that faked coin is almost a dilemma.
It depends on the definition and interpretation of consciousness.
It depends on the definition and interpretation of consciousness.
It depends on the definition and interpretation of psychology.
We can know it. Even the ancient people had a relaltively high degree of knowledge about it. The currently valid definitions and interpretations are more eyepollution than eyewash, more brainpollution than brainwash, thus they are mostly not correct.
Yes. But how can humans appear to be the only animals that can project the soul to something outside itself, i.e., to an entrapped entity that eventually survives the prison body (Ierrellus)? And why? **
I wrote three times: faked coin!
Agreed, but there was a time before the Cold War too. And the meaning of socialism and he meaning of communism is not the same. Therefore I often use egalitarianism as a hyperonym for communism and leftish socialism as its hyponyms. And what do we currently have in China? How would you call the econimical/political situation in China: Communism? Socialism? Capitalism? State monopoly capitalism (stamocap)? Synthesis of communism and capitalism? Synthesis of socialism and capitalism?
Yes, but not all socialists are communists. And the means of the production can also be controlled by relatively small commons - not merely by states, institutions, or private capitalists.
Okay, here comes Zinnat:
Not all socialists are communists. As I said: I often use communism and leftish socialism as hyponyms and egalitarianism as their hyperonym - because in this case it is necessary to differentiate.