Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180

<= [921][922][923][924][925][926][927][928][929][930] =>

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 160
2018 30
2019 18
2020 202
2021 210
2022 40
2023 40
P. Z.
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
P. Z.
S. E.
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 921) Arminius, 09.09.2016, 01:00, 01:01, 01:02, 01:03, 01:20, 01:22, 01:24, 01:27, 01:37, 01:53, 02:16, 02:49, 03:16, 04:59, 13:32, 13:41, 13:58, 14:05, 14:44, 15:26, 16:38, 16:56, 17:00, 17:09, 21:20, 21:48, 21:54, 22:05, 22:21, 22:52, 23:32, 23:32 (5277-5308)


And (by the way): Goethe lived in a time of two philosophically and scientifically important Occidental eras: (1) Enlightenment, (2) Idealism/Romantic.

Johann Wolfgang Goethe


James S. Saint wrote:

„Clarify, Verify, Instill, ....  “ **


Which verb comes semantically very close to the verb „instill“?


Mags J. wrote:

„We may not be here to know or document it ... so.“ **

You mean you and me (for example)? If yes, then you are probably right. But maybe other humans who have become cyborgs (transhumans) will be capable of living for ever.


Mark Morris said:

„Well, there’s every expectation that in about 5 billion more years, that our sun will swell up to become a red giant. And then, as it gets larger and larger, it will eventually become what’s called an asymptotic giant branch star – a star whose radius is just under the distance between the sun and the Earth – one astronomical unit in size. So the Earth will be literally skimming the surface of the red giant sun when it’s an asymptotic giant branch star.

A star that big is also cool because they’re cold – red hot versus blue hot or yellow hot like our sun. Because it’s cold, a red giant star at its surface layers can keep all of its elements in the gas phase. So some of the heavier elements – the metals and the silicates – condense out as small dust grains, and when these elements condense out as solids, then radiation pressure from this very luminous giant star pushes the dust grains out. That may seem like a minor issue, but in fact these dust grains carry the gas with them. And so the star literally expels its atmosphere, and goes from a red giant star to a white dwarf, when finally the core of the star is exposed. Now, as it’s doing this, that hot core of the star is still very luminous and lights up through a fluorescent process, this out-flowing envelope, this atmosphere that was once a star, and that’s what produces these beautiful displays that are called planetary nebulae.

Now, planetary nebulae can be these beautiful round, spherical objects, or they can be bipolar, which is one of the mysteries that we’re working here is trying to understand why, at some stage, a star suddenly becomes axisymmetric – in other words, is sending out is’s atmosphere in two diametrically opposed directions predominantly, rather than continuing to lose mass spherically.

We can’t invoke rotation of the star – that would be one way to get a preferred axis, but stars don’t rotate fast enough. If you take the sun and let it expand to become a red giant, then by the conservation of angular momentum, it literally won’t be spinning at all. It’ll be spinning so slowly that it’ll literally have no effect. So we can’t invoke spin, so there must be something going on deep down inside the star, that when you finally expose some rapidly spinning core, it can have an effect.

Or, all of the stars that we see as planetary nebula can have binary companions, that could be massive planets or relatively low mass stars that themselves can impose an angular momentum orientation on the system. This is in fact an idea that I’ve been championing for decades now, and it has some traction. There’s a lot of planetary nebula nuclei, the white dwarves, that seem to have companions near them that are suspect for having been responsible for helping strip the atmosphere of the mass-losing red giant star but also providing a preferred axis along which the ejected matter can flow.“ **

Wikipedia wrote:

„One billion to two billion years in the future, the increase in solar radiation caused by the helium build-up at the core of the Sun will result in the loss of the oceans and the cessation of continental drift. Four billion years from now, the increase in the Earth's surface temperature will cause a bad greenhouse effect. By that point, most if not all the life on the Earth will be gone. The most likely fate of the planet is being destroyed by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years, after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded to cross the planet's orbit. ....

When the Sun first became a main sequence star, it radiated only 70% of the current luminosity. The luminosity has increased in a nearly linear fashion to the present, increasing by 1% every 110 million years. In three billion years the Sun is expected to be 33% more luminous. The hydrogen fuel at the core will finally be limited in 4.8 billion years, when the Sun will be 67% more luminous than at present. Thereafter the Sun will continue to burn hydrogen in a shell surrounding its core, until the increase in luminosity reaches 121% of the present value. This marks the end of the Sun's main sequence lifetime, and thereafter it will be into a red giant.“ **

Habitable zone according to the luminosity of the Sun

Tara West wrote:

„According to a team of astronomers, Andromeda Galaxy will consume our Milky Way Galaxy approximately five billion years from now. ....

The Milky Way has actually cannibalized smaller galaxies in the past. It has been a long time since the Milky Way has merged with another large galaxy, but astronomers note that you can still see remnants of all the old galaxies we’ve cannibalized. However, the Milky Way will do a little more consuming of its own before the Andromeda Galaxy has a chance to take a bite at it.

Dr. Robotham discussed the consuming of galaxies by the Milky Way ....

»We’re also going to eat two nearby dwarf galaxies, the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, in about four billion years.« **

It is believed that Milky Way galaxy will grow bigger in nearly four billion years by consuming two dwarf galaxies nearby- the Large and the Small Magellanic Clouds. After the Milky Way does its consuming, the Andromeda Galaxy will then eat up the Milky Way, because it is more massive even after the Milky Way consumers its nearby smaller galaxies.

Scientists do point out that the process takes billions of years. Therefore, it will be around four billion years before the Milky Way begins consuming its neighbors, and another billion years after that before it comes into contact with the massive Andromeda Galaxy.

Astronomers believe that the process of larger galaxies consuming smaller galaxies will keep happening until a few very large galaxies remain in the universe. They said the process will take a long time to happen, and is billions of years in our future.“ **


James S. Saint wrote:

„The »Prime Mover« is the primary cause of all motion and is eternal. Something cannot be a cause of something else without that something else appearing, else it really isn't the cause. Because the primary cause of all motion is eternal, motion itself must also be eternal.

The Prime Mover did not begin the universe, but rather is at the very foundation of any and all motion (aka »spirit«). The physical universe is made entirely of the changing, the motion itself, physical spirit. And such motion continues eternally because the Prime Mover for it is eternal (yet not itself physical).“ **

So at first there was the Prime Mover (spiritual) and the universe (physical) and thus two universal realms: (1) the spiritual realm as the foundation of any and all motion (changing); (2) the physical realm containing the motion itself (physical spirit).


Pandora wrote:

„Globalism is the key word here, with its implied abolishment of traditional national identity.“ **

As I said. Yes.

Pandora wrote:

„Islam's incorporation into Europe, as it is right now, is too forced and quick, meaning that someone is pushing for war. (A war which will benefit US).“ **

Yes. And it is also true that that war will benefit the US (like other wars did before).

Pandora wrote:

„The dilemma that I see is that if a country wants to preserve its traditional national identity, it could only do so as a/n (economically) subservient state to another superpower; and that is a delicate position to be in, as it is not certain if and for how long it will be able to protect its interests in such a position. A war in Europe will likely weaken it, at least economically; and economically weakened country is still vulnerable to exploitation. The other option is diversification of Europe, a process which normally takes generations. An expedited diversification could be a response in order to prevent war, but I don't see it working out (due to sabotage). What is the best course of action?“ **

That is the question, yea.

Pandora wrote:

„Is allowing to be coerced into war the best choice for Europe right now? Even if Europe chooses the war, will it be in a position to defend itself against globalists after the war is over?“ **

1.) Globalists are in Europe too.
2.) Europeans would have to become absolutely capable of defending themselves and their whole territory.
3.) War is lucrative, and many actors, especially the most powerful ones - the Globalists -, know that they will benefit, become more powerful or at least remain powerful.

So I guess that Europe will probably remain relatively passive and weak, in an oddly awaiting position, then be coerced into war pretty soon (at least long before 2050 [**|**]), and the result will be a huge loss and a huge chaos. The beginning of it can alraedy be seen (although many people do not want to see it, because they shall not want to see it - which means that this first little circle is complete, because the plan of the Globalists is reached again).


Prismatic 567 wrote:

„You are always blabbering your condemnations of my views without any proper arguments nor justifications. That is not the way for any credible intellectual and philosophical discussions.“ **

You are the one who is „always blabbering“ his „condemnations“ of other „views without any proper arguments nor justifications“. So you are also the one who is not capable of prticipating in „credible intellectual and philosophical discussions“.

Note: I have quoted your problematic statements which can be found in all your threads.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

Btw, I have spent always 3 years full time basis studying Kant and his philosophy ....“ **

So it seems that you will have to spent probably more than 30 years from now on in order to undertand what Kant was talking about. Your errors are not a ressult of Kant'’s philosophy but of your false interpretation and consequently of your false derivations from it.

If Kant lived today, he would be the first one who agreed with me and said to you: „Du bist nicht vernünftig, sondern doof oder zynisch“.

„Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Selbstverschuldet ist diese Unmündigkeit, wenn die Ursache derselben nicht am Mangel des Verstandes, sondern der Entschließung und des Mutes liegt, sich seiner ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Sapere aude! Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist also der Wahlspruch der Aufklärung.“ - Immanuel Kant, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, 1784.

„Der Mohammedianism unterscheidet sich durch Stolz, weil er, statt der Wunder, an den Siegen und der Unterjochung vieler Völker die Bestätigung seines Glaubens findet, und seine Andachtsgebräuche alle von der mutigen Art sind.“ - Immanuel Kant, Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft, 1793, 4. Stück, 2. Teil, § 2, A 269, B 285.

„Der Mensch ist ein Tier, was eine Erziehung nötig hat.“ - Immanuel Kant, Reflexionen über die Anthropolgie, 1798.

What you are doing here in this webforum is just the oppositie of what Kant wanted his readers to do.

And what you are saying about „silly and stupid“ is nothing else than your self-description. You have given no single argument for your silly and stupid „statements“. Note: You are the one who has opened this thread. So you have to give coherent arguments for your subject. But you have given no single one. That is in fact silly and stupid.


Yes (**). Inventing gods has never been stopped. The opposite is true: More and more gods have been invented.


Yes (**). And the worst thing is that he (**) - by doing that - is almost always misusing a dead philosopher.


Yes (**). He was the one (**). Of course.


Eine Würdigung Nietzsches wird immer stark davon abhängen, wie man den » Willen zur Macht« auffaßt. Ermunterung zu imperialem Zynismus? Kathartisches Geständnis ? Ästhetisches Motto ? Selbstkorrektur eines Gehemmten ? Vitalistischer Slogan? Metaphysik des Narzißmus? Enthemmungspropaganda? - Peter Sloterdijk, Kritik der zynischen Vernunft, 1983, S. 389. **

Translation: „An appreciation of Nietzsche will always strongly depend on how one understands the »will to the power«. Encouragement to imperial cynicism? Cathartic confession? Aesthetic motto? Self-correction of an inhibited? Vitalistic slogan? Metaphysics of the narcissism? Propaganda of disinhibition?“


Brahman (Sanskrit: „holy might“, „world soul“), originally a magic spell, then the force giving the effectiveness to the act of sacrificing, finally the creative and conversing principle of the world - being by the fact itself („ipso facto“) - that creates, carries, conserves, and takes back everything into itself.

According to the Vedanta the Brahman is identical to the Atman (Sanskrit: „self“, „soul“/„psyche“).

Samsara (Samasara) is the self-repeating cycle of the individual life (life cycle) by rebirths (cycle of rebirths) with all their sufferings from which one can merely be redeemed by entering the Brahma resp. the Nirvana.



Do you like competition?


Although life philosophy wants to understand life by life itself, it should not be completely reduced to vitalism and biologism which are aspects of it but not more.


Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Correction; {}
»Btw, I have spent {almost} 3 years full time basis studying Kant and his philosophy ....«“ **

Eather you are lying or not capable of studying Kant and his philosophy without knowing that fact.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„I admit I do not know German.
If you insist in using German, then there is something wrong with you.“ **

So you admit to not have read Kant. I thought so.

So there is something wrong with you.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„So far, you have not justified where I am wrong at all.“ **

Wrong again. I have justified where you are wrong in almost every post. If you are not capable of reading them, then you obviously do not know English either.

I do not have to repeat my words again and again.

DNA was not known when Kant wrote his books. So Kant did not say anything about „DNA“. Your deductions are completely false. Morality is something that must be learned. There is no morality gene. Any statement that there might be a morality gene has been falsified.

What you are saying is false. And it is dangerous too.

Prismatic567 wrote:

„Just show me, like; Prismatic 567 stated »Y is true« but the truth as justified is »X«.“ **

Prismatic 567 is not capable of showing any tiny hint that his silly „statements“ could be true. You have not read Kant, you know nothing about morality, nothing about genetics, nothing about children, nothing about education, ... and so on and so forth. Your posts have shown this fact very clearly, regardless whether you admit it or not.

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Btw, don't bring language to mess up the issue,
- any difference in terms of language can be reconciled.“ **

Absolutely wrong.

And you forgot to say: „don't bring up to use words against me“.

Sorry, but you are just too dumb.


Yes (**). Probably he is even more than that.


Pandora wrote:

„ One needs to ask himself as what comes first in order to determine what is a part of what.“ **

„Himself“? Whom do you mean?


Prismatic 567 wrote:

„»Life Philosophy« [vitalism ++] would imply partial philosophy and will not cover whole-life and the whole of reality.“ **

You have not read or at least not understood what life philosophy is, how it is defined. Life philosophy (by definition) does not have to cover the whole of reality. This is already said in this thread. Just try to read it.

And it is also not simply meant as „a way of life“ (**).


It is true that „you will not find one isolated gene that causes morality“. And it is also true that even several genes that could cause morality are not findable. His stupid „statements“ collapse in any case. The main issue is that his „statements“ are not only stupid but also evil, thus dangerous.

He would have to prove that „all humans are born with a potential to be evil“ (**), because that is his stupid, false, evil, dangerous „statement“. It is not possible to prove that. He is WRONG. His "statement" is FALSE.

Nobody is born born with an active evil tendency !


It is possible to falsify his „statement“, because there is no single genetic finding, no result, no experiment that can prove his „statement“.


Arminius wrote:

„Pandora wrote:

»Islam's incorporation into Europe, as it is right now, is too forced and quick, meaning that someone is pushing for war. (A war which will benefit US).« **

Yes. And it is also true that that war will benefit the US (like other wars did before).“ ** **

In line with that the following post I just found: ** .


He (**) does not want to face reality (for example the fact that he does not know you [**] at all).


FALSE (**).


What Mags means by „false idols“ (**) IS what I mean by „»scientific« gods“ (**|**).

And all science is Occidental science.


Russell and Whitehead built upon Frege, yes. But Einstein did not built upon Newton, although both can cosmologically be regarded as relativists. Einstein was influenced by the physicist Planck and the mathematician Hilbert. (Hilbert submitted the same general relativity theorie [GRT] on the 20th of November 1915, five days before [!] Einstein), but Einstein published it before Hilbert).


What about the nature?


60 miles <=> 96.56... km.


Will you move again?


I mean the climate, the landscape (especially the trees and the mountains), the seascape ..., and something more.


No. You (**) are wrong. What he is (and you are) saying is like saying „everything I say is true because it is possible to be true“. That is not how science works and how science should work, because, if it does, then it is no science anymore. Moreover: He is misusing a philosopher of the 18th century as his witness for his 21st century „statements“. There is no morality gene. Period.


People have to learn what „good“ and „evil“ mean. That is a fact. And this fact is the reason why morality is almost always misused in education, regardless whether in kindergartens, schools, universities, or by the mass media, the political system


Thank you (**) very much.


Infants learn and want to learn (they are very much interested in learning), whereas many ILP members seem to have stopped learning.


NACH OBEN 922) Arminius, 11.09.2016, 01:19, 01:20, 01:28, 01:29, 01:34, 01:34, 01:43, 01:44, 01:54, 03:10, 04:19, 13:11, 22:22, 22:29, 23:29, 23:58 (5309-5324)


You will have to pay not only for your atoms but also for each of your elementary (fundamental) particles.

You may guess which one the most expensive one will be.


Do you feel guilty about being a one with particles?

Do you know the story of Plotin (Plotinos, Plotinus [205-270]) who was so much spiritualized, that he was ashamed of having a body?


Lost jobs are caused more by socialism than by markets. An example: Who was and is most responsible for the very high wages (also known as very high personnel costs): the markets or the socialism (unions, trade unions, labor unions, states, municipalities, churches, ...)?

When the human history began, the first cities and states were built, thus about 6000 years ago, the real market (free market) ended and the ideal market (social market), thus the very first form of socialism, began.

If it is said that the market requires more this and more that, then it is mostly the social state, thus socialism, that needs more money in order to socialize the market, which means to control people. This is because of the sinister partnership of market and socialism (mediated by laws and money), which always means that the strong market becomes weak and the weak socialism becomes strong.

Lost jobs are also caused by markets, of course, but, as if this was not problematic enough, socialism set one above on it by making that problem a huge problem.


Vitalism means that the organic life has a special vitality („vis vitalis“) effecting life phenomenons that depend on that vitality. Vitalism rejects the exclusively mechanical and chemical explanation of life processes. The Neovitalism assumes that there is a teleologically effecting factor called „entelechy“, which is an Aristotelian term.


In addition: The medical industry has no interest in feminization but in illness, has no interest in reducing the population but in reducing the health.

Those who want to control or do control all others are interested in feminization, illness, reducing the population, reducing the health, reducing the fertility, reducing the intelligence, reducing the wealth, ... and many other things the controllers benefit from.

The medical industry exists because of illness resp. reduced health and the techn(olog)ical revolution (machine revolution) in combination with the credit revolution.

So there also exists a medical cynism and a scientifical/techn(olog)ical cynism.


Yes (**). Of course.


Yep (**). => **.

He ignores everyone and everything that does not agree with him and his mostly nonsensical statements. He is not capable of defining the words he is using, so, yes, he (in almost every post) has to insult whoever is disagreeing with him.


Again: FALSE!

Your premises are false, thus your cobclusion is also false.

My oh my! Boy oh boy!


Media? I was not talking about media. No argument? I have many arguments. So whom did you (**) mean?


I meant relatively high wages. Compare (for example) wages of the „1st world“ with wages of the „2nd and 3rd world“. Wages of the „1st world“ have become high in a relatively short time, whereas wages of the „2nd and 3rd world“ have not become high. The „partnership“ of market and socialism causes relatively high wages, and they are caused more by the „partner“ socialism than by the „partner“ market. That is my thesis. The precondition is this „partnership“.

Note: I am not saying that wages are too high from (for example) a worker's point of view .


First of all I have to say that the two different semantic fields for the two English words „culture“ and „civilisation“ are different from the two German words „Kultur“ and „Zivilisation, so that we we would get a problem of contrastive linguistics, if we equalled them. So (1.) the English word „culture“ and the German word „Kultur“ do not always mean the same, and (2.) the English word „civilisation“ and the German word „Zivilisation“ do not always mean the same. I would say that the said semantic fields could look like this:

Kultur, Culture, Zivilisation, Civilisation

So the proper translation of „Kultur“ is sometimes „culture and sometimes „civilisation“, whereas the proper translation of „Zivilisation“ is always „civilisation“.

And this means that I have to conclude or even to guess whether you meant „Kultur“ or „Zivilisation“ when you used the word „civilisation“. Most historians say that barbarians have no „civilisation“. So I conclude that you meant „Kultur“ and not „Zivilisation“. Most historians say that civilisations (Kulturen) can be both barbaric and not barbaric, and that civilisations (Zivilisationen) can never be barbaric. But my interpretation differs a bit from that mainstream interpretation. I am saying that civilisations (Zivilisationen) are also barbaric, and they can be and often are even much more barbaric than the so-called „barbaric civilisations“ („Kulturen“).


Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Thus I am not wrong you are ignorant.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„There you go again.“ **

Arminius wrote:

„Yep (**). => **.

He ignores and insults everyone and everything that does not agree with him and his mostly nonsensical statements. He is not capable of defining the words he is using, so, yes, he (in almost every post) has to insult whoever is disagreeing with him.“ ** **

Prismatic 567 wrote:

„You are talking about yourself?“ **

You are the only one here who does not know that that you are not capable of defining the words you are using and that you ignore and insult everyone and everything that does not agree with you and your nonsensical statements.

Your excuses are ridiculous.

Prismatic567 wrote:

„In post #2 [read it!] and subsequent posts I have given some clues to the very possible ultimate root causes of the OP.
Effective problem-solving and understanding the issue is identifying ultimate root causes which I had introduced for further discussions.

If someone is not aware the root causes that is ignorance, and if s/he deliberate ignore what is presented as very possible evidence, what else can I say but ..

What has you contributed so far other than whining [for no good reasons] about some one else?}“ **

I have no reason for doing that. You were talking to James - not to me. You said that James was ignorant, although you ignored that you were the one who ignored that you were wrong in all points.


The term „barbarian“ originates from the Ancient Greek: barbaros (barbaros). By this term the Ancient Greeks meant each one of those who were not Ancient Greeks resp. did not speak Ancient Greek.


Whom do you mean? I mean: Who translates „barbarian“ as „thug“?


And the wages of the 2nd world were/are too low because of communism - compared with the wages in capitalistic societies. The communistic wages were/are not competitive resp. competitively viable.

It depends on whether both capitalism (techno-creditism) and socialism (communism) work together or not. If a society has merely one of the both, then the wages are low, unless its living costs are cheaper than its wages. So the fact that wages are relatively high or relatively low depends on two comparisons: (1.) the comparison with the living costs of the same society, (2.) the comparison with wages of other societies. If your society has a high inflation (like many Western societies currently have - because of the [Neo-]Keynesianistic system / Debtism / Globalism), then its living costs are high, and it is most likely in that case that its wages are low compared with its living costs, but it can nevertheless be the case that its wages are high compared with the wages of other societies.


Transsexual means that one's sex has been changed physiologically, anatomically, thus biologically.


NACH OBEN 923) Arminius, 13.09.2016, 01:33, 01:35, 01:42, 02:03, 03:17, 03:50, 04:23, 04:50, 05:16, 06:19, 14:44, 15:11, 15:11, 21:35, 22:25, 23:57 (5325-5340)


Prismatic 567 wrote:

„Note Surreptitious 57's comments on what is a syllogism.

My syllogism is deductively correct merely as an example of what a syllogism is. I did not state the premise P1 and conclusion are sound.

You should be mindful before jumping out of your chair to think you have found I committed a serious intellectual error.“ **

I did not know that you meant your syllogism as a purely formal example. Sorry. But stop trying to sell your religion. So, please, let me explain what I meant:

In the opening post is said:

„Jokerism is about worshipping death and nothingness. Buddhism is about worshipping death and nothingness.“ **

You used this sentences as the two premises of your syllogism by negating the second sentence. A syllogism is part of logic. Logic without semantics is absolutely meaningless. You have been ignorant here again - as usual. But I know better than you that you have intentionally chosen that syllogism example, thus that you have used semantics (regardless whether you know this or not). It is not possible to use language without semantics. Thus it is also not possible to use logic without semantics. Even mathematics is meaningless without language, thus without semantics. Otherwise you could semantically change everything and nevertheless say that „it is true“.

Each word has a meaning / importance (!), and semantics is the linguistical realm that deals with the meaning / importance and thus also the definition of each linguistical form (each phoneme, each morpheme, each lexeme, each word, each sentence, ..., even each text). Logic can be defined as „logical language“. Regardless how abstract the explanations of „validity“ are: without semantics „validity“ just means nothing.

I am not saying that the form you used is false. I am saying that the content you used is false. Both depend on each other. So again: Without semantics logic is useless. And syllogism is part of logic.

Again: I did not know that you meant your syllogism as a purely formal example. So I could only interpret it in the way I did. And if you read the other posts here, then you will notice that all posters are referring to logic (including syllogism) only in a semantic way.

Now, look at the following two syllogism examples (based on your examples):


„P1) Prismatic 567 is Putcer.
P2) Putcer is not Murreptitious 57.
C3) Therefore Prismatic 567 does not jive with Murreptitious 57.“


„P1) Prismatic 567 is Murreptitious 57.
P2) Murreptitious 57 is not Putcer.
C3) Therefore Prismatic 567 does not jive with Putcer.“

What does that mean besides the formal aspect? I mean: Both syllogisms contradict each other. Which of those two syllogisms is true? Or is no one of the both true? Which of the premises and conclusions are true? Or is no one of the premises and conclusions true? According to you this all does not matter because of the purely formal aspect you want to be considered. Okay, but then there is no meaning at all in the statements, and you can claim whatever you want, regardless how nonsensical it is.

Syllogism is about premises (judgements) and conclusions. You can affirm or deny, you can do it in general or in particular. But without semantics (language) you are not capable of knowing whether you affirm or deny and whether you do it in general or in particular.


I did not miss out anything. I was referring to the meaning of the word. But words are something you ignore. So you are the one who missed out almost everything, namely semantics - again, as usual.

And if you are admitting that it (the „link“) is not proven, one can only wonder why you are nevertheless saying the opoosite in a subjunctive mood („the DNA factor could be an additional possibility“). You ignore the meaning / importance of words. You miss out semantics, thus you also miss out science and philosophy, because without semantics each of all statements is like nothing.

As long as something is not proven or disproven in a different semantical directions this something does not change its meaning / importance, its semantics.

In other words: The meaning of the word „transsexual“ remains the same as long as we do not know better what it means.


Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„To my knowledge, it is not possible to change someone's sex biologically functionally, at least not yet. A transsexual refers to the mental desire to be a woman, nothing more.“ **

With or without referring also to the sexual act?

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„Just as gay refers to the mental desire to have sex with only men.“ **

And the so-called „lady-boys“ are merely gays. But sometimes these „lady-boys“ are also called „transsexuals“, although that is not correct, bercause they are just homosexuals.


Hahaha wrote:

„Meditating under a tree trying to gain so called enlightenment isn't exactly my thing ....“ **

Yes. I believe you. How would you define Jokerism (if at all)?


Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Isn't vital force yet another name for mind, spirit, soul, consciousness?“ **

There is a branch within the vitalism (especially neovitalism) that claims that the phenomena of life are not explainable by physicochemical „laws“ (rules) but have their own „laws“ (rules) that can be put down to a psyche-like „force“ (=> psychovitalism) or explained by the „entelechy“ (as I already said).

Magnus Anderson wrote:

„Vitalism then would just be the idea that the immaterial (= mental) is more fundamental than the material (= physical).“ **



It is at least hard to believe that such a separate force (**) exists, but that does not mean that it is not possible. Compare it, for instance, with the Aristotelian „entelechy“, although it is not exactly the same. To Goethe entelechy was „ein Stück Ewigkeit, das den Körper lebend durchdringt“ („a piece of eternity that gets lively through the body“).


We should not always push forward? But: Can we slow down the modern velocity? ** **


Honestly: It is very likely that „moral health“ will merely lead to more „moral illness“, to more taxes, to more duties, to more censorship, thus to more dictatorship.

Look at the history of other health systems. Health systems invent more and more „ill“ humans in order to control them and to become richer and richer, thus more powerful.


Philosophy is also useless without semantics. As I said: Semantics is needed everywhere. And the fact that mathematics is very critical to many sciences is very good. We have enough mainstream scientists.


Prismatic wrote:

„The truth is variations from the norm occur in degrees.
In the case of gender [example male] variations from the norm we have the following variables in degrees;

1. The male physical/mental attributes
2. The female physical/mental attributes
3. The male sexuality - sexual attraction to females
4. The female sexuality sexual attraction to males

A 100% homosexual would be

1. The male physical/mental attributes -100%
3. The male sexuality - sexual attraction to females-100%

The above perfection is not likely to exists so we have homosexuals with various combinations of the above.

In the case of a transsexual, we may have for example the following combinations;

1. The male physical/mental attributes - 80%
2. The female physical/mental attributes -10%
3. The male sexuality - sexual attraction to females-10%
4. The female sexuality sexual attraction to males -90%

Thus in the case of transsexualism the critical variables are 1 and 4 [say >60%] in various relevant degrees and combination.

As for »lady-boys« which is a general term, they can be either transsexuals [with high 4] or homosexuals with a lower 1 and some degrees of 2 and 4.“ **

I disagree.

Prismatic wrote:

„To rely [as primary] on semantics to seek the truth is like a neurosurgeon using a chopper to perform fine neural surgery in the brain.
To seek the closer truth what we need is philosophy, analytical thinking, other relevant knowledge with semantics in the background as a secondary tool.“ **

To rely on semantics is very helpful, whereas to completely ignore semantics is like living without a brain.

In the said posts I just wanted to remind you of the importance of semantics. I did not say that semantic rules over this and that. I merely said that semantics is needed everywhere.


Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„I don't think you know what you are talking about.“ **

That is obviously your self-description, because it seems that you really do not know what your „sexuality“ is.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„Ladyboys are not the same as gays. Gays don't get breast implants or hormones... because they are gay - men who like men. They don't want to be like a woman who likes men.“ **

This so-called „ladyboys“ also like men. Of course. (Do I have to post videos here?) Google it! also like men. Of course. (Do I have to post videos here?) Gays like men, and this men are either real men or men who want to be sexually treated like woman (they want to sexually play the so-called „passive role“, the „female role“). Duh. And „ladyboys“ („ladymen“, „shemales“) also want to be sexually treated like woman. Of course.


Prismatic wrote:

„Note the following are can be independent by themselves;

1. Philosophy
2. Logic
3. Semantics
4. Mathematics
5. Science
6. Others“ **

Ah. „Others“ can also be „independent by themselves“. I think you yourself have to note your 6 points again.

Again: I do not always rely on semantics. In my last posts I just wanted to remind you of the importnace of semantics. I did not say that semantic rules over this and that. I merely saif that semantics is needed everywhere.

I think that your „ranking“ should be corrected a bit.

Note: Maybe it is a typical view of an English-speaking man you have, but that does not automatically mean that it is correct or even the best one.

But okay, it does not very much differ from my model:


** ** ** ** ** **

And look, semantics is not on the „top“, is not even mentioned. As a branch of linguistics it is included in linguistics - of course, duh. According to my model philosophy is on the „top“ (thus seemingly similar to your model), but this „top“ is no real top, because it can be turned upside down. And if it is turned upside down, the physics is on the „top“ which is no real top. (See the arrows in the graphics above.) However. Semantics is never on the „top“, but that does not autmatically mean that it is not needed everywhere.


Back to the topic:

Does Jokerism exist at all? And if yes: What does it exactly mean?

This questions should be answered by Joker first.


Hahaha wrote:

„If we follow this moral health thing to its final absurd or hilarious conclusion it would seem moral philosophers and authoritarians are the big pharma of morality. ;) Get the joke or pun there?)

We're in agreement.“ **



Erik wrote:

„What is the philosophy of beauty?
Why does beauty exist?
What does it mean for something to be ugly?

Share your thoughts.“ **

Hello, Erik. Nice to have you back here.

There are three most important branches of philosophy: (1.) aesthetics, (2.) ethics, (3.) logic. As Goethe said: „dem Schönen, Guten, Wahren“ („to the beauty, good, true“). This was meant as unit, thus as the classical philosophy. So I think that there are some aspects or things that can also objectively be considered as beauty: symmetry, shapeliness (well-proportioned aspects or things), certain geometrical figures, beings consisting of structures that are based on certain mathematical numbers (e.g.: the Fibonacci sequence or the golden cut).

Fibonacci sequence (1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, ...):

   Wachstum der Sonnenblumenkerne

Golden cut (1,6180339887...):


English is my third language. But that does not matter much, because I did not say that bisexuals were gays. Bisexuals are sometimes like homosexuals and sometimes like heterosexuals. Therefore the prefix „bi“ (=> „two“), namely for (1.) homosexuals and (2.) heterosexuals. But we were not talking about bisexuals but about homosexuals and „transsexuals“.


NACH OBEN 924) Arminius, 17.09.2016, 01:01, 01:10, 01:14, 01:18, 01:22, 01:28, 01:32, 01:34, 01:37, 01:40, 18:46, 19:22, 19:39, 21:15, 21:44, 23:07 (5341-5357)


Interestingly, the Fibonacci numbers show some noteworthly mathematical specific features:

Due to the relations to the previous and the following number growth in nature seems to follow an addition law. The Fibonacci numbers are directly associated with the golden cut. The further one progresses subsequently, the more the quotient of successive numbers approaches to the golden cut (1,6180339887...) - for example: 13:8=1.625; 21:13=1.6153846; 34:21=1.6190476; 55:34=1.6176471; 89:55=1.6181818; 144:89=1.617978; 233:144=1.6180556; ... and so on). This approach is alternating - the quotients are alternately smaller and bigger than the golden cut (golden number, golden ratio):

Fibonacci-Zahlen und Goldener Schnitt

The Fibonacci numbers are the sums of the „shallow“diagonals (shown in red) of Pascal's triangle:

Fibonacci-Zahlen im Pascalschen Dreieck

„Liber Abaci posed, and solved, a problem involving the growth of a population of rabbits based on idealized assumptions. The solution, generation by generation, was a sequence of numbers later known as Fibonacci numbers. Although Fibonacci's Liber Abaci contains the earliest known description of the sequence outside of India, the sequence had been noted by Indian mathematicians as early as the sixth century.[17][18][19][20]

In the Fibonacci sequence of numbers, each number is the sum of the previous two numbers. Fibonacci began the sequence not with 0, 1, 1, 2, as modern mathematicians do but with 1,1, 2, etc. He carried the calculation up to the thirteenth place (fourteenth in modern counting), that is 233, though another manuscript carries it to the next place: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377. Fibonacci did not speak about the golden ratio as the limit of the ratio of consecutive numbers in this sequence.“ **

Fibonaccis Kaninchen


Copied post in another thread.


Maybe the Fibonacci sequence and the Golden cut are such a principle or force.


All life-philosophically relevant writers or tellers are also welcomed to this thread.



Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„You said ladyboys are gays, when they are closer to bis and transsexuals than gays.“ **


See my posts of this thread: ** (**) ** (**) ** (**) ** (**) ** (**) ** (**) ** (**) ** (**) ** (**) ** (**) ** (**) ** (**) ** (**).

I was not talking about bisexuals before my last post, and in my last post I said the following about bisexuals:

I wrote:

„I did not say that bisexuals were gays. Bisexuals are sometimes like homosexuals and sometimes like heterosexuals. Therefore the prefix »bi« (=> »two«), namely for (1.) homosexuals and (2.) heterosexuals. But we were not talking about bisexuals but about homosexuals and »transsexuals«.“ ** **

So I never said anything about bisexuals in the sense that someone is „closer“ to them or not.


There is symmetry almost everywhere in that picture (**). The woman is very syymmetrical. Her face would be more beautiful if it was not covered. This covered face is nevertheless beautiful, because everyone knows how the face looks like if it is not covered. But what if she has only one eye?

Symmetry is not the only but one of the most important aspects of beauty. Others are shapeliness (well-proportioned aspects or things), certain geometrical figures, beings consisting of structures that are based on certain mathematical numbers (e.g.: the Fibonacci sequence or the golden cut). ** **


Thinkdr wrote:

„Have no fear, Artemus, I have no use for "health systems" either !!“ **

Thiefdr, thanks for your response.

Thinkdr wrote:

„All the world's a stage, and we are all players.“ **

The whole world is a quiz, and we are its canidates.


Semantics is needed everywhere. Each process of understanding must be accompanied by its meaning, its semantics. Without semantics you know nothing. So if you want to know less and less and at last nothing at all, then just loose semantics (like those who suffer from Altzheimer’s disease do).


Nietzsche did not say something new with his statement „Gott ist tot“ („God is dead“), because God died or was already dead when the so-called „French revolution“ began (1789) and certain philosophers, theologians, and others already said that God was dead.


At Nietzsche’s time the distribution of Roman Catholics and Lutheran Protestants in Germany was almost the same as it is today: fifty/fifty (50% Roman Catholics and 50% Lutheran Protestants), but the Lutheran Protestants had more power because after the German War (Prussia and allies versus Austria and allies - 1866) Prussia was the main power in Germany, whereas before 1866 and since a long time Austria had been the main power in Germany. The statement that Lutheran or other Protestants would be „weaker“ than other Christians (Roman Catholic and Orthodox ones) is not true. But that statement is probably Nietzsche’s true self-description, because he was a Lutheran Protestant - and „weak“.

Christianity - as well as Buddhism - is merely „weaker“ in the sense that it is more about love and peace, whereas certain other religions are merely „stronger“ in the sense that they are more about hate and war. Whether one can say that „weak“ means „evil“ and „strong“ means „good“ is not only an ethical question but also a question of how one wants or not wants the people to live together, thus a question of the form of government. Nietzsche was against democracy and socialism, and because of the German and English example of democracy and socialism he thought democracy and socialism were caused by Protestantism. To him the causal chain was: Platonism => Christianity (Platonism for the people?) => Protestantism (Christianity for the people?) => democracy or/and socialism (Protestantism for the people?).


Prismatic 567 wrote:

Do I need semantics for this knowledge?“ **

Yes. Of course. You also need semantics for the knowledge of „1+1=2“. Look how children learn to count. Counting is not only a formal phenomenon. Even numbers have a meaning. Without knowing what numbers mean you will never learn the meaning of „1+1=2“.

And interstingly, children learn to count when they have already acquired the main part of language, thus before they are enrolled in school. It is not possible to learn to count before the main part of language is acquired. And it is never poossible to know what numbers are without the meaning of numbers, the semantics behind it.

A child that is about 5, 6, 7 years old often uses the fingers when it comes to learning to count, because it is not possible for the child to learn a purely formal aspect without any reference to reality (facts - „there is one [1] finger and another [2] finger, and one more [3] finger“, ... and so on). This reference works in a general (namely: semiotic) way like semantics does in a particular (namely: linguistic) way.


Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„Bullshit.“ **

Why so unkind?

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„She looks worse with her face covered.“ **

No, because it is also true that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. So beauty has a subjective side too. Of course, I never said that symmetry was the sole, the only aspect of beauty. But symmetry is nevertheless a relevant aspect of beauty.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„Covering half the face, It's a common trick pple use to make themselves look pretty.“ **

Because they know how the face looks like when it is not covered. And they want to make others curious. Do you not think that there is some psychology behind it?


Nobody here said that symmetry was the sole factor on which beauty is based. But that does not automatically mean that symmetry has nothing to do with beauty.

For example: Baroque gardens are full of symmetry, and that is the reason why some people do not like them as much as other gardens. But there are people too who like baroque gardens. And they have good reasons for liking baroque gardens. The aspect that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder is relevant too.


Hmm ....

Yes, ... if you (**) like ....


Never mind, Thinkdr (**).

It was just a bit funny.


All Q’s are problematic, especially the EQ and the MQ or similar Q’s, because they can be much more misused than the IQ.


Mags J. wrote:

„Give me something to work with here.“ **

Work with Goethe's works, for example (?) .

Mags J. wrote:

„  “ **

Mags J. wrote:

„You good yeah?“ **

I good?


NACH OBEN 925) Arminius, 19.09.2016, 01:16, 01:18, 01:21, 01:22, 01:24, 01:26, 02:59, 03:12, 03:14, 04:19, 14:47, 17:47, 18:06 (5358-5370)


The extreme excessive life style of the last three French kings had led to the fact that the French people had nothing to eat. The terror system of the French revolution gave the first example of modern terrorism and modern state terrorism. Some people interpreted the French revolution as hell, as an ungodly situation of evil, of the devil himself.


I am asking you: „What are you talking about?“


Mithus posted:

„ ** “ **

Lovely. Cute. Cuteness (schema of childlike characteristics). Evolutionarily necessary. Morally good (but do cats have moral in a human manner?).



What exactly do you mean by „I try to stay out of the timing issues“ (**)?


Mags J. wrote:

„Earth will be barren by then, so it will not matter when our sun goes through its imminent evolution.“ **

It will not matter to us - but probably to others.

When that critical time will come nearer and nearer, there will probably still be living beings or living being successors like androids.

Compare: ** **


Deathlessness is a natural phenomenon. So if humans or their successors will have become capable of living forever, then they will have reached a natural goal via culture / art. This shows that all development is probably cyclic or helical.


Mags J. wrote:

„»You good yeah?« is a very casual urban way of saying »How are you?« and how is Arminius these days?“ **

A, yh., I so. Thks. I fine.


But I am (we both are) not saying „with such certainty“ (**) that humans will be around.


„Isolated“ (**) from what?


Compare: **.


But if „immortal life is confined to isolation from others“ (**), then this means that „others“ also exist, and if this „others“ are also living beings, then it does additonally mean that „immortal life is confined to isolation from“ other life (thus: mortal life).


I guess you mean Mesmerism by „magnetism“ (**), invented by Franz Friedrich Anton Mesmer (1734-1815) in the 1780's. So magnetism occured very much earlier than Bergson's „élan vital“ who coined this concept in 1907. But besides the magnetism and the later concept of „élan vital“: Life philosophy means more than that, as I already said several times.


Yep (**).


NACH OBEN 926) Arminius, 20.09.2016, 18:10, 18:59, 23:32, 23:59 (5371-5374)


„There should first be substantive socio-economic preconditions to installing Western Democratic views“ (**), although a „growth of democracy is no longer possible“ (**)? Did you mean the former in accordance with the work of Fukuyama?


For comparison only: ** **


Believing in science and its „gods“ or believing in philosophy and its „gods“ is very similar to believing in religion and its „gods“ and believing in theology and its „gods“ . The gods do not disappear - because humans want to be gods. (Note: These last two sentences are not referring to the question whether gods exist or not, because there is no answer in the sense of knowing it, there is only an answer in the sense of believing it.)


„Voting and fair election“ (**) warranties are the main elements of democracy, „protections of rights and liberties, respect for legal entitlements, free discussion and uncensored distribution of news“ (**) are main elements of a constitutional state (a state of law). But because the constitutional state can also be called a constitutional democracy, I would say that you are referring to a constitutional democracy. I would nevertheless say that e.g. „protections of rights and liberties, respect for legal entitlements, free discussion and uncensored distribution of news“ (**) can also be guaranteed without democracy. Democracy is mor a form of government than a form of state. - Anyway. - There has never been a real or 100% democracy in history.


NACH OBEN 927) Arminius, 27.09.2016, 01:36, 02:09 (5375-5376)


Maybe it is better to define „democracy“ in order to avoid misunderstandings.

„Democracy“ means „popular government“ / „popular sovereignty“, thus that the „people“ („demos“) „govern“ („kratein“), that people have the „power“ or at least the main power. This already shows that the word „democracy“ is based more on wishful thinking than on real action. In other words: A 100% democracy is not possible. There are always others who have an interest in government but no interest at all in democracy. Therefore other mechanisms are needed to implement democracy, for eample: state of law (constitutional state - as I already said) and division of powers. But there are nevertheless not enough mechanisms for a 100% democracy. It is just not possible because of nature, of life, especially of the human nature and life.

The best prospects for having a democracy are: homogeneity, a common enemy (a natural or a cultural one) or something like a (seemingly) permanent danger, and everyone must be needed (compare: „SAM“).

(Greetings from Maleswhale, by the way.)


It is not much satisfiable to explain life by accidence, by coincidence. Right?

For comparison only: „The Meaning of Life. Does life make sense?“ (**|**).


NACH OBEN 928) Arminius, 07.10.2016, 12:09, 19:12, 19:29, 19:45, 19:58, 20:07, 20:20, 21:38, 22:03, 22:20, 23:07 (5377-5387)


According to Schiller there is an ideal human (as something like the last guideline of each human’s will) in each human.


Good videos when it comes to the introduction of philosophy (**|**). But what about the voice? Is there „My Little Pony“ speaking?




I guess you (**) mean „Mensch“ here, thus not „Mann“. Is that right? If yes, then I agree.


Did you notice the name of the author of that text (**)?

Is that an accident?


So you (**) wrote the that text (**)?


Hahaha wrote:

„Nope. I wish that I had the money, enterprise, and savvy to run a news website like that.

Definitely not me.“ **

Do you think that the author of that text (**) has „the money, enterprise, and savvy to run a news website like that“ (**)?


It is not possible to stop the evil (acts of the) humans by laws or by something like „moral health“ (**). Those who are most evil and responsible also dictate the laws. Only a catastophe can stop them. We do not know much about that 1% (Globalists); we know less about them than about the inhabitants of the Amazon region or about the surface of the Moon.


What do you know about those most powerful humans? Almost nothing besides the facts that they exist, that they have much money and thus much power because of evil actions. Name them and stop posting quotes that say nothing about the richest and most powerful humans.


Name them!

You have named no single one.

Your quotes say nothing about the real facts. The „authors“ of your quotes merely say what they are allowed to say, which is almost nothing when it comes to the real globalists. (Note [if you can]: We are talking about the hardcore group of this globe).

You are the one who has absolutely no idea of what knowledge is, also and especially of what no knowledge is. And your „knowledge“ is just no knowledge.


So again: We do not know much about the Globalists, but „not much“ does not mean „nothing“. And if someone knows nothing about the inhabitants of the Amazon region but something about the Globalists, then this one knows more about the Globalists than about the inhabitants of the Amazon region, but it is nevertheless not much.


NACH OBEN 929) Arminius, 08.10.2016, 16:54, 19:26, 20:02, 20:48 (5388-5391)


I did not use the word „rich“ in my opening post. You can be successful without being rich and rich without being successful. It depends on ....

Just ask yourself:

-  „ Am I successful (and why or why not) ? “
-  „ Do I have kids (and why or why not) ? “


You (**) really do not know what knowledge is. No wonder: you are not modern. Modern people know that nobody can tell them what happens when they are dead. They want to know it now, but they know that there is no single one who knows it now. As long as there is no knowledge about it, modern people do not care about it.

In addiion, they know that they live and have to live in this world, not in a „world“ beyond this world, and so they live according to the conditions and principles of this world ....

Most of the modern people want to live according to a principle that can guarantee them a wealthy life. They want promises in this world, thus not in a „world“ beyond this world, because they know that nobody currently knows whether there is a „world“ beyond this world. And they believe that money is the best one of those promises.


Agreed (**).


Yes, you (**) are not a modern - in any case.


NACH OBEN 930) Arminius, 09.10.2016, 17:58, 18:05, 19:20 (5392-5394)


I am not an anarchist, but I always take anarchy / anarchism in account, because anarchy / anarchism belongs to history (it has occured again and again in history). Anarchy is historically / culturally what chaos / entropy is evolutionarily / naturally. It happens again and again - either historically / culturally (anarchy) or evolutionarily / naturally (chaos / entropy) - after a relatively long period of its (relative) absence.


Hahaha wrote:

„Millionaires are small fries to the global and international trillionaires that Arminius is speaking about.“ **


Hahaha wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What do you know about those most powerful humans? Almost nothing besides the facts that they exist, that they have much money and thus much power because of evil actions. Name them and stop posting quotes that say nothing about the richest and most powerful humans.“ ** **

They're also unlisted and nameless. You won't find them advertised online or in a newspaper and magazine.“ **


Peter Sloterdijk wrote:

„Die Reichen sind gegenwärtig noch eine Klasse und keine Spezies, aber könnten es werden, wenn man nicht aufpaßt.“ ** ** ** **
The rich (the richest and most powerful are meant) are currently still a class and not a species, but could become it, if one does not care.

Source: Cicero; Januar 2009, S. 118. **


Hahaha wrote:

„Anarchy is merely the natural environment of nature and the universe. The reason it occurs periodically and cyclical is because when human artificial constructions experience entropy or breaks down in collapse overtime the constant natural environment of anarchy is returned to.

In the absence of human constructions of being anarchy is forever present. Anarchy is the absence of the state or a government in this regard.

Anarchy is merely chaotic flux and this chaotic flux is the natural vacuum or environment of being in the universe.“ **

You can also say: „life is the resistance to or struggle against entropy, and culture is the resistance to or struggle against anarchy“. Both can merely be temporarily successful.