True is that we don't know wether oil comes exclusively from plants and animals or not.
James S. Saint wrote:
No moving parts at all? No fuel required at all? No waste products at all? That all must bel happening on a microscopic level.
No energy is created or destroyed? Merely shifted around by its own kinetics? No industrial energy buildup?
James S. Saint wrote:
B.t.w.: Their name is Rothschild - they originally come from Frankfurt (Main) in Germany. Their name means rot (old version: roth) = red, and Schild= Shield. Thus: Red Shield.
James S. Saint wrote:
At least that is an acceptable interpretation (). But the traditional interpretation has to do with the absent house numbers in the street called Judengasse in Frankfurt during the medieval times. At that time there were no house numbers in the Judengasse, but shields or signs of goods (products) in different colours. In this case it was a red shield.
There is no problem with the orthodox Christians, as far as I know. But the border between the orthodox Christians and the catholic (incl. protestant) Christians has been existing as border between the Western culture and the Eastern culture since the 4th century. The following map shows this border:
= Western Christianity.
452) Arminius, 08.05.2014, 01:03, 02:21, 02:21, 03:09, 04:47, 19:46, 20:39, 21:28, 23:10, 23:57 (1066-1075)
Who do you mean? The one I guess was not a Prussian. Generally, I noticed that you call some of the Non-Prussians Prussians.
Europeans interpret this relation reversely.
Not of the Ottoman Empire, but of the so called Eastern Roman Empire, thus Byzantium.
This line is the exact borderline between the Western culture with its catholic Christians and later also the protestant Christians on the one side and the Eastern culture with its orthodox Christians and later also its muslims. The Western Romans and the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) formed this border in the 4th century, and it has never been changing.
Not this racist Cezar again ....
Gothic is Germanic because it is a part of Germanic.
Europe lost, the US and the SU (by accident? SU / US ) won the Second World War, but the SU has been eliminated since 1989 and the US is endangered, will probably lose much power, will perhaps also be eliminated, but (don't panic!) at the earliest in the middle of this century.
There is indeed a high probability that machines will completely replace all human beings - I estimate: 80%.
That's right too.
@ Moreno and Obe
Should I put the name Moreno into the column in which the name Obe is and the name Obe into the column in which the name Moreno is? ** ** ** **
If not someone, but many people as a majority think of you that way and label you obsolete, what would you say then?
There is only a little step from being obsolete or being displaced to being replaced.
If humans want to replace themselves - for example by animals, by machines, adult humans by childish humans, male humans by female humans, ... and so on ..., and at last all humans by machines -, they want it partly, but at last they will probably want it wholy. In addition: We nust not forget that it is not clear, what humans really want because they have no free will, but only a relatively free will.
At least the demographic development is one of the most importanrt historical existentials.
If a culture does not have enough children to rejuvenate itself, then the history of this culture ends. And if this culture has already become the culture of all human beings, then the history of all human beings ends. Yet we do not exactly know, whether we have many cultures (and if yes: how many?) or merely one.
Anyway, the demographic development is one of the most importanrt historical existentials. Therefore I underlined the word demographics in the following cited list.
It was merely a question, Moreno.
Not the only one, but at least one of the main reasons why human beings become obsolete are e.g those human beings who are saying that human beings do not become obsolete. The other human beings are either a minority which wants human beings to become obsolte or a majority which do not wants human beings to become obsolete.
According to the German cultural philosopher Oswald A. G. Spengler we know 8 historical cultures, according to the English cultural philosopher Arnold J. Toynbee we know 19 historical cultures. I think Spenglers theory of 8 historical cultures is right. Currently we have 4 dead historical cultures and 4 historical cultures which are still alive. Maybe there will come a new one (perhaps Russia, Spengler said), but we do not know, and we also do not know whether the one and only culture has really existed and whether the one and only culture will exist. Institutions like World Bank, IWF, United Nations, ... and so on ... do not mean one culture. The fact that only one culture - the Faustian culture (also called: Western culture) - was able to discover, conquer, capture the whole planet Earth and in addition other parts of the universe is also no proof for the existence of one culture, a so called universal culture.
An universal culture is merely ideology, new-religion.
If there will be merely one culture of the human beings, then all historical cultures of the human beings will have to be eliminated. But today the 4 historical cultures of the human beings are still alive.
But if that one cultureas the universal culture will come, then the history will probably be eliminated.
Hear what rulers and their politicians have been preaching since 1989: One world, one civilisation (culture), one religion, one financial system of course, one economy, one language, one media, one science, one technology, one ecology, one art, one city (no country), one sex / gender, one state (or no state), one education, one rule (leadership); and no nobility, no class, no state (or one state), no great war, no country. (And now look at the list again!) That means: No history!
Depopulation takes place in the area of the Western culture and in some other areas, but not in Africa, in Arabia and some other areas. So the number of the world population is currently still high, althoug it has been sinking. So the number of the world population will sooner or later also be as low as the number of the Western population. It is merely a question of time, when the world depopulation will be noticeable even for those who are curently unable to notice it.
Depopulation policy refers currently to the Western Population, but will also refer to the world population as soon as possible.
So, James, you are right.
James S. Saint wrote:
The depopulation has been starting for so long, but the idiotic people have not been being able to notice it. And with the depopulation the stultification has been starting simultaneously.
The US population is not the whole Western population, Moreno. And do you know where those people are who let the current US population grow?
Those people are Latin American aboriginals. And do Latin American aboriginals really belong to the Western population?
Capitalism as the thesis (cp. Hegel) and communism as the antithesis (cp. Hegel) are now integrated in the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). It is important to find the new antithesis (cp. Hegel) to the new thesis (cp. Hegel) which is set by the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). What could that new antithesis (cp. Hegel) be?
If there will be no new antithesis (cp. Hegel), then that new thesis (cp. Hegel) will probably be the eternal thesis as the so called universal culture / civilisation of the Last Men and the end of history.
Sorry, but your texts are full of untruth, capegoat theory, bias, prejudice, revenge, payback, enviousness, jealousy ....
Maybe, but isn't corporatism at least partly incorporated in their synthesis (cp. Hegel) too?
Okay. That's fine.
This map shows the border in the year 1500, but what was meant is that this border has been existing since the 4th century, when the Ottoman-Turkish people lived in Central Asia (so at that time they had nothing to do with this border) and the north(east)ern part - as it ist shown in this map - was unknown. Therefore Samuel P. Huntington could say: This is, as a prominent Englishmen agrees, »the great religious dividing line ... between the Eastern and the Western Church, roughly speaking, between the people who received their Christianity from Rome directly or through Celtic or Germanic mediator, and the peoples of the East and Southeast, which occurred about Constantinople (Byzantium) .... (Samuel P. Huntington, Clash of Civilizations, 1993-1996, p. 254 **). This border has not been changing since the 4th century (the southern part) and since the proselytisation (the northern part) by the German missionaries (on the west side which later became Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and other slavish catholic countries) and the Greek missionaries (on the east side which later became Russia and other orthodox countries). That is what Huntington said. That is true.
Then I have to disagree with you, my God.
That is also not true.
Alexander the Great's political system had existed 13 years, Hitlers political system had existed 12 years. When Alexander died, his political system broke to pieces immediately, and his followers - the so called diadochies - began their wars. That is what you prefer? When Hitler died, his political system ended immediately, and there were no followers because only very less Germans had really been Nazis. So if you always compare Germans with Nazis or with Prussians, then you don't know very much about the German history. For example: the Austrians are more important than the Prussians when it comes to really understand the whole German history. The Austrians had been the most powerful part of Germany for about 300 or 400 years, but the Prussians had been the most powerful part of Germany for about 50 or 100 or - at the most - 200 years, and for about 150 years both the Austrian and Prussians were the most powerful part of Germany (this double power is historically called: Deutscher Dualismus - German Dualism). If you say the German history is mostly a Prussian history, then you are wrong, your statement is false. When it comes to understand the German history, it is required to know the Germans. And you (b.t.w.: as well as that racist Cezar) don't know the Germans.
You believe that Alexander the Great was a cosmopolitan? I disagree!
If you say you hate this or this nation, then you are a nationalist too, and a more nationalistic one than any nationalist. You always have to refer to national or nationalitsic issues, if you are an anti-nationalist. You cant eliminate nations and nationalism by being an anti-nationalist. That doesn't work.
So I advise you to call yourself A-Nietzsche(an) or Non-Nietzsche(an), if you do not want to agree with the German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. With an Anti or a Contra you merely affirm what you do not want to affirm, and you affirm it more than itself. Or I advise you to call yourself A-Cezarboy or Non-Cezarboy.
Nobody has a solution of the problem around us. A fortiori the Cezarboy and other copycats have no solution because they are too stupid and especially too one-sided. Of course nationalism is not the solution, racisms is not the solution, sexism is not the solution, genderism is not the solution, cosmopolitanism is not the solution, internationalism is not the solution, and globalism (as a synthesis) is not the solution, libertarianism / liberalism is not the solution, egalitarianism is not the solution, fraternalism is not the solution because globalism (as a synthesis) is not the solution.
Do you have a solution? The policy of Alexander the Great? Or Machiavellism? Cynicism? Catholicism?
No, unfortunately they all are old solutions because at last they failed.
Yes, of course.
Okay, but that was not my question.
Because you just don't quite know what happens when nearly eveyrone is no longer quite present at any time (**) ?
And which one will prevail?
The feudalism doesn't fit in the modern synthesis (cp. Hegel), but it could fit in a post-modern, the future synthesis (cp. Hegel), if there will be no eternal thesis as the so called universal culture / civilisation of the Last Men and the end of history. ** **
There is a difference between the meaning of corporation in English and the meaning of Korporation in German. In the English language one can use the words corporation and company nearly synonymously. So, what do you exactly mean, when you speak about corporation? Do you mean the fascistic corporation?
Thats correct too.
But nevertheless: it is also a political entity, and it is a grown and furthermore growing political entity.
Yes, but his humanity reappears probably because films, such as »I, Robot«, are psychologically designed to instill a love for androids, as James said (**).
Examples of promoting the love of machines, robots, androids? I don't think so. If anything, the movies are a warning about the misuse/abuse of technology. **
No, but it wasn't the end of the film, was it?
That clip doesn't prove or disprove anything, although the first impression may be that it promotes a hate of humans who create robots - it depends on the reception, the receiver, the recipients: younger ones may hate robots, older ones may hate humans after their impressions of that clip. After all that clip doesn't prove or disprove anything.
So in the latter sentence you probably mean the new version of Robocop, right?
So in this sentence the old versions of Robocop is meant, althoug there were merely one old version?
Is there any agreement? And does only the new version of Robocop promote robots as good things?
I haven't seen any of this versions of Robocop. So my questions contain no rhetorical elements.
The post-modern era is merely a late-modern era. The postmodern era will come later, maybe even in this centrury or later. Why am I saying this? I think that the postmodern era will be very much similar to the era after the end of history, perhaps it's a prestage or even the same stage, and this era (postmodern and/or era after the end of history) will, if it really will come, be an eternal era of the Last Men.
That would also fit into that era. The late-modern era leads to the postmodern era, and in the late-modern era you can already notice the increasing of e.g. gang systems (cp. late-modern) which lead to feudal systems (postmodern).
And what about the misuse/abuse of technology, Phyllo mentioned (**) ?
I don't think that it is already that era, but we can already notice (and unfortunately many people don't or can't do it) many of the messengersof that postmodern era. Why am I saying that? The postmodern era will not be that what artists, art historians, performers, some philosophers and others have been saying for so long. It will be a little bit different, compared with the current era (late-modern era). The postmodern era will be more entropic than the current late-modern era.
Do you know which messengers I mean?
In this text, you posted, you have already mentioned some of those messengers because you mentioned: low culture, rarely thinking about morals, terraforming, humanforming. In almost the same manner you could have said: subculture, gangs, global destruction, human destruction. In the future crime will be no crime anymore because it will be normality.
But your charge that Alexander was NOT a Cosmopolitan is historically incorrect. He was, perhaps the premier one in history. **
So, according to you, the Europeans were cosmopolitans because they conquered, captured - amongst others - the North-American continent and murdered 10 Millions of the Indiansand also many of the Blacks. Why I am saying that is because of the fact that Alexander the Great was primarily a conqueror, but according to you he was merely a cosmopolitan.
And: If you were really a cosmopolitan, you would not exclude so much other people from being a part of your so called cosmopolitan humanity, you would not be in need of a double moral standard, you would not be in need of a scapegoat, ... and so on. Conclusion: You are NO cosmopolitan.
Your cynism is merely a part of nihilism, of a nihilistic system. Not more. (We will come back to it.)
Okay, but that proves nothing. I have already noticed, how much you know about history.
That means Nietzsche's Übermensch. So I am asking myself why you so often use Nietzsche's words or terms, although you call yourself Contra-Nietzsche. Is it because of that I told you in my next to last post (**|**) ?
At that time nearly all European males had mustaches. Why don't you know such simple facts? It's history, man!
You often put Prussian and Nazis together, but do you know that Hitler was an Austrian? Okay, I also don't care at last, anyway he was German, you would say now. Right? Okay, you are right. I don't care.
Hegel was one of the greatest German idealists, and sometimes I think that you are a German idealist as well because of your cosmopolitism which is also an element in the philosophy of the German idealists. I don't have to mention the names - they are too many.
But don't tell that you are a German idealist because you would lose your scapegoat!
So you are German.
But don't tell that you are a German because you would lose your scapegoat!
But don't tell good things because you would lose your scapegoat!
Not Prussian, but Austrian - like Hitler (see above). Anyway he was German, you would say now. Okay, you are right. I don't care (see above).
Again (see above).
YOUR people are dying! And Cezar's too! Don't you know anything about demographics?
The Europeans are dying out also means the Europeans in the US are dying out as well.
I have never been to the US, but when I remember the pictures of e.g. the 1960's and compare it with the pictures of today, then I ask myself, whether US is a part of Africa or a part of Latin America. But as you said: You have still your 25% Germans as your scapegoat.
You preserve the past, you pereserve e.g. the 4th century B.C (Antisthenes, Diogenes, Alexander the Great a.s.o. - VERY MUCH PAST), the 1st century (Christianity - MUCH PAST), and the 16th century (Machiavelli, Cardano a.s.o. - PAST) because Contra-Nietzsche wrote: No Exist.... Im am three things, 1) A Catholic 2) A Cynic 3) A Machiavellian. (**) That makes: 4 + 1 + 16 = 13 / 3 = 4.33' (average). So you preserve the 4th or early 5th century - bad time for you because you scapegoat is conquering Rome and its whole empire!
Are you crazy? Are you Cezar?
|The Scapegoat Theory of Cezarboy and Contra-Nietzsche.|
What point in US history did not have what should be called crimed considered noble or righteous **
If you really want to compare the situation in Northern Ireland with the past (very long tima ago!) situation in Germany, it is merely possible by adding that on the one side (Northern Ireland) it took place ein the 20th century and still takes place in the 21st century and on the other side (Germany) it merely took (thus: not take) place in the 16th century, in the 17th century till 1648 (top: Thirty-Years-War), and after that very much less, mostly even no more, but quite the contrary (think of the Huguenots who were displaced by the French despots Louis XIV., XV., XVI. and found a new home country in Germany). One can say that in Germany the dualism of Catholics and Protestants had been no problem anymore since this catstrophe of the Thirty-Years-War, the graetest catastrophe in German history (the Thirty-one-Years-War - 1914-1945 - was merely the second greatest catastrophe in German history).
No. I am a Roman Catholic German and my wife is a Protestant (Lutheran) German. According to the confessions and their possible effects there is not a great difference between her, her parents, her grandparents on the one side, and me, my parents, my granparents on the other side - except some bagatelles.
By trend the Catholics are a little bit more conservative than the Protestants (Lutherans) - that's right -, but this difference is merely very rarely diagnosable. So in former times it was more diagnosable, especially in the 16th and in the 17th century till 1648.
Correction: not half, but third the population. Nevertheless: it is a high number.
Interesting, you add a third point, but I didn't say that the end of history is merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, but this idealistic philosopher - Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - was the founder of this idea. And the idea may be realised.
The Last Men represent the people after the end of history, and the Overman represents the philosopher who is able, and only able, to prevent the end of history.
But does that prevention really work? And, if so, who will be such an Overman in the face of the development which seems more to prevent him than he to prevent the end of history?
After the end can not be an after - that's right -, but I said: after the end of history (**|**), and after the end of history there can be an after, namely an after without history. We are talking about history, especially about the end of history, and, if there will be an end of history, about the time after the end of history.
So, an after the end of history means an after without history, thus: a time without history.
The time of history in the evolution of the human beings is very tiny; it is the exception of the rule: human beings without history. And why should there not be a time without history in the future evolution of the human beings? The question is, whether there will be such a time or not.
That's absolutely right, Obe.
We don't need that recording in order to know something about the time after the end of history. We know something about the human beings before the human history started. So we can also know something about the human beings after the human history will have ended.
We don't know, whether the human beings in the future will know something about themselves, but we know that - preconditioned the history will end - they will know nothing about history because the history will have ended then; but: we are able to know it now.
In the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was the widely held belief in the United States that American settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent. Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny:
Very interesting is that the name Marx is not mentioned in Nietzsche's works.
That is what I say.
That is what I say.
Yes. But according to the fact that nature has become a problem Contra-Nietzsche means that it is merely founded by the Green Movement, which is merely a German movement, and it is typical German to find a grand solution(**).
Your current signature quote:
Who is Harry Neumann (**) ?
but it can also fail, so my question is: it is very difficult and hard to bring
the history back after the end of history has begun. So optimally
Maybe the question should be put the other way, what does humanity set to loose? Perhaps we are pre planned machines, anyway, planned to evolve and function, then self replicate, at first as cyborgs, then as robots; either exclusively, or concurrently. As long as consciousness is retained in plenum , defined as 'soul' what matter is it, what the current form of incarnation is? **
I view this metamorphosis more as a synthesis than some kind of hostile takeover. To some extent I do imagine it to be inevitable and the catalyst for that could possibly be the adaptation of future generations to space exploration for which our bodies are thoroughly unsuitable. What kind of psychic changes could be caused by both transformation and exploration can only be guessed at. Would we lose what is left of humanity or will it be embraced more holistically? Do we even need human bodies to be human?I think the era will be another dark age, like a big seep. We would not loose the sense of what it means to be human, because technology will retain that in a programmed memory.« **
I think the ability to access it would falter, but institutions dedicated to suspending it and reviving it would be delegated to a few keepers. My guess is, as far as human bodies is concerned, there may be options of multiplicity of forms to carry on. Cyborgs will only be afforded to those with enough wealth to purchase them, on promise of eternal life, however upon deaths of planets, these immortals will run out of steam due to increasing singling and diminishing of such creatures. Ultimately, the richest, wisest, and bravest man in the world will be truly eternal,and he may view himself as god, but sustain a pathos of eternal loneliness, hence privy to create another world. The socialist system will not afford such luxury, so capitalism seems to correspond best to such a scenario of survival of the fittest. **
The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the »Enlightenment« (»Aufklärung) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.
Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was the first one who came to that conclusion, which became
a »starting signal« for many people, e.g.:|
|||Karl Marx with his concept of the paradise after the dictatorship of the proletariat - a Left-Hegelian ideology, thus a reference to Hegel;|
|||Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche with his concept of the last men;|
|||Oswald A. G. Spengler with his reference to Goethe and Nietzsche, especially with his concept of the decline of culture and the assumption that with the utmost probability there will be no more culture after the decline of the occidental culture;|
|||Martin Heidegger with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche;|
|||Ernst Jünger with his reference to Spengler (Nietzsche, Goethe);|
|||Alexandre Kojève (Alexandr Koschewnikov) with his his reference to Hegel;|
|||Ernst Nolte with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche;|
|||Peter Sloterdijk with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche;|
|||Francis Fukuyama with his reference to Hegel and Nietzsche.|
According to Hegels »Dialektik« e.g. Fukuyama interprets the »extreme liberalism« as the »Thesis«, the »totalitarianism« as the »Antithesis«, the »liberal democracy« as the »Synthesis«. So for Fukuyama the »liberal democracy« is the final stage. According to Peter Scholl-Latour Fukuyamas thesis has been absurd since its beginning; the global spread of parliamentary «democracy« and an uninhibited market economy would bring mankind a final state of wellfare / wellbeing and harmony; thus, the final line would be drawn under the obsolete antagonisms. In this way Fukuyamas notion of the »End of History« can be resumed. (Cp. Peter Scholl-Latour, Koloß auf tönernen Füßen, 2005, S. 47). In addition, Peter Scholl-Latour found - to his surprise - that Peter Sloterdijk coined the phrase: »By nation building you get at best democratically cladded dictatorships with market economy.« Scholl-Latour: »I would have added: Serving the market economy.« (Ibid., 2005, S. 50). Fukuyamas bold thesis of the »end of history« of eternal fights, because the Western model (i.e.: Western culture) has triumphed globally, provides at least for Huntington no substantial analysis. Rather, Huntington sees in the clashes, frictions, conflicts between the great cultures on the basis of different religions and divergent world views, the main role of future disputes.
Fukuyamas thesis is assessed by Norbert Bolz in this way: »In the initial diagnosis, there is a surprisingly large consensus among thinkers. The famous title of Francis Fukuyamas book - The End of History and the Last Man - summarises quite simply together the positions of Hegel and Nietzsche.« (Norbert Bolz, Das Wissen der Religion, 2008, S. 53). This world has been defined as »housing of servitude« by Max Weber. The »Gestell« (something like »frame« / »framework« o.s.) by Martin Heidegger, the »managed world« by Theodor W. Adorno, and the »technical government« by Helmut Schelsky are only different names for the end product of a specifically modern process, which Arnold Gehlen has brought on the notion of »cultural crystallisation«.
Peter Sloterdijk sees Fukuyamas work as »the recovery of an authentic political psychology on the basis of the restored Eros-Thymos polarity. It is obvious that this same political psychology (which has little to do with the so-called «mass psychology« and other applications of psychonalyse to political objects) has been moved to new theoretical orientations by the course of events at the center of the current demand. .... The time diagnostic lesson, that is hidden in The End of History, is not to be read from the title slogan, which, as noted, citing only a witty interpretation of Hegelian philosophy by Alexandre Kojève in the thirties of the 20th century (who for his part had dated the end of history in the year of publication of Hegels Phänomenologie des Geistes [»Phenomenology of Spirit«], 1807). It consists in a careful observation of the prestige and jealousy fights between citizens of the free world, who just then come to the fore when the mobilization of civilian forces has ceased for fighting on external fronts. Successful liberal democracies, recognises the author, will always and because of their best performances be crossed by streams of free-floating discontent. This can not be otherwise, because people are sentenced to thymotic restlessness, and the last men more than all the rest ....« (Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 65-67).
For Fukuyama »thymos« is nothing other than the psychological seat of the Hegelian desire for »Anerkennung« (appreciation, recognition, tribute). (Cp. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History, 1992, p. 233 ); this is the »real engine of human history« (ibid., p. 229). The main features of which Fukuyama is based and from which he derives his ideas are the Hegelian view of history and the Platonic-Hegelian conceptual constructions, especially that what is concerned with thymotic. Something near that is what Sloterdijk has done in his work »Zorn und Zeit« («Rage and Time«, 2006). Both Sloterdijk and Fukuyama are also influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche, Sloterdijk in addition by Heidegger.
But Sloterdijk's work mentiones also the Christian era referring to revenge and resentment:
»Vor allem muß heute, gegen Nietzsches ungestümes Resümee, bedacht werden, daß die christliche Ära, im ganzen genommen, gerade nicht das Zeitalter der ausgeübten Rache war. Sie stellte vielmehr eine Epoche dar, in der mit großem Ernst eine Ethik des Racheaufschubs durchgesetzt wurde. Der Grund hierfür muß nicht lange gesucht werden: Er ist gegeben durch den Glauben der Christen, die Gerechtigkeit Gottes werde dereinst, am Ende der Zeiten, für eine Richtigstellung der moralischen Bilanzen sorgen. Mit dem Ausblick auf ein Leben nach dem Tode war in der christlichen Ideensphäre immer die Erwartung eines überhistorischen Leidensausgleichs verbunden. Der Preis für diese Ethik des Verzichts auf Rache in der Gegenwart zugunsten einer im Jenseits nachzuholenden Vergeltung war hoch - hierüber hat Nietzsche klar geurteilt. Er bestand in der Generalisierung eines latenten Ressentiments, das den aufgehobenen Rachewunsch selbst und sein Gegenstück, die Verdammnisangst, ins Herzstück des Glaubens, die Lehre von den Letzten Dingen, projizierte. Auf diese Weise wurde die Bestrafung der Übermütigen in alle Ewigkeit zur Bedingung für das zweideutige Arrangement der Menschen guten Willens mit den schlimmen Verhältnissen. Die Nebenwirkung hiervon war, daß die demütigen Guten selbst vor dem zu zittern begannen, was sie den übermütigen Bösen zudachten.« - Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 4.
»Especially must now against Nietzsche's impetuous résumé be considered that the Christian era, on the whole, just was not the age of the force exerted revenge. Rather, it represented a period in which very seriously the ethics of revenge deferral was enforced. The reason for this must be sought not for long: It is given by the faith of Christians, God's justice will one day, at the end of times, make the correction of the moral balance sheets. With the prospect of a life after death in the Christian sphere of idea the expectation was always connected of an hyper-historical suffering compensation. The price of this ethic of renunciation of revenge in the present in favour of a backdated retribution in the afterlife was highly - Nietzsche has clearly judged that. It consisted in the generalisation of a latent resentment that projected the repealed revenge desire itself and its counterpart, the damnation fear, into the heart of the faith, the doctrine of the Last Things. In this way, the punishment of the proud in all eternity became a condition for the ambiguous arrangement of people of good will with the dire conditions. The side effect of this was that the humble good ones (do-gooder) began to shake theirselves against what they intend for the wanton evil.« ** **
Therefore the entropy will stop at Kant's synthetic-apriori , right? Otherwise, how can a politically motivated synthesis be achieved unless internally motivated, or else it will be incorporated into an ineffective policy.
Brave/e Slav/e Vladimir.
The boy with the weak brain,
»N.B. Nietzsche did will the eternal recurrence, but found it boastful to say so: hence Zarathustra. Only by the time of his last works did he consider the situation sufficiently dire to risk appearing boastful.« **
I was under the impression he liked the limelight? **
Therefore the entropy will stop at Kant's synthetic-apriori , right? Otherwise, how can a politically motivated synthesis be achieved unless internally motivated, or else it will be incorporated into an ineffective policy. **
The seeming failure of Obamacare is a good example, though the word is still out on that. **
So English was cool and fit rock and pop. **
The new world is a world of psychologically and medically programmed drones to serve the Socialist Emperor Queen - Bee Hive, Ant Colony design. **
You may have said that in your thread, but you definitely do not say it in your OP, which is what I replied to. **
That's not what I meant, though it does have some connection to it. As I wrote in early 2012:
I think the fundamental problem of our era, which was also Nietzsche's era, is the conquest of nature. The conquest of nature was »commanded and legislated« (cf. Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211) by Machiavelli, Bacon, and Descartes (among others) for the sake of philosophy, which was gravely threatened by Christianity back then. The scientific revolution instigated by those philosophers was what »killed« the Christian god, for which »killing« we should be most grateful. However, just as the religious revolution instigated by Socrates and Plato et al. was first beneficial but later became detrimental to philosophy, the revolution instigated by Machiavelli et al. has now itself led to a grave threat to philosophy. For »genuine philosophers« (again BGE 211) like the ones mentioned above belong to the formidable exceptions among men, and those exceptions are now in threat of becoming obsolete to the rule, the many, because of the technological advancements that in the West have made life easy for the many, who now no longer need such formidableness (which is indispensable in real crises).
The dire situation of many animals is just one of the consequences of what Heidegger called nature's reduction to a Bestand, a standing reserve, a resource. The real problem is paradoxically not that animal rights are not being respected, but the conceited notion of the existence of any rights at all! There's no such thing as natural rights; men are not naturally entitled to accommodate the rest of nature to their needs. But neither are they naturally forbidden to. Therefore, there's only one way to counteract the continuing exploitation of nature; and that consists precisely in the ideal of the eternal recurrence, in the wish that everything, including all the woes that befall animals - and of course men, too, are animals -, recur eternally .... For by wishing for the eternal recurrence of all things, one manifests oneself as the counterideal to the ideal of the man who wallows in »wretched contentment« (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, 3) - as an Übermensch as opposed to a Last Man. And only this ideal, »the ideal of the most high-spirited, most alive, and most world-affirming man« (BGE, 56), can raise people out of their comfy animal-hide armchairs - if only by offending them! **
Well, Nietzsche willed the eternal recurrence the same century Hegel published his Phenomenology. That publication may well mark the end of the beginning of the end of history, but it certainly does not mark the point at which history had completely ended. Yes, it would have been optimal to prevent it from even _starting_ to end, but then again, less than optimal conditions, to say the least, are precisely the optimal conditions of the philosopher! **
The Christian idea of a heavenly afterlife was indeed preferable to that of a »Heaven on Earth«, i.e., the end of history. And as for eros and thymos: _most_ people are erotic rather than thymotic; but the rather thymotic do indeed tend to dominate history .... **
»We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.
Or actually I am in doubt. But I will say yes. Yes, all humans will be replaced. Some by other humans, some by other machines, some by human machines or machinlike humans but in the end no one will be not replaced and machines have great lastability. **
I changed my vote to no. Can I? **
Machines do not love life. They will never flourish and thrive like plants. Mankind is a plantkind and machines are only the fruits of mankind. So .... **
(This OP is dedicated to Dan~, the new moderator of this subforum. Congratulations, Dan~!)
458) Arminius, 14.05.2014, 01:20, 09:55, 10:30, 21:30, 22:50 (1114-1118)
James S. Saint wrote:
James S. Saint wrote:
We live in an age of globalism which is a system of both capitalism and socialism. Please don't underestimate the socialism!
Perhaps it would really be better if we were small groups of farmers working for our self and owning some goods and land, and perhaps it could really be like some of the barbarians style of life, but I am afraid that the civilised barbarians would not want us to do that because they want us to be consumers, social welfare beneficiaries, but no farmers or other freelancers, self-employed persons.
Arminius, please keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand and not the personal character of other posters. Otherwise, warnings will follow. This holds for all posters in this thread. **
Arrogant Troll = Anyone speaking anything other than »Good Philosophy«. **
History can always be created and/or rewritten. So the question is whether the incentive to do that will ever become insignificant. Androids will probably reach that stage. Humans probably won't. **
459) Arminius, 15.05.2014, 00:15, 01:46, 03:08, 03:50, 06:20, 09:52, 10:25, 11:51, 11:52, 21:44, 22:04, 22:32, 23:18 (1119-1131)
One example for a so called Nietzschean who misuses Nietzsche whenever and wherever it is possible is the most arrogant troll of this forum: the Non-historyboy, also known as Cezarboy.
Cezarboy insults whomever whenever and with whatever he wants. And after thousand times of insulting, stalking, and trolling by Cezarboy the other members of this forum are are punished instead of him and although Cezarboy has provoked them. They are punished by Cezarboy's motherators(moderators?), for example in this way:
Only Humean wrote:
Four times (**) !
Should I list Cezarboy's thousand insults here? I think, that is not necessary because they are well known. They are knwon by all members, but not by all moderators because some of them are Cezarboy's mother(ator)s.
We will not decide to become machines, merely some of us, if they really can. In this case or other similar political decisions we should not use pronouns, not speak of us, not say we because not we, but merely few powerful people decide, if they really can.
Relating to the countries or nations there was no we and no they, as you suggest, but there were a we of powerless people (99%) and a they of powerful people (1%) who won the war, became more rich and more powerful by the war.
The people didn't want war, the governments wanted war - sooner or later and more or less - because they had to want war at last.
Germany's enemies did not primarily fight the Nazis, they primarily fighted Germany. And that was not merely an allied goal, but as well or probably more a nationalistic goal because fighting Germany was a chance to become rich, thus more powerful, namely to become the world power. Until 1945 Germany had been the one and only rival of the USA, in the matter of world power which the British Emipre had already lost during the World War I. Besides: the USSR at that time was de facto still a part of the Third World.
If the USA had not got e.g. the German technician and rocket engineer Wernher von Braun and his crew, there would never have been any landing on the moon (except a German one). Wernher von Braun was a Nazi - have you forgotten that? -, and after the World War II he was blackmailed: either you help the USA or you will be put in prison! His crew were also blackmailed. They all preferred to help the USA because they did not want to be jailed.
Other German scientists, technicians, engineers etc. were treated similarly - not only in the USA, but also e.g. in the USSR.
In the Second World War the powerful 1% fighted against the powerless 99%, and the powerfull 1% won - as always.
Globalism is nationalism in global dimensions. So on the one (quantitative) hand we currently have more nationalism, and on the other (qualitative) hand we currently have a different nationalism, namely a global one.
So in your thesis (Why the Nazis actually won ...) is much truth, if you don't separate globalism from nationalism / national-socialism because gloabism is nationalism / national-socialism in global dimensions.
If the majority of the human beings is not heathen - and currently the majority of the human beings is not heathen -, then it would be a disadvantage to be heathen, wouldn't it?dimensions.
Death to taxation? Okay. And who guarantees that it really works and does not lead to chaos and after that to very much more and higher taxes?
The end of history is not a very much fixed term.
The historical existentials are merely points of reference in order to find out, whether history has ended or not.
I don't think that the question, whether there is a majority of humans or not, doesn't depend on fairness, but on knowledge. However, it is probably difficult to say because of the lack of certain knowledge in this case. The non-heathen religions are known in the whole world, and so the heathen religions are influenced by them. Nevertheless, I would say that the heathendom is coming back, but I don't know whether it represents a majority again.
Maia, do you remember what I firstly asked you?
I would appreciate a response.
The superman's Dionysian will to overpower would save the past from drowning in democracy's shallow waters by willing the eternal return of past inequalities. The superman's willing of this eternal return is possible only if his will can emancipate itself from hatred of its past, a hatred responsible for modern egalitarian demands to be liberated from that past. [...] Modern thinkers culminating in Nietzsche made men aware that human creativity or technology was not limited by anything. Nietzsche feared that contemporary egalitarians would employ this unlimited power to create a world of universal peace and equality. He yearned for a superman whose will to overpower nihilism and egalitarianism would use modernity's immense power to create the eternal return of the past's inequality and wars. Then there would be no wars to end all wars. (Harry Neumann, _Liberalism_, pp. 164-66.)
Nietzsche's doctrine includes 3 large teaching pieces:
If we take this examples seriously for a moment, then we notice that the first Übermensch failed, that the second Übermensch failed, and that the third Übermensch is 5 years old. So we ask: Who and where is the third Übermensch? This reminds us of the time when Jesus was born and Herodes killed all the little children in his country in order to prevent a coming competitor, a coming rival.
Is there anybody who believes in that?
According to Christianity there are three roles of the Übermensch possible:
The Katechon is the antagonist of the Antichrist. Any other role may also mean the synthetic role of the Antichrist and the Katechon.
With reference to the three examples (**|**) of the Übermensch one can say that the third Übermensch - we may call him SONAH (Synthesis of Napoleon and Hitler) - will as fail as the first and the second Übermensch. But which role he acts is as unknown as his identity.
James S. Saint wrote:
It's an old concept.
Since then many Christian theologians and philsophers have been thinking and writing about the Katechon.
Carl Schmitt lived from 1888 until 1985.
But are nowadays pagans really still pagans? I mean: they are so much influenced by non-pagan issues, so that they are no more able to behave, to speak, to think, and especially to believe like pagans, aren't they?
Has philosophy changed how I live my life?
Actually no, but it depends on when philosophy started.
It is difficult to say, but I tend to NO!
Counter-question: Has language changed how you live your life?
James S. Saint wrote:
What do you want to tell new? What is your actual intention, your aim, your goal?
James S. Saint wrote:
Mainly I was referring to this post:
Sauwelios' current signature:
The Übermensch should overpower the nihilism, especially the egalitarianism, and create the past's inequality, especially wars. The themes nihisms and end of history were not new at that time because they started already about the end of the 18th century, like I said (**|**).
And I was asking whether we can or should take Nietzsche always seriously (cp.: If we take this examples seriously for a moment .... Is there anybody who believes in that? [**|**]).
The fact is, society is almost at the lowest ebb of integrating both concepts: democracy and capital. **
»James S. Saint wrote:
Obama signed the executive order that allows any experimentation on the population as long as it is justified by 'National Security' (which of course is anything and everything). **
Well he has done truly unbelievable things that no one in their right mind would stand for. He even tried to illegally move nuclear weapons into central USA (apparently in preparation for another false flag attempt. Muslims aren't very good at such guile). When the military commanders in charge of such things simply said, "no", they were fired. But the list of atrocities he has participated in is endless. **