851) Arminius, 14.03.2016, 03:05, 04:57, 10:02, 10:21, 10:34, 10:51, 11:03, 11:23, 11:53, 11:59, 19:14, 20:34, 21:01, 21:13, 21:31, 22:18, 23:08, 23:10, 23:19, 23:21, 23:32, 23:42 (4167-4188)
The SEATO existed merely from 1954 to 1977.
His name was Clausewitz.
Speaking of videos; I just made this simulation of a single sub-atomic particle which looks surprisingly like the emulation (if one could actually see ultra-minuscule EMR pulses) and could be included in a video. A black-hole would be merely a much, much larger version of that same thing.
But I really need to convey the following pic in an animated way:
That one isn't so easy to simulate. **
By 2025, »sexbots will be commonplace« which is just fine, as well all be unemployed and bored thanks to robots stealing our jobs. **
The problem lies where psychiatry fabricates mental illnesses .... **
Was Sartre right about what lies at the core of human nature? **
The closest thing probably is understanding how it was before you were born, that state of nothingness. So, yes, you can, based on the logical example of what death is, ceasing to exist. **
Glad I'm not the only one having this experience. The discussion should have been over before it began - he hasn't made a solid non-semantic point yet, and the only thing keeping his »argument« going is a convenient series of misunderstandings and omissions whenever somebody points out the mistake he's making, **
United States and its allies versus Russia along with China and their allies. **
Picture Bank 1
Picture Bank 2 **
Hey, I don't know if you were following, but remember the part where I accused his arbitrary reformulation as just being a cheap attempt to bash religion by importing the New Atheist usage of »belief« into philosophy? **
Well, there it is in his new update- doing exactly as I predicted for the reasons I predicted.
It sucks that the only rebuttal is to just say again all the things he ignored when they were said before. I mean holy shit:
»3. Religion, faith, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Greek Mythology, Jainism, Taosim, are beliefs, not knowledge.«
How are you supposed to deal with something like that in any sort of rigorous way? **
Well, epistemology is one of my favorite subjects and it doesn't come up often. So yeah, it sucks a lot. One thing I noticed is when you said »knowledge is a type of information« you were using it in a slightly different way. There 'knowledge' which means something like »facts«. and then there's knowledge that means something like »being aware of (certain of?) a fact.«. Maybe a slightly more precise way to have worded the OP would be »Is knowing also a belief?«. **
Yes, mental illnesses are fabricated every year. It's all a very lucrative financial business .... **
Psychiatry as an arm of the state is very important in curving down and controlling the masses or population also. **
It's used to reaffirm authority in people's everyday life or existence. It's not enough to control people physically as authority must ensure mental obedience as well. **
I'm currently at the bar trying to get drunk. On my first drink now. **
Second shot of Vodka. Still not drunk yet. **
No, just zoning out wishing I was on another planet. Cheers. **
There's music I'm just not paying attention to it. I am in my own little world .... **
852) Arminius, 15.03.2016, 00:02, 00:22, 00:26, 00:33, 01:17, 10:43, 11:07, 11:11, 11:13, 11:29, 12:43, 13:06, 17:21, 17:31, 17:44, 19:00, 19:02, 19:06, 19:56, 22:12, 22:30, 22:39 (4189-4210)
What time is it?
Here it is 12:26 am.
Are you feeling okay now?
It is wrong to change the world to the extent as it is done currently. It is logically false, it is ethically false, it is aesthetically false. So it is philosophically false.
No. They should not. 1) Unfortunately, it is alraedy a law, a human right, that humans are free to settle wherever they want to, although it is also already a fact that it has been leading to desastrous situations. 2) Owning Earth as the most destructive paradigm and the free settlement of humans belong together, and both have been leading to desastrous situations.
The current human rights (including the right to settle wherever humans want to) are rights that support owning the Earth. So the current human rights are false. No human should de allowed to own the Earth. Most of the human rights begin with the words every human or everybody or one (human - of course) - and that is a huge problem, because these words do not stand for all humans but for those humans who have the most power. So those with the most power are allowed to own the Earth, whereas all other humans settle in concentration camps called cities.
Celine Kayser wrote:
When humans are in concentration camps called cities, then they are more controllable. Where do humans prefer to settle, if they are allowed to settle wherever they want to? In cities.
Celine Kayser wrote:
An open border policy supports to own the Earth and to control people even more effectively (see above).
Celine Kayser wrote:
Yes, and that is beacuse of their upright gait, their free arms and hands with fingers than can oppose (=> thumb), their very large brain, their language that leads to philosophy/science and all the technological/technical skills that lead to owning the Earth, the solar system, the universe.
My kynical invitation as a response
to a cynical behavior: Take
part in the project »owning the universe«!
»Most humans want to change the world.
Only few humans want to protect the world.
Humans are part of the world, so if you want to protect the world you have to change the humans. It's that simple. **
Nursing a hangover. **
Other than that, I'm fine. **
A key to philosophy is language. **
Why would you bother to only respond to the subject? I mean obviously that doesn't say much at all and is a duh.. but the content in the body isn't necessarily a »duh«. **
I lost count after eighteen. **
After last night suffice it to say I will not be drinking again anytime soon. **
We'll keep this thread open just in case I start drinking again. **
We are not literally made of emotions (**). And computers are made by us, the homo sapiens. Do you know what the word sapiens means?
Onwards northwest, to be exact.
But are you sure that this is still the border of Greece into Macedonia? I mean: the Macedonians closed their border some weeks ago.
So the European media is lying. As always and everywhere. Okay.
There are three favorite routes.
This three favorite routes have several reasons: (1) the first route (the route you were talking about) because of the fact that Greece is close to Turkey that is a "neighbour" of Syria where most of the so-called "refugees" come from or should come from; (2) the second route because of the fact that Libya has no state anymore; (3) the third route because of the Spanish territories in North Africa (Ceuta and Melilla). But the main reason is that the European borders are open - more or less (more more than less). They are not closed.
Again and again. An endless invasion (**).
From Turkey to Bulgaria and so on, yes, but I guess that the situtaion in Bulgaria is similar to the situation in Bulgaria's neighboring country Macedonia.
Yes, and they are probably coming from Libya.
I guess the names Vlora and Durres are the names of the Albanian cities Vlora and Durres. So probably this people are in Albania.
Yes. Cui bono?
I guess the names Vlora and Durres are the names of the Albanian cities Vlora and Durres. So probably this people are in Albania. This would also explain much more, because the Albanian mafia has become more and more powerful in many European countries, especially in the rich ones. I guess you know what I mean.
854) Arminius, 20.03.2016, 15:19, 15:24, 15:33, 15:37, 15:40, 15:42, 15:44, 15:48, 15:51, 15:55, 15:58, 16:03 (4218-4229)
It seems that you (**) think it would be very easy to change between western and eastern philosophy. I do not think so. One can learn much about a philosophy of a foreign culture but not live it as if it were the philosophy of one's own culture (the culture in which one has grown up). The change between different national philosophies can already be a problem, so the change between greater different units like the western culture(s) and the eastern culture(s) is not as easy as one may think.
Both statements do not contradict each other. Psychiatry as an arm of the state, and the state as an arm of the multinational corporations and banks.
Amorphos, you were a punk?
When did you start to be a punk?
When did you finish to be a punk?
An observer observes how an observer observes an observer who observes how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes an observer who observe how an observer observes ....
Cheegster has an interesting philosophy youtube channel called Philosophy On Ice. There I found a video with the title You Are Dying.
The reason why this webforum lacks philosophy is more the lack of permabanning trolls than the definition of philosophy. In other words: ILP has too many trolls.
According to Nigel Farage the French voice ... in Europe is little more ... than a pipsqueak.
The title of the said article is: Neither Capitalism Nor Socialism. But it could also have been: Both Capitalism And Socialism.
For the capitalists Henry George was too socialistic, and for the socialists Henry George was too capitalistic.
I do not think that Georgism can successfully change the current globalistic structures, institutions, regulations (laws, rights). Changing the latter is just the basis for the success of the former. But beside that, I do not think that Georgism is the right solution of the current problems, especially the ecological problems which are merely solvable by strong prohibitions and restrictions, probably also accompanied by a new metaphysical system, a new religion and theism (the climate change as the new deity is already in the making). Either we relinquish or we die out. It is like: comply or die. But:
James S. Saint wrote:
That problem is called the tragedy of the commons.
Yes. At last the tragedy of the commons leads to the extinction of those who work or contribute otherwise and support those who do not work or do not contribute otherwise and do not supprt anybody, although the latter have own children and the former not. So those who have offspring survive as long as they can have offspring, and the others who have no offspring die out. So it is worthwhile in a commons to be lazy, if a certain number of members is not lazy. But it is to be expected that more and more members of the group will behave lazy and group earnings will fall further, since - morally spoken - a typical human maxim is not the maximization of the own advantage but the avoidance of the own disadvantage. So the tragedy of the commons escalates and escalates, and the whole group gets into a rationality trap in which collective rationality and individual rationality are in conflict. In addition to the rationality trap that I just described, there is also the opposite case in which common resources are increasingly exhausted. In this way, not only many environmental problems, but, interestingly, the population explosion in many countries can be explained. The Neomalthusianist Garret Hardin believed that a liberal access to public goods will at last be the ruin of all. Therefore he called for corresponding restrictions.
We easily say that it might be 10th street when we actually mean I believe it is 10th street.
People throw around the word might too loosely.
Your enemies are the words belief and believe, probably also the words religion, theism, God.
You opened your thread because you believed that you can easily kill certain words or at least their meanings.
There is nothing that proves your statements. Again: Your statements are ridiculous. So they are not suitable for changing anything of the epistemology or anything else.
That is why I am saying not some Euroapean nations but the whole Europe has lost the 31 years lasting World War (I and II). The US and the SU (Soviet Union) have one it, but the latter lost the so-called Cold War which the former won also. Now, the problem the US faces is similar to the problem the US faced before the begin of the WW1 and before the begin of the WW2. This similaritie are very obvious. So we will have war pretty soon.
The population of ASEAN is approximately 620 million people and its income is about US $ 2.6 trillion (this income is not very high, because is merely as high as the income of the UK).
Sorry for beeing late with the response
855) Arminius, 21.03.2016, 18:36, 19:04, 19:52, 20:06, 20:59, 21:43, 21:55, 22:11, 23:29 (4030-4038)
The best method is shooting the trolls dead, John Wayne would probably say.
But, honestly, I would say that the method Uccisore is making use of is already a good one, but it is not good enough.
A good example: **
Much effective, Carleas, because trolls can be identified very quickly.
Enjoying life is not important for you (**)?
Enjoying life does not mean hedonistic life.
»Ich glaube in German means I believe in English, and Ich denke in German means I think in English. Since the late 1960s, certain German people have been fighting a word battle; the reason for it is the goal that Ich denke shall be used instead of Ich glaube which shall die out; the people shall believe that they think and shall not notice that they believe and not think; in this way new believers shall be bred, namely those who do not think / know that they believe but nevertheless believe that they think / know.« ** **
Do you have any references for this? **
856) Arminius, 22.03.2016, 00:40, 01:13, 11:36, 11:39, 11:53, 12:00, 12:23, 12:30, 12:51, 13:12, 14:51, 16:59, 18:32, 21:02, 22:04, 22:08, 22:13, 22:14, 22:16, 23:18, 23:27, 23:35 (4239-4260)
What if we have no chance anymore to get out of the rationality trap in which collective rationality and individual rationality are in conflict?
Possibly, the machines will prevent the extinction of all human beings, or they will not prevent but accelerate it.
It is not difficult to find out which of the English speakers use the term I think or the term I believe how often, in which situations and with or without switching. Until the end of the 1960s German speakers used the term ich glaube very much oftener than the term ich denke - maybe this ratio was 90 to 10. Since about 1990 certain German speakers have been using the term ich denke very much oftener than the term ich glaube - maybe this ratio is 99 to 1 (and for all German speakers maybe 80 to 20 or 70 to 30). So the ratio of the use of the terms ich glaube and ich denke has reversed within merely two decades (1970s and 1980s).
The following problem can also be better explained and better solved by economics:
Economicis is both subordinated and superordinated. It depends on to what and whom. Economics can both affect and be affected.
James S. Saint wrote:
And that must apply to each member of ILP. Exceptions are not allowed.
The word liberation does not mean freedom. The suffix ion always means a process. So the noun iberation means the noun of making free or getting free.
The famous skyline with its banking district is pictured in early evening next to the Main River in Frankfurt, Germany, January 19, 2016 (REUTERS / Kai Pfaffenbach):
Do you prefer the following picture?
Do you know the term Brazilianization of the World (Brasilianisierung der Welt - Ulrich Beck; cp. also Franz Josef Radermacher)?
This means that all nations of the world tend to have the same distribution of wealth that Brazil has.
Here are some real examples from 2006:
The richest Finnish 20% have 35% of the Finnish income (GNP).
So to identify the trolls, you seem to recommend an I-know-it-when-I-see-it approach, is that right? And then you recommend banning early and often. First insult a permaban? First off-topic post? Or just when a user continues to rub the moderator the wrong way for a long time? **
Mostly you, but the question is for the room (and bakes in some of Artimas' ideas that you seemed to agree with).
I appreciate Uccisore's moderation style, it's very different from my own and in many cases better. He can clarify if I misstate his approach, but as I see it, Uccisore is better at enforcing obvious standards of quality, where I tend to emphasize articulable standards. I generally err on the side of permissiveness, where I think Uccisore would err in the other direction (to a lesser extent, of course, and we would likely disagree about what it means to err in the case of moderator intervention).
I think both approaches are useful, both have their time and place, and both have in turn won us praise and cost us users.
More generally (and this I don't intend as in contrast with Uccisore), I'm pretty easy going, and I don't find trolls that annoying, nor am I offended by offensive ideas. And I value noise; there can absolutely be too much, but there can also be too little noise.
Most importantly, I distrust humans when it comes to moderation, myself included; trolls that disagree with me are more annoying than trolls that don't. That's why I favor articulable standards, it keeps me honest and removes human lapses from enforcement. I think that's important on a philosophy forum, because it's easy to find ideas that someone considers appalling amid discussions such as these.
So I tend to under-enforce, because I expect that to be less harmful. But I could be wrong. **
I like to typically use a black mark system, first time usually always being a warning, maybe even a second warning, then a suspension from posting but threads still viewable perhaps, then if they come back and keep on going then a ban is probably good. Or just simply put a 1-5 mark system 5 marks is perm ban. Maybe more marks depending. **
857) Arminius, 23.03.2016, 10:50, 11:26, 13:00, 13:26, 13:44, 13:44, 17:02, 17:59, 22:02 (4261-4269)
Unfortunately, the economical problems, especially those of the US, have become so huge, that it is not possible anymore to hide the fact that the US and the EU are enemies - sometimes one can have the impression that they are alraedy military enemies too. The economical facts have been dominating the military facts for a long time. That is not good and not the reason why all this alleged partnerships and mutual securities were originally made for. The NATO was built as a defensive alliance, then it changed to an aggressive attacking alliance, now it is a chaotic bunch that still attacks the rest of the world, although more chaotically and sometimes also itself, but is not capable of defensing the societies of the NATO territories.
And the Arabs alone did not cause the alleged Arab Spring that led to the flood of the alleged refugees (young boys willing to conquer Europe with terrible violence).
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
In order to know where the consciousness goes, you have to scientifically experience the consciousness, and that is not possible, because the consciousness is no physical but a metaphysical phenomenon, so it is not scientifically but philosophically knowable. The consciousness is merely indirectly but not directly provable. So it is not as provable as, for instance, a particle. It is also not a program. So it is also not directly provable by a computer program or something like that.
Yes, energy will probably exist forever.
Look at the rectangles in the following picture:
Energy is probably everlasting.
And most forget the subject/object-dichotomy.
Rousseauism is no solution. There is no need to civilly go back to nature. Nature dominates anyway.
The objectivist says the consciousness is a product of our brain, but the subjectivist says the consciousness is a product of my thoughts.
That are two very much different statements.
It is a cyclical process. Catastrophes come again and again. We do not need to make any contribution to catastrophes. But we do. It would be better to relinquish any contribution to catatstrophes or to decisions which lead to catatstrophes, if we were more capable of relinquishing. We should stop changing the world and start protecting the world.
A better world would be a protected world, especially for the offspring. But it is very likely that the human rulers and some other humans will not stop changing the world (thus: destroying the world) and will get the worst world. So the next human-made catastrophe will come sooner as expected.
We should eliminate or at least replace the globalistic institutions, which are merely established for the changers, thus exploiters, destroyers of the world, and also eliminate or at least replace the globalistic human rights, which are merely established for the changers, thus exploiters, destroyers of the world. We have to protect the world; we have to protect our chidren and their children and so on; we have to protect our countries; we have to protect the right of domicile (I mean it as the exact opposite of the right we now have: the right to settle wherever one wants to); we have to protect ourselves by protecting our nation, our origin, our traditions ... and so on. We need rights to protect ourselves in the sense that these rights can successfully stop protecting the rights of the globalists.
It would be the first one.
858) Arminius, 24.03.2016, 16:35, 17:41, 18:51, 18:53, 18:58, 19:09, 19:19, 19:59, 20:34, 22:19, 22:39 (4270-4279)
I can agree with Artimas suggestions concerning the mark system, but, for me, the mark system is not the main aspect of handling the problem. The main aspect of handling the problem are the administrator(s) and moderators, especially their personality and motivation. Therefore I mentioned the good example givemn by Uccisore (**|**).
I am convinced that the number of the trolls will soon lower after the trolls will have realized their absolutely indisputable undesirability.
Who said that the United States have to be the biggest spender in the world for military spending?
What term do you mean? The following sentence?
Do you mean this sentence?
East Germany is now West Poland and West Russia. Middle Germany is now called East Germany, and that is incorrect. And there is no peace contract. So the Germany as the German Reich (Deutsches Reich) still exists. All the huge reparations and other productive an monetary payments are paid by Germans because of the existence of the German Reich. And I remember well, when the Iron Curtain fell and many Polish and Russian people were willing to give the German territorries back to Germany. So where are those »formidable enemies, very reactionary in their holding and surprising developments as the unification of East and West Germany«. I have never met such enemies.
These enemies are produced by Westerners.
No, the West-East-Conflict (Cold War) was a fairly recent development. The geopolitical map of Europe before the West-East-Conflict was relatively similar to the geopolitical map of Europe after the West-East-Conflict, but the geopolitical map of Europe during the West-East-Conflict was neither similar to the geopolitical map of Europe before the West-East-Conflict nor similar to the geopolitical map of Europe after the West-East-Conflict. So the development you are talking about is not fairly recent as you said but fairly similar to an older development.
A defensive military alliance that attacks the rest of the world but is not capable of defensing the societies of the NATO territories is no real military alliance, at least no defensive military alliance.
You must be capable of defending yourself before you start attacking somebody, unless you want to be attacked.
The problem is that they can not be brought into real harmony. . They are always in conflict with or at least in parallel to each other.
I am an authority, and my evidence is my experience.
What is your suggestion: in or out?
I can agree with that.
Eric The Pipe wrote:
Yes, but I remind you of the historical fact that Keynes was not the absolute winner of the Bretton Woods monetary conference. So the Bretton Woods system does not merely mean Keynesianism.
If the machines will become smart enough, then they will need no cages for the humans.
Yes, of course, but it already exists, and it is not the main issue. The main issue are the administration and moderation - without them all mark systems are useless.
Formerly the conservatives were nationalists, not extreme nationalists but nationalists. Now the conservatives are no conservatives anymore, because they support the globalists. So what we have been experiencing since 1945 or at least since 1989/90 is an age of globalism.
Both nationalism and internationalism / globalism are part of the Occidental creations, and the Occident will defend its creations, regardless whether they are already destructive or not. So maybe the resistance to globalism will only be successful by coming from outside of the Occident, for example from East Europe.
Globalism does not work in the long term. Perhaps nationalism does also not work in the long term, but the nation is the biggest possible political unit that people can manage (something bigger - like globalism or any other imperialism - is not possible in the long term). So why are we wanted to do something that does not work in the long term? Why are people so stupid or/and crazy to support impossibilities?
Celine Kayser wrote:
If you ask me, then I answer you that the said financial system of Bretton Woods ended 1971, exactly on 15 August 1971 when Nixon relinquished the gold backing of the US Dollar. (And by the way: Keynes said during the Bretton Woods monetary conference that he wanted to relinquish the gold backing, but he meant the gold backing of the British Pound [ ], and had no success, because the USA dominated the Bretton Woods monetary conference, so the gold standard was set at $ 35.00 an ounce, as you can see it on the table above.) Since the 15th of August 1971 the gold price and a phantom system of expectations of expectations have been exploding. Of course: it is an instable financial system, probably the most instable financial system of all times.
Note: The 15 August is also a Christian holiday, a Christian holy day: Assumption of Mary.
Cute, cuddly, depending on protection:
Yes, and they need even more protection than many people believe.
860) Arminius, 26.03.2016, 00:07, 00:35, 01:34, 03:19, 12:43, 13:01, 13:19, 15:02, 15:09, 15:54, 19:52, 20:23, 23:04 (4287-4299)
Kant in 59 thread topics (Stand: Today): **
Thank you for your answer.
But possibly I was referring to Amorphos' question when I wrote:
So my ultimate question in philosophy could possibly be: What is your shortest answer?
I guess you know the story of the Roman soldier that died at Pompeii, whose bones were found at his post, because someone forgot to relieve him.
Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. - Oswald Spengler, Man and Technics: A Contribution to a Philosophy of Life ** (original title: Der Mensch und die Technik - Beitrag zu einer Philosophie des Lebens, 1931, S. 89 **). **
But you wouldn't say that you are a solipsist, right?
Would you also say that right thinkers are shitty thinkers?
Mr Reasonable wrote:
The spelling of your username mr reasonable is wrong. It contains three errors. The right spelling form of your username is Mr. Reasonable.
Other examples: **
But a solipsist says that there is no reality outside of the self (the I). So he does not need any realization. He thinks, and that is already all (no realization needed).
That does not change the fact that the soldier did what he had to do. For us current Westerners that behaviour is absolutely unbelievable. I guess that almost no one of us current Westerners could behave like this Roman soldier behaved.
I was not talking about greatness as such but about how greatness was valued in former times and how unbelievable it is for us current Westerners. It is an interesting phenomenon.
Q.E.D.. Your interpretation of that said Roman soldier's bevaiour is a typical interpretation of a typical modern Westerner. Indeed: Solidarity in hardship could be a little more productive. But are the current Westerners (the most individualistic people of all times) more solidary? I mean, the soldier did his job, his duty, which was the protection of the Pompeian people, and that was how solidarity was understood by most of the people at that time.
WW III Angry wrote:
No, no, no.
Wealth is also usually redistributed - not only inherited. Both capitalism and socialism are guilty of that said injustice.