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 |
<= [841][842][843][844][845][846][847][848][849][850] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
841) Arminius, 09.01.2016, 00:01, 00:01, 00:01, 00:01, 00:02, 00:04, 00:04, 00:06, 00:07, 00:31, 00:33, 00:56, 12:50, 13:21, 14:24, 14:57, 17:38, 18:53, 19:15, 20:46, 22:33, 22:55 (3922-3943)
James S. Saint wrote:
Yup.
The Rich Dude 3 wrote:
Evolution is true, but the Darwinistic selection principle is false!
Back to the topic (**) by looking at the following picture:What do you think?
According to RM:AO existence is that which has affect. If we want to know what came first and look at the natural forces for a while (only for a while!), then we have to say that the main force affectance refers to electromagnetism, thus not gravity.
The Darwinists may repeat their errors about the selection principle and the definition of fitness as often as they want to: they do not get more true by repeating them. Survival determines who is fittest is no definition that explains what the fittest means, what fitness means. Survival as in perpetuation is merely a formula of a prayer and has nothing to do with the question what fitness means in reality, because in order to know which living being is the fittest, thus determined by the survival as in perpetuation (?), you have to wait until the end of the perpetuation which is impossible, an oxymoron.It is impossible to save the Darwinistic selection principle, because the fabricated exceptions of the rule, the natural selection, contradict that rule. At last the Darwinists have merely contradictional exceptions of the rule they contradict. And please: What is nature according to the Darwinists? It is another word for God. So the Darwinists are pantheists.No wonder, because it was the time of naturalism when Darwin published his theory. Naturalism is based on a teleological definition of nature. To naturalists like Darwin and his Darwinists (especially: Spencer and Haeckel) nature is God and God is nature. So when the Darwinists say that the nature selects they mean God selects. The Darwinists are pantheists.I am sorry, but this likeable theory is false.
Zoot Allures wrote:
No. Not in the summer of 1969. Be honest! I guess that you were born in 1976 when Frank Zappa published his Zoot Allures.
Increasingly states, companies and private households reach the point, from which on the credit no longer opens but blocks the future: Growing debt services saps ever larger parts of current income - until the line is exceeded, beyond which older debts only be postponed by a cascade of new debts in a permanently paralyzed tomorrow. This situation deserves to be called post-historical: It completely fulfills Arnold Gehlen's classic definition of the posthistoire as a state of high mobility above the stationary bases - while one would like to replace the word stationary by the word untenable. **
Deleuze and Guattari took that up from Friedrich Nietszche's books, for example Morgenröte (1881), Zur Genealogie der Moral (1887), but they probably took that also up from Max Stirner's book Der Einzelne und sein Eigentum (1844), because (to me) Deleuze's and Guattari's anti-genealogical philosophy is more like Stirner's than Nietzsche's philosophy. By the way: Max Stirner (actually: Johann Kaspar Schmidt) published his book Der Einzelne und sein Eigentum when Nietzsche was born (1844).
Where Fichte had lectured: »Act like nobody!«, Stirner replicated: »Do what you can do alone on the world: Enjoy yourself!« - My translation of: Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014, S. 461. **
Leyla wrote:
For example: Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts (also in UK and Ireland).
Leyla wrote:
Yes. So Wikipedia should be used very carefully.
Artimas wrote:
Russia was not in war with Japan untill the war was not over in Europe, because both had a treaty to not attack each other. So the Soviets had only one front, namely the western front. But then the fact that the war was over in Europe became the welcomed chance for the Soviets to attack Japan and to occupy Japanese islands. And so the Soviets did. Please do not forget: The Soviets were aggressive imperialists, and they would never had survived a two-front war. So they had to wait with their attack against Japan until the war in Europe was over.Artimas wrote:
Yes. There are many examples. Some of those German weapons were not used during the war, and many current experts say that if the Germans had used them they would have won the war.Arminius wrote:
The later rockets of the US - also of the SU (Soviet Union, Russia), the EU and China - that brought US people to the Moon are the German rockets V1 and V2, built by Wernher von Braun and his team during the Second World War at the rocket research institute in Peenemünde.
Did the US or the EU or the communist Merkel (CDU = Communistic Dictatorship Union) herself already bring the war to Europe by letting the islam-fascistic conquerers in? ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
The European fight modern military wars all around the world, but they do it not on their own but in function of the USA as the leader of the NATO. And the Europeans have been forgetting to defend Europe for so long (too long?).
Fortress Europe, before it is too late.
Smiling machines? Okay, here they are:
Maia wrote:
Do you?Maia wrote:
The first monotheistic God was invented by the Egyptians, the next by others, at least not by Hebrews that you falsely call Jews. The Hebrews copied their God from the Egyptians and many aspects of their religion from the Babylonians.Maia wrote:
It has not been proven wrong.
I know that if you talk about noise you mean that noise we already talked about. But what noise is it in a more philosophical sense? Is it the same noise in the universe that Pythagoras already mentioned?
Zoot Allures wrote:
Zoot Allures wrote:
Thank you.
D 63 wrote:
Yes. The invisible underground mesh (network) against the visibly sprouting, striving upward tree. The roots of trees are not networked like rootstocks (rhizomes) of mushrooms, and mushrooms do not have such a long stems like trees have, and do not have branches, twigs, leaves like trees have.
Arbiter of Change wrote:
That is a typical internet-talk and especially a typical talk of liberals / socialists - both are racists.Racist A with 8 posts.
|
3942 |
3943 |
DNA machine changes everything. With it, there's no need for revolts, no need for wars, since there are no more bad politicians since people are more rational. **
842) Arminius, 11.01.2016, 16:02, 16:13, 16:16, 16:21, 16:36, 16:48, 17:02, 17:20, 17:33, 17:42, 17:53, 17:57, 18:54, 19:19, 19:34, 19:50, 20:08, 21:00, 21:45, 23:47 (3944-3963)
Erik (Primal Range) wrote:
That is absolutely right and shows - unfortunately - that the development is neither progress nor regress, because it is both. And it is just the civilization that shows the way back to nature, because civilization itself is often more barbaric than the barbarity itself. Therefore we have to distinguish between a wild barbarity and a civilized barbarianism. The civilzation has to be more barbaric because it has to find the way back to nature as its next goal.
If anyone who has a problem with fastfood has bad genes or is a lazy ass (**), then most of them must have a lazy ass, because there has been a real fat US nation building since the first US fastfood was bought.
Orbie (as Jerkey) wrote:
If you identify Buddhism with pessimism, then you are right. But I do not think that both are identical. Schopenhauer was the first European Buddhist, an Eurobuddhist, so to say, a syncretistic Buddhist.
For Uccisore:
R.I.P., D.B. ....- David
Bowie, The Jean Genie, 1973. -
|
3949 |
3950 |
3951 |
3952 |
The priest who married my wife .... **
3953 |
I meant, hm ... my wife and I. **
3954 |
The priest marrying his wife would be interesting, but I want to see the selfies of the priest marring HIM. **
3955 |
The priest who married my wife and I told us that he founded an interfaith group in Tokyo, merging Catholicism and Buddhism. Such endeavors are not your run of the mill efforts .... **
3956 |
3957 |
3958 |
3959 |
3960 |
3961 |
They know full well how to rewrite history and blame shift anything onto who or whatever. **
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
»What goes away?« **
All of the old, non-updated religions. Although most update so as to become indistinguishable from each other (»One World Religion«). **
3962 |
3963 |
843) Arminius, 14.01.2016, 00:04, 00:07, 00:08, 00:13, 00:20, 00:24, 00:25, 00:28, 00:37, 00:40, 01:19, 01:28, 01:37, 12:34, 13:08, 13:30, 14:51, 15:04, 15:04, 15:04, 15:31, 15:58, 16:16, 16:31, 16:56, 17:13, 17:27, 17:46, 18:53, 19:08, 19:37, 19:50, 20:11, 20:29, 22:38 (3964-3998)
Maia wrote:
What an utter nonsense! In which world do you live, child?Some facts of the European Union statistics in 2016: 1) German net contribution: 9,976,038,941 Euro.
|
3965 |
To the »Turd«:
Did you even read the article you linked to?
»Many had no valid documents, whilst others did not want to apply for asylum in Germany but in other countries, notably in Scandinavia, police said.«
Most of those sent back to Austria are not Syrians, who usually get asylum.
The whole article is not that negative, but you made a sort of hate-speech out of it.
The immigration to Germany has not stopped, 7 millions are expected, and it is not planned to stop it (the globalist did not give such an order). Can you imagine that? That is masochistic politics like a genocide, an autogenocide. During the last four months more than 1,1 Million people immigrated to Germany, and many of them not for political, but for economical reasons. Along with people who really need asylum came lots of criminals, drug-dealers, people who are not interested in anything else but money.
Merkel has made mistakes, at least from the point of view of the people, especially of the German people; but she did not make mistakes from the point of view of the globalists. And the German people are not guilty for the false politics of their governments. The English, Swedish, and Dutch people are also not guilty for the false politics of their governments. The majority of the Germans did not want to be in the NATO, did not want the EU, did not want the Euro (the Euro means the exploitation of Germany. One example: Germans have to work now until the age of 67, to pay for the Greeks, so that they can retire with 45).
The immigration to Germany has not stopped. Come to the German borders and look what happens there.
Turd Ferguson wrote:
You deserve it for being a nation of selfish shitheads. **
You're just a warmonger and a racist and either you have no idea what's really going on or you get paid for writing such a crap. It looks as if you need a scapegoat. You are using the Germans like Hitler used the Jews.
3966 |
Europe is racist, not me. **
3967 |
Doing that »pretending not to know what perfectly ordinary sentences mean« thing again, Arminius? **
3968 |
3969 |
Turd is a ... classic internet troll. He is characterized by the fool archetype. .... **
3970 |
That highest fertility rate country is Niger (approximately 7 children every per woman). The USA has been very actively importing vast numbers of their people into the USA, giving them homes and jobs (can't image why).
3971 |
3972 |
3973 |
3974 |
3975 |
3976 |
3977 |
3978 |
Arminius, she's blind. I mean that literally and not as joke. **
That said she could have responded to the non-graphic information you provided that directly contradicted her quite simply incorrect remarks. All she had to do was admit her error and move on. **
3979 |
3980 |
All she had to do was admit her error and move on. **
3981 |
3982 |
3983 |
3984 |
Some facts of the European Union statistics in 2016:
1) German net contribution: 9,976,038,941 Euro.
2) French net contribution: 3,806,907,859Euro.
3) Italian net contribution: 3,437,179,157 Euro.
4) Dutch net contribution: 3,362,533,781 Euro.
5) Swedish net contribution: 1,259,462,800 Euro.
6) Danish net contribution: 628,960,212 Euro.
7) Austrian net contribution: 478,332,030 Euro.
8) Finnish net contribution: 264,432,284 Euro.
9) British net contribution: 245,700,046 Euro * (* because of the rebate of ca. 5,200,200 Euro).All other 18 members of the EU an the EU itself (of course!) are net receivers. The biggest net receivers are Greece and Poland. That is no coincidence.
Source: **
In addition: Germany also pays the depts of all bankrupt EU countries.
Germany has always been the biggest net payer of the EU. Therefore the EU was founded.
The EU and the Euro mean the exploitation of Germany.
Otherwise this EU-monster could and would never have been founded. ** **
3985 |
3986 |
3987 |
3988 |
3989 |
Per capita, according to the page I linked, or per GDP, the UK spends about twice as much as Germany. But yes, you're right, having an army can have fringe benefits. But without it, for defence the EU would be reliant on France alone. **
3990 |
The UK had drastically reduced its spending. Chamberlain's »peace in our time« deal was a ruse to buy time so we could re-arm. **
It bought us about 18 months, in which we frantically built up the RAF to defeat Hitler's invasion. **
3991 |
Germany can give the money it would otherwise spend on its military to help fund other countries' economies? So instead of giving a mere 9 billion to the EU, it could give, say, 90 billion? Those other countries could then spend the money how they wish, including on defence.
3992 |
3993 |
3994 |
Your Fuhrer did not think so. **
3995 |
3996 |
3997 |
You know I haven't studied logic and I have no good way to annotate, but I will make a start ....
Start Moment:
A knows that B has 12, that A has 12 or 15, that B sees either 12 or 15 and no other number.
A says No.
B knows that A has 12 and that A has seen either 12 or fifteen on B. He knows he must have 12 or fifteen. If A has seen 15, then he is thinking either I have 9 or 12. If A has seen 12, then A is thinking I have either 12 or 15. B knows this is what A is thinking.
B says no.
A knows now that if B has seen 12 he is thinking that he either has 12 or 15. While at the sameI can imagine where one takes into account the limited possibilities and what the other must be thinking that at some point an elimination happens. But I cannot hold it in my head. **
3998 |
844) Arminius, 07.02.2016, 00:01, 00:03, 00:04, 00:05, 00:07, 00:09, 00:10, 00:12, 00:14, 00:18, 00:19, 00:22, 00:23, 00:25, 00:28, 00:31, 00:36, 00:38, 00:44, 00:50, 00:52, 00:53, 00:55, 00:59, 01:05, 01:29, 14:04, 14:50, 18:23, 18:45, 19:20, 19:23, 19:23, 20:03, 20:57, 21:13, 21:22, 21:32, 22:23, 22:47, 23:25, 23:44, 23:52, 23:56, 23:59 (3999-4043)
The pro-immigration activists and women's right activists contradict each other, because the immigrants rape women wherever it is possible.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
Would you mind describing how your DNA Machine works?
Moreno wrote:
Yes, and this has been becoming a dictatorship of inflationism, especially since the 15th of August 1971 when the US president Richard Nixon reversed the gold backing. This is just a bastard economy.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
Sorry, but there is a solution.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
Sorry, but that is false.
Was Zappa a Schopenhauerian?
If we hold mathematics up as an example of measuring how much can be explained, then we can say: economics means much mathematics with many formulas and not merely statistics, whereas psychology and especially sociology mean almost no mathematics except merely some formulas and statistics.
All living beings - especially the human beings - are beings of trying, copying, training (learning), changing (varying, modifying, ... dying). If they were not, they would be not more than genetically programmed beings. So living beings and their doings are always surrounded by variations. So if one is commanded to do x and does x without any variation, then there is no cultural change of doing x. During almost the whole Stone Age, many doings happened without any cultural variation resp. with the cultural command of preventing any natural and cultural variation - as far as it is possible, of course. The opposite has been becoming true since the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, especially since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution. Variation leads to change (development, evolution, history), and doing the variation means trying.Modernity means much, probably too much trying. So modern humans should not try too much any more, because they have already changed the world too much. In other words: modern humans should become unmodern again, more genealogical again, more traditional again, more conservative again. If they will not do this, then they will die out. Since the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, especially since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution, the humans have been changing the world too much, and the price will probably be the extinction of the humans, if they will not stop changing the world too much. So again: do not try too much, because your offspring will have to pay the price for your trials, your trials as your errors.
Copied part of a post in another thread.Maybe the humas will wait until the machines will completely take over.
D 63 wrote:
But being progressive and being liberal are not the same, they have almost nothing to do with each other.Humans are not really capable of being progressive, of being liberal, of being equal, of being fraternal. This is only possible in a spiritual sense of a sphere like a culture. But first of all, humans are natural beings, and nature is not progressive, not liberal, not equal, not fraternal. So being progressive, being liberal, being equal, being fraternal jsut means being ideological (religious in a modern sense) - not more and not less.By the way: liberalism and egalitarianism contradict each other. They are an oxymoron, a contradiction.
D 63 wrote:
The current situation is that 99% of all humans lose; so: when 99% of all humans lose, all women lose! **
Carleas wrote:
According to his favorite evolution theory, that is like saying: It is immoral not to abort a pregnancy when we know that the child will be like Richard Dawkins.Richard Dawkins is a godwannabe.
And what is after the annihilation?
That (**) is surely the Queens best song.
Topic: Philosophy and Art.The similarities between philosophy and art are not caused by an accident.What do you think about the similarities, the analogies?
Topic: Pantheism.What do you think about pantheism?
Celine Kayser wrote:
Oh, yeah.Celine Kayser wrote:
Darwinism is the trial to interpret the nature only economically - by competition, by a false selection principle (**|**) as if living beings were selected like goods, articles, products.Celine Kayser wrote:
No. Of course: No.Celine Kayser wrote:
No. It is not too late to replace it.Celine Kayser wrote:
That would send us back to the late 1700's, prior the Industrial Revolution, because the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700's.Celine Kayser wrote:
You have opened an interesting thread. Thank you.So: Is competition ethical? I answer with a counterquestion: What if 99% of all humans are not allowed to compete and 1% of all humans compete on the whole planet and in the whole solar system?
Copied post in another thread.
Copied post in another thread.
Anja Steinbauer wrote:
If the greatest philosopher is the first one who has demonstrated that there are definite limits to what philosophy can do, then Kant is the greatest philosopher of all times. And even Schopenhauer - not usually known as a thinker full of happy praise for anyone or anything - held Kants book Kritik der reinen Vernunft (Critique of Pure Reason) to be the most important book ever written in Europe.Humans are not capable of knowing everything and anything - regardless whether there is philosophy or science, whether there is enlightenment or counter-enlightenment, whether there is idealism or realism, whether there is kynism or cynism -, the deep sense of knowledge is a great cyclical game of life. Kowledge (or intelligence) is a highly efficient weapon, yes, but it is not the only highly efficient weapon.On the one hand the sentence knowledge is power is right, but on the other hand the speaker of this sentence speaks this sentence in order to get power. So the sentence is both philosophical and political, but the political side has becoming stronger and stronger since the will to knowledge was overtaken (passed) by the will to power, and that also means: philosophy has been going down since it was overtaken by politics.
Globalism stands for the most extreme expansionism and dictatorship (imperialism to a global extent); so the dichotomy globalism versus nationalism (including: regionalism, localism, ... individualism, thus at last any ism of freedom and independence) can also - at least economically - be called debtism (inflationism) versus autarkism (an ism of economical independence), because globalism is mostly based on economical (especially financial) facts, thus: globalistic corruption.
Today there are no real conservatives. If one says these days I am conservative, then you can be sure that that one is lying. And politicians are lying anyway. Being a politician and lying are synonyms.
Paul Ramsey wrote:
Do you agree?
Copied post in another thread.
Obviously you are the only one here who is not capable of reading.This riddle was alraedy solved (**).Again: Obviously you are the only one here who is not capable of reading.Q.E.D.
99% of the humans are controlled by 1% of the humans.
And his knees are destroyed too!
Naturally brains are made for survival, and culture is embedded in nature. So first of all there is a natural reason why a brain exists. The cultural reason merely follows. It is a followup reason, thus not the natural reaosn as the original reason. So cultural phenomenons like philosophy and science are not the primary reason why a brain exists. In other words: Our brains were not primarily but merely secondarily made for philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons, and philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons are no organs of our body but merely cultural phenomenons.Kant was right in almost all aspects (except some ethical aspects): his cosmological hypotheis, his theory about the emergence of the solar system, his theory about life, his theory about human beings, his anthropology and other philosophical or scientifical theories are true.For example: In order to know what is behind or beyond nature we need philosophy, especially metaphysics, but philosophy and its metaphysics are embedded in human culture which is embedded in nature. So this is a dilemma of human knowledge (cognition and so on) and simultaneously the reason why humans are not capable of knowing everything.
Occidental philosophy compared to - for example - a tree, architectural art, clothes:
Moreno wrote:
James S. Saint wrote:
Y e s , o f c o u r s e .Thanks, Moreno and James S. Saint.
Copied post in another thread.Should I permaban Carleas? No, that would be too Darwinistic or even too Dawkinsistic.
|
4031 |
4032 |
Arminius wrote:
»What do you think about pantheism?« ** **
It fits better for me than the strange primarily transcendent deity models. I would include panpsychism in this also. As far as effects I think it avoids some of the catastrophic indifferences created by the Abrahamic transcendent deities and also removes some of the 'oh, I am a little piece of nothing, God is Great, type relations that are also destructive though in a different way. **
4033 |
Arbiter of Change wrote:
»Economics can be explained by referring back to human nature, and what is it that explores human nature?
Sounds like a typical reversal of hierarchy, looking at nature from the perspective of human social norms, instead of observing nature and how social norms emerge within it.
Unsurprisingly, appears it was employed by Marxism.« **
Market economics is a complete fiction and construct especially concerning traditional social hierarchy. There is nothing natural about it and it is all built upon bullshit obfuscations or assumptions of human nature.
Not much natural but much mathematical about it. **
4034 |
4035 |
7 hermetic principles .... **
4036 |
4037 |
Arminius wrote:
»Yes, and this has been becoming a dictatorship of inflationism, especially since the 15th of August 1971 when the US president Richard Nixon reversed the gold backing. This is just a bastard economy.« ** **
The bank of England sold quite a lot of its gold because it was no longer needed as a basis for money. I expect American banks done the same. Its like free money! They first make the value of things upon the worth of gold, then keep the worth and sell the gold lol. I noticed that the Chinese are big on buying gold, which is jolly good of them muhahaha. All the west needs now is to get their hands on the Chinese money markets so they can drain all the wealth back, the Chinese however can see that coming hence keep stopping it. **
4038 |
Its stupid, only weak people require stroking like dogs, ~ oh haven't he/she done well, is all we get on tv these days. Now have a sweetie for being good at something and fuck off. **
4039 |
4040 |
I don't mind security robots like those, because i'm the kind of low class citizen who would otherwise have to do shit jobs like that. This is what people don't realise, robots like any other machine will do the shit we don't want to. I was once offered a job in a factory, putting something in a machine pressing a button then taking it out again, oh how I wished for another machine which can push that damn button.
On the other hand, I equally don't want robots being my boss and doing shit for them. **
4041 |
4042 |
4043 |
845) Hubert Brune, 08.02.2016, 01:23, **, ** (4044-4046)
@ Simon Käßheimer (**).Hallo, Simon.Es ist wieder soweit. Vielleicht erinnerst Du Dich noch an den 08.01.2012, als ich, nachdem Du Dich (um 04:40 Uhr) in mein Gästebuch eingetragen hattest, Dir antwortete:
Ich gratuliere Dir zu Deinen neuen Webseiten. Sie gefallen mir!Ich wünsche Dir alles Gute.
Danke, Herr Müller, für Ihre freundlichen Worte (**).Mein Interessensgebiet ist nie begrenzt gewesen. Meine Arbeit als Intensivlehrer hat aber damit nur insofern zu tun, als sie eine Folge, jedoch keine Ursache und auch keine Finalursache dafür ist.Freundliche Grüße.
Danke, lieber Simon, für Deinen dritten Eintrag in mein Gästebuch. **Ich werde Deine Internetpräsenz auch in Zukunft aufsuchen. Übrigens mag auch ich die Figur Ottmar Zittlau sehr - joh, dat stimmt (**). Zwischen dem 8. und dem 10. März des Jahres 2020 werde ich mich wieder in Dein Gästebuch eintragen. Spätestens dann erwarte ich Deine Rückmeldung.Ich grüße Dich und wünsche Dir alles Gute, mein Lieber. |
846) Arminius, 29.02.2016, 00:01, 00:03, 00:07, 00:15, 00:17, 00:18, 00:57, 00:59, 01:01, 01:13, 15:54, 16:09, 16:10, 16:52, 16:53, 16:53, 16:58, 17:20, 18:10, 18:40, 18:54, 19:10, 20:18, 20:28, 20:40, 20:59, 21:23, 21:39, 22:44, 22:58, 23:13, 23:32, 23:58 (4047-4079)
What you mean is the culturally based competition like techno-creditisms (formerly known as capitalism), but the naturally based competition will as long as living beings exist not disappear.And by the way: Sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution and also a good example in order to explain what competition means. If you want to please somebody, then you are already a competitor, and sex is also and a special guarantor for that fact. You are saying (in your signature): Sex is the fundamental principle of Creation. That is also not possible, because sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution. So the fundamental principle of creation must be an older one.
No doubt (**)? Why are you so sure?
That is comparable with the projects of the Neuer Mensch (Neumensch), also as a Übermensch, Herrenmensch.
Hahaha wrote:
Nice topic.Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Disassociation from nature is luxury.
Hahaha wrote:
Those two were not predominant but had the most extreme opinion when referring to human nature. Their biographies reflect their opinions on this topic.When Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) lived there were many terrible wars, for example: (1) the war between England and Spain (1588-1599), (2) a very terrible war, probably the most terrible war of the Occidental history - the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) -, (3) another war which was terrible too - the English Civil War (1642-1651) - and (4) the also terrible wars started by Louis XIV of France.When Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) lived the wars were already so called Kabinettskriege (cabinet wars), thus they were not as terrible as they had been before.But Rousseau's philosophy about the human nature is wrong, because his natural human as the wild human is not the better human.
Solipsism is the most extreme form of subjecivism, and materialism is the most extreme form of objecivism. The problem of solipsism and materialism or simply of subject and object is not really solvable, it is a dualismn. Many philosophers have tried to solve it and have failed.
Moreno wrote:
They are only as long buddies as their interests are the same, but their interests are not always the same. I remind you of one bankruptcy example that happened in 2008: the bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the United States; the filing remains the largest bankruptcy filing in US history, with Lehman holding about $ 640 billion in assets (**). There are no real buddies. In the deepest reality there are only everyone-against-everyone-fighters. Everyone wants to be a monopolist.
The main beneficiary of a war is almost always the same who started it.Who was the main beneficiary of the two world wars?Who will be the main beneficiary of the third world war?The same.The United States need a war because of their extreme debt - like their debt before the 1st and the 2nd World War. After the 1st World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies and other German assets, values), and after the 2nd World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies [even scientists, engineers and so on {**|**|**|**}] and other German assets, values; and this robbery was the biggest robbery of all time) and their Dollar system became the Dollar Empire. Now the United States have again extreme debt, so ........Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam - Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius, a.k.a.: Cato the Elder (234-149).Since 146 B.C. :
What about the opposite one: logic as a subset of mathematics? There were and are people who liked and like that very much. They think that hiding something behind mathematics is easier than hiding something behind logic.
Okay; maybe that robot (**) has currently not more skills than a child that was born 18 months ago; but note that this ontogenetic human development of 18 months corresponds with the phylogenetic human development of some million years; and if we say that the first steam engine was the birth of that robot, then it is now about 250 years old (because the first 250 years of a robot after its birth correspond with the first 18 months of a human after his/her birth), but the speed of its further development will probably become very much higher, because a pure cultural (technological) development can be faster than a pure natural development or even a mix of a cultural and a natural development (the human development is such a mix), so that robots will be soon capable of using language in a more efficient way than humans, for example; the question is, if robots will be able to do it with any emotion, with selfish.
Copied part of a post in another thread.Copied post in another thread.Copied post in another thread.
Most of all living beings, especially all older species (thus the huge majority of all living beings) are not capable of having sex. They live without any sex or something like sex.
It is an error to believe that robots should have sex (excepted that they use sex for the control of humans).Copied post in another thread.
For robots themselves sex is a disadvantage.
Kant was right in almost all aspects (except some ethical aspects): his cosmological hypotheis, his theory about the emergence of the solar system, his theory about life, his theory about human beings, his anthropology and other philosophical or scientifical theories are true.
In order to know what is behind or beyond nature we need philosophy, especially metaphysics, but philosophy and its metaphysics are embedded in human culture which is embedded in nature. So this is a dilemma of human knowledge (cognition and so on) and simultaneously the reason why humans are not capable of knowing everything.
Naturally brains are made for survival, and culture is embedded in nature. So first of all there is a natural reason why a brain exists. The cultural reason merely follows. It is a followup reason, thus not the natural reaosn as the original reason. So cultural phenomenons like philosophy and science are not the primary reason why a brain exists. In other words: Our brains were not primarily but merely secondarily made for philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons, and philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons are no organs of our body but merely cultural phenomenons.
Well, ... I would not seriously call that (**) sex.
Many people fear mathematics, and many people are cynics. Now, combine this two facts, please!
If they (**) did not respect it, then they would not be cynics. So the furtive (secret) respect is already a part of the definition of cynic.
Pantheism has four mainstreams:1) Theomononistic pantheism.
|
4067 |
4068 |
4069 |
4070 |
4071 |
Scenes from a Greek border on the way to Europe. **
4072 |
4073 |
Arminius, I don't understand your questions. Can you please rephrase them? **
4074 |
4075 |
4076 |
It's a coordinated move by the United States and globalists to take Europe down. **
4077 |
4078 |
4079 |
847) Arminius, 08.03.2016, 00:14, 00:17, 00:19, 00:24, 00:29, 00:31, 00:33, 00:36, 00:39, 00:57, 01:13, 01:15, 01:17, 01:20, 01:23, 01:25, 01:26, 01:27, 01:56, 01:57, 01:59, 02:01, 02:01, 02:07, 02:11, 02:17, 03:52, 04:08, 17:56, 18:06, 20:18, 20:55, 23:11, 23:25 (4080-4113)
Moreno wrote:
And they have a cynical position.Moreno wrote:
All that is known, yes.Moreno wrote:
The cynical position is on the side of the beneficiaries and especially of the main beneficiaries of the wars; so they have a cynical position (see above), the most cynical position ever, Moreno.Moreno wrote:
Which motives do you mean? The main motive is always power (might; because of always having a will to might and a will to night), and that means: control - by (for example) divide et imperea, panem et circenses, cynism, lies, fraud, violence, murder, wars, terror, terrorism, fear, torture, enslavement, racism, dysgenics, corruption, blackmail, extortion, indoctrination, indignation ... and so on ... and so on ....
Europe has almost twice as many inhabitants as the United States. If the 28 European small armies were under a single command, then Europe had the largest military force in the world. And - of course - the competitors, rivals, enemies of Europe love it to have to deal with a disunited Europe and disunited European nations. The more so-called refugees come to Europe, the more unstable Europe is to the delight of Europes rivals (competitors, enemies). Therefore - for example - Obama praises Merkel.One day you will be able to look up who has steered the refugees.
It is not possible to destroy the whole Earth and all living beings on it with all the nuclear weapons we have. The earth has survived much worse disasters - several times. All the nuclear weapons we have can destroy many living beings - but just not all. Many primitives species of the living beings have survived much worse disasters - several times. So this species are still there.If you destroy parts of life, then a new but similar cycle will start.
Many people fear economics too.
Science has become more and more a function of politics. Scientists have become politically correct functionaries of the cynical rulers.If those who are not scientists want to have scientific solutions, then they have to use their own brains in the first place.Kant wrote:Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes
zu bedienen!
|
4085 |
4086 |
4087 |
4088 |
4089 |
4090 |
4091 |
4092 |
4093 |
4094 |
4095 |
4096 |
4097 |
4098 |
4099 |
4100 |
4101 |
4102 |
4103 |
4104 |
4105 |
4106 |
Congrats!!!! **
My first deliberate mixbreed chicks hatched today. I hope they are able to withstand attacks from Hawks and raccoons plus other predators. My flock of gentle chickens were decimated this year. I chose the hens that were aggressive and not killed(Copper Maran) and a very large social protective chicken (Jersey giant). I hope it works. They should protect the entire flock,, maybe. **
I remember it well... happy second anniversary, bay-bee ;). **
4107 |
It's also a eugenics program if you think about it utilizing female hypergamy with social economics. It's soft eugenics at play.
It's about limiting opportunities for reproduction. **
4108 |
The US is actually the model of this chaos. You have cities going bankrupt. Regions without water. Masses of poor people. Deserted towns and cities. More and more homeless. People working harder and harder for less and less. Extreme disagreements about how things should be handled. All under an oligarchy still skimming. **
4109 |
4110 |
4111 |
4112 |
4113 |
848) Arminius, 11.03.2016, 00:01, 00:03, 00:04, 00:05, 00:08, 00:10, 00:19, 00:21, 00:23, 00:25, 00:28, 00:30, 00:37, 00:39, 00:53, 01:27, 01:36, 01:37, 02:14, 02:27, 02:45, 03:06, 11:50, 11:55, 12:12, 12:52, 15:46, 16:27, 17:11, 17:59, 19:13, 19:20, 19:39, 23:18, 23:53 (4114-4148)
Mathematics is both subjetive and objective; but primarily it is a subjective system (exactly: a subsystem of the subjective system logic), and secondarily it is an objective system (exactly: an applied subsystem of objective systems).Arminius wrote:
And we - the humans - judge about subjectivity and objectivity. If we were not capable of using mathematics much more than (other) animals, then we would use it just subjectively, namely for self-preservation (like all [other] animals), and because we would not know or merely instinctively know that, we were also not capable of knowing what subjective and objective mean.
Please rephrase that (**).
One can call it so (**) as well, yes.
One of those pills seems to be a special one:
Knowledge and belief have the same roots.
Can you give some examples with numbers and facts - just in order to compare them with the situation in Europe or elsewhere.
It was the 1929 starting World Depression (also known as Great Depression) that caused it, but the NSDAP did never get a majority.Here are the results of the German Reichstag elections from 1919 to 1933:
The World Depression (Great Depression) and the following disastrous politics started 1929. Look at the election results for the NSDAP and notice when they really exploded. Then you will know why they exploded.The dictatorship was already a fact when the last election (1933) happened, and even this election did not bring the majority to the NSDAP (Nazis).
Fent wrote:
According to leftists, all those who are right from them are rightists, and they call them fascists, because they want to be anti-fascists. But in reality they are the fascists, the new fascists. The new fascist does not say I am the new fascist, the new fascist says I am the anti-fascist.
You should make a video about the whole RM:AO that lasts about 20 or 30 minutes. The advantage is that such a video makes it possible to understand the whole RM:AO within 20 or 30 minutes and that you do not need to explain any single element of RM:AO again and again.
World War III .... With what enemies?
Okay. I am curious about it (**).
It is an example but an fairly realistic example: Look at the current demographic trend.
Hahaha wrote:
Thanks.Hahaha wrote:
Thanks.First of all I would like to say that I am sure that feminsm is definitely against women. Almost all of those who benefitted and benefit from feminism were and are men, and those few women who also benefitted and benefit from feminism were and are mostly masculinized, thus no real women. You may compare feminism and its women with the so-called communistic socialism and its so-called proletariat. This communistic proletariat did never have any power, at least less power than in the societies of the so-called class enemy, the so-called capitalism. Almost all of those who benefitted and benefit from communistic socialism were and are no proletarians, and those few proletarians who also benefitted and benefit from communistic socialism were and are mostly sponsored, thus no real proletarians.The communistic oppressors of the proletarians merely want the proletarians to work for them and to love them as their good leaders. You can find the same situation on the feministic side. The feministic oppressors of the women merely want the women to work for them and to love them as their good leaders. Both communism (communistic socialism) and feminism (also genderism and similar isms) are merely different versions of the same totalitarianism. The goal of this totalitarianism is the total control of its people (about 99% of all humans) by several means (divide et imperea, panem et circenses, cynism, lies, fraud, violence, murder, wars, terror, terrorism, fear, torture, enslavement, racism, dysgenics, corruption, blackmail, extortion, indoctrination, indignation ... and so on ... and so on); so dysgenics is one of them.Moreover: machines are cheaper than humans; so - sooner or later - humans will not be needed anymore.Hahaha wrote:
Before we go into detail I would like to know what you exactly mean by dysgenics feminist program and by initiated state eugenics.
Hahaha wrote:
From an ancient point of view, some parts or at least the consequences of the Platonism were also nihilistic. So if non-ancient nihilists are against Platonism, then they are nihilists who are against a part of the ancient nihilism. This seems to be a contradiction, but this contradiction can be solved, at least partly, because the ancient nihilism is different from the non-ancient nihilism.
World War III Angry wrote:
I disagree, because understanding and thinking something is true are processes that belong to the same root(s). Animals with a primitive (not complex enough) brain do not distinguish between understanding and thinking something is true. You need to have a well enough working complex brain in order to distinguish between understanding and thinking something is true.
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
Thanks.
The problem is that in reality there is no pure (100%) communism and no pure (100%) capitalism but always a mix - more or less -, and this mix is full of corruption. So corruption is the main problem.
Hahaha wrote:
All clear.
My argumentation is an evolutionary biological (especially neurological) one, and I compare the phylogenetic evolution with the ontogenetic development. You can be sure that animals with a primitive (not complex enough) brain are not capable of distinguishing between understanding and thinking something is true. So you need to have a well enough working complex brain in order to distinguish between understanding and thinking something is true. The said roots are evolutionary biological (especially neurological) roots, mainly the nervous system that leads to a primitive brain that leads to a more complex brain that leads to a still more complex brain ... and so on.
Hahaha wrote:
Yes, one can say so, and I go a bit further: also higher animals like great apes, dolphins, some bird species, for example, are capable of what a nearly two years old human child is capable of; I say that, for example, bonobos and chimpanzees are capable of corrupt behaving, although merely in a primitive way.
Amorphos wrote:
It depends on the definition of corruption. The communistic leaders and their many, many, many functionaries are corrupt. They do what corrupt humans do.
Yes, that (**) is right. And as far as I know him (**) he wants some but not all people to challenge him because of that good exercize you mentioned (**).
Moreno wrote:
Agreed. The difference between the extreme individuality and the extreme community is one of the main differences between Occident and Orient.
One can also call it holism versus individualism.
You (**) should begin with the definitions, the defintional logic, your concept of existence, of affectance, then show an example with a particle, of course. But maybe that you are right and a video is not the best medium to explain what RM:AO is, although it is possible to divide it into several subvideos: one for RM, one for AO, and more than one for other aspects of RM:AO.
World War III Angry wrote:
Science also depends on definitions. If scientists try for example what you call the pinpointing differences in belief and knowledge, or not, then they have to begin with the definition of the words belief and knowledge - regardless whether they want to or not. So scientists can always find or not find what they want to or what the politicians want them to find or to not find.Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own mind - as Kant said (translated by me).
|
4141 |
Very good then - so there is no real basis you claim other than a subjective definition?
I contend my framework is superior in that it notes a difference that leads to a more coherent state of mind for all. **
4142 |
4143 |
Ok, so then I ask what are these definitions of belief and knowledge that they must begin with? **
4144 |
4145 |
4146 |
4147 |
4148 |
Zinnat wrote:
»Secondly, it is true that wikipedia is not perfect and expects incoming reader knowledgeable to some extent with the subject, yet it is perhaps the best thing that modern technology (internet) has created ever.
Its founders and running team certainly deserve a lot of appreciation, at least intent wise.« **
Careful. The Nazi war machine was once the greatest thing of modern technology. Everything granted to you can be used against you. **
849) Arminius, 12.03.2016, 12:07, 12:10, 12:41, 12:58, 13:22, 14:08, 14:12, 14:57, 18:29, 20:04, 20:07 (4149-4159)
He is too much a Western Conservative.
Rousseau gave his children in an orphan asylum! He preached water and drank wine.
One of the words for the definitions of belief and knowledge that they must begin with as one original phenomenon is the word information in a very primitive sense which means, for example, without lie, fraud, corruption, cynism .. and so on.
But isn't killing yourself too much work for you (**)?
Copied post in another thread.
I guess that you (**) know that hypergamy as based on politics is only a modern phenomenon but is actually based on the fact that women tend to marry men of higher classes. To marry men of higher classes makes sense then, when it comes to motivate both men (to get higher positions) and women (to get men of higher positions). It becomes a problem then, when it becomes a political, institutional, publicly regulated, dictatoral matter - and that is the case in the so-called Western World.
Copied post in another thread.
Hahaha wrote:
Yea.
World War III Angry wrote:
That is not true. You do not understand what I mean, what information in a very primitive sense means, or/and you do not want to understand and have a ready-made opinion in your head which you do not want to let it out of it.World War III Angry wrote:
Q.E.D.: You do not understand what I mean, what information in a very primitive sense means. Try to evolutionarily go backwards - far away from now. Otherwise you will never understand what the word information in a very primitive sense means.WW_III_ANGRY wrote:
Again: You do not understand what I mean, what information means .... An amoeba does not need to believe (sic!) and not need to know (sic) about its information.Have you forgotten the topic of your thread?
World War III Angry wrote:
Like I said: Understanding in a very primitive sense does not mean what we understand when we use the word understanding in a human sense. Remember: Your thread is about belief and knowledge; and an amoeb does not need to understand what information means (you should not always confuse all living beings with human beings!), it does not need to believe or to know in order to be informed in the sense of being in form. Information originally comes from being in form (there is no need of belief and knowledge). Do you understand that?You asked me what the common root is. I have given you the answer several times, but you have not understood it, and that is the problem, your problem.Stones do not believe and not know. Primitive living beings do not believe and not know, but they are in form (they live) without believing and knowing it.
Surreptitious 57 wrote:
That is what I said to WW III Angry several times, but he did not understand it. |
850) Arminius, 13.03.2016, 02:55, 03:55, 16:07, 21:09, 22:08, 23:00, 23:16 (4160-4165)
World War III Angry wrote:
Oh, yes, I did (with other words, of course), but you did not understand it.Do you understand your own words?
World War III Angry wrote:
No.World War III Angry wrote:
Are you sure that you agree?World War III Angry wrote:
That is - again - not true. I gave you an advice (you should not always confuse all living beings with human beings!) but did not say that you stated this or that. Giving an advice does not necessarily mean that a statement was given in a text (in your case: your text in your posts) but that in could be in your thoughts. Note the subjunctive - should, could - in my sentences.I think that you are confusing all living beings with human beings in your thoughts, not necessarily in your posted statements. Do you know the distinction (difference) of your thoughts and your posted statements? I am trying to understand why you are writing so much nonsense. Now my conlusion is: Your statements or your thoughts or both your statements and your thoughts are false - but never none of them.World War III Angry wrote:
The reverse is true. Being informed can but does not necessarily mean understanding. Being informed and being in form (it is like: to live) belong together, and this has primarily nothing to do with your interpretation of understanding. A cell does not need to humanly understand its information.Remember: Your thread is about belief and knowledge. A cell does not have a belief and a knowledge in the sense that you mean. The belief and the knowledge of a cell are the same: information (coming in form, being in formed, being in form) in a primitive sense which means without understanding and all other mental processes an anthropocentric human being always hastily interprets into all living beings.
World War III Angry wrote:
You are the one who did not understand what almost all others wrote in this thread. That is obvious. You contradict yourself. And when you agree with everything except knowledge is a subset of information, then it is ridiculous, because it is like saying I agree with 100% but not with 99% of your statement. The main statement was that knowledge is a subset of information. And when you say because information is very broad and goes beyond the mind, then it becomes even more ridiculous, because it becomes obvious that you did not understand the thesis and its argument you want to criticize. So again: You are the one who did not understand what almost all others wrote in this thread.By the way: Do you know what you really want? And if yes: What do you really want?
Hahaha wrote:
First of all I would not call one of those boths nihilism forms post-modern, because nihilism is a modern phenomenon.The difference is almost what you also already (but more allusively or suggestively) said in another thread (I can't find it at the moment): Socratism and Platonism changed the Ancient-Greek philosophy and this change was criticised by the ancient cynics (Antisthenes, Diogenes and others), but later this became normal, so Socratism and especially Platonism and followers became cynical as well and they mixed with movements like the Stoics and the Christians. I know ,this statement is especially a Nietzschean statement, but nevertheless: it is true. Nietzsche called himself a Cyniker instead of Zyniker (this is the correct spelling form in German) just to show that he did not want to be a modern cynic (Zyniker) but an ancient cynik (Cyniker). By the way: To make it more Ancient-Greek-alike he should have called himself a Kyniker, I think. So a Cyniker or Kyniker is cynical towards the Zyniker - because the ancient cynics have become normal, thus more and more the modern cynics which can only be cynically criticised by cynics who are more again like the ancient cynics (therefore: Cyniker/Kyniker versus Zyniker). Now I am saying that there are two different forms of nihilism as well, because cynism and nihilism belong together, although they are not the same (cynism is a subset of nihilism, so to say), and there are more than two forms of nihilism. But in that said post I was talking about two different forms of nihilism: one of the Ancient-Greek culture and one of the Occidental culture. They are different. Our modern nihilism we are confrontated with is (1) a more regulated one than the ancient one was and (2) much more active than the ancient one was. But I don't exactly know whether they can be used against each other. Probably this phenomenon is comparable with the speed of light, because it has always the same amount, whereas other velocities can have different amounts.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, but that is more the Ancient-Greek variant of nihilism, whereas our Modern-Occidental variant of nihilism is more regulated and more active than the Ancient-Greek variant of nihilism was. The Modern-Occidental nihilist says: You are allowed to do x, although he/she knows that it is unethical, immoral. This is the cynically regulated side of the Modern-Occidental nihilism, the cynically unregulated side of the Modern-Occidental nihilism is the destruction of all values with the support of the cynically regulated side.
Celine Kayser wrote:
No. Of course: No. If you read my other posts, then you will know it. |
==>
|