L I N G U I S T I C S  /   L A N G U A G E   A C Q U S I T I O N

There are three kinds of linguistic contact:

1.) Superstratum (in German: Superstrat),
2.) Substratum (in German: Substrat),
3.) Adstratum (in German: Adstrat).

At that time that we are talking about there was a superstratum - which means: the conquerors loose most of their language and the conquered keep their language. It was because of the civilzed (bureaucratic etc.) dominance of the Latin language, which at the time, before the Germans conquered Gaul, was spoken by the „high society“ in Gaul (not France, which did not exist at that time - as I already said **). The Latin speech was established in state and administration, insofar as still available, and so the German language decreased (declined) and the Latin language became a mixed language (Latin + German = Roman, in this case: = French). **

Since the late ancient times the Celts have been irrelevant for history of the continental Europe - except when they brought Christianity to the continent. If you mean the Gauls and not the other Celts, you will have to read my last my post again and also Vollgraff's books. In Gaul the Germans as the conquerors became the majority, but that doesn't mean that the Gauls disappeared. Besides: The Gauls at that time didn't speak Gaulish, but Latin (cp. my last post [**] in this thread and several historical books, especially linguistic ones). Just because of their political / administrative structure, although declining, the German language couldn't come out on top in Gaul - except from the 4th to the 6th century. In Italy, Spain, Portugal, North-Africa the German language was established from the 5th to the 8th century (Spain, Portugal, North-Africa) and to the 15th and in some regions to modern times (Italy, especialla North-Italy, cp. Langobard / Lombard).

If a language has a high closeness - a high density - or a high frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a high probabiltiy for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique/ etc., but if a language has a low closeness - a low density - or a low frequency of related words (lexemes, sememes, morphemes), then it has also a low probability for being very creative in philosophy / science / technique etc..

Each language has its own character because of its forms, its structures, its functions, its “laws”, its rules, its grammar and so on. But language in general has its own character because of its forms, its structures, its functions, its “laws”, its rules, its grammar and so on - just like - for example - mathematics and philosophy. You can hardly explain e.g. mathematical or linguistic forms, structures, functions, “laws”, rules, grammar by using e.g. physics or chemistry; and you can also hardly explain mathematical or linguistic forms, structures, functions, “laws”, rules, grammar by using e.g. psychology or sociology. But you can do it very well, very effectively, very successfully by using mathematics or linguistics.

So you can hardly explain what thoughts or words about by using psychology or sociology.

1) Grammar refers not only to linguistic systems, but also to mathematical systems, and to semiotic systems.
2) Grammar also refers to a language as a whole system, and to its history, to the contacts with other languages, to etymology / derivation.
3) Grammar refers to texts, sentences (=> syntax), referemes, representemes, sememes, words, lexemes, morphemes, phonemes, graphemes, and other forms, structures, and functions of language.

So words belong as well to a grammar as other language forms, structuers and functions.

So words lead to tendencies in thinking, different thoughts, and so on - not only because words belong to the grammar of a language, a linguistic system, but also because of their history, their etymology / derivation. If you have many related words, words of the same language, then you know their linguistical relaitionship, including their logical realtionship, very well. You can work with them very well and effectively. Foreign words must be translated, even then when they have belonged to your own language for many centuries. This foreign words have no or only little relationship to the words of your own language. And this has consequences, and not only linguistic consequences, but also logical consequences, thus philosophical consequences.

I am not saying that languages with many foreign words are generally not convenient for thinking, different thoughts, and so on, but languages with many foreign words are less convenient for thinking, different thoughts, and so on. This disadvantage can be compensated by borrowing more and more foreign words, but it can never be changed into an advantage. So „pure“ languages have an advantage compared with “mixed” languages. But remember before you think I would like to rail against the English language: In some cases - for example in the case of sememes and in the case of some syntactic structures and functions - the Englsih language is not so „mixed“ as it is in the other cases. So in some cases the English language is the most Germanic language of all Germanic languages and in other cases it is the less Germanic language of all Germanic languages

Linguistic forms, structures, functions influence thinking, thoughts, definitions, concepts, and so on. So linguistic influences philosophy, science, and so on. This influence is often underestimated, but you only have to remember or to think of a child who is asking in order to get knowledge. Speaking and thinking or information / language and science / philosophy are very closed to each other, work very closely with each other, so that one can say that they influence each other in two directions.

Language is more than sound, not merely or not primarily sound.

Animal “languages”are very different to human languages, and this fact has always been clear to scientists or philosophers. Animals use language in a too much different way than humans do. Language is not only a physiologic phenomenon, it is a lingiuistic system, and this linguistic system is typical for human beings. Human language is so very much different to animal “languages”, that both became two language systems during the evolution. Human language is primarily a very much single language, a language by itself, a language system on ist own.

Languag did not begin with sound, it began with soundless signs, with chemical signs.

Languages started with signs (cp. semiotic), the transition of semiotic signs to the first lingusitic signs was the beginning of the language in that sense we can use the word »language« very generally. The sound started later. Sound is not necessary for language, but an advantage, as all human languages indicate. Primitive animals do not need any sound for their language, they use a very primitive language, a chemical language.

If we want to talk about language seriously, we have to define the word “language” in order to prevent misunderstandings and unnecessary disputes. Language in general is very much more than human language, but human language is the greatest one. All the so-called “progress” of human beings is based on the language of human beings. It's just the human language which led to the difference between the ancestors of the human beings and the human beings. That was the beginning of human language, the larynge sank which caused a very complex phonetic sound, the brain grew in an exponential degree. So one can say that the phonetical sound was important for human beings (=> their language development) and for their very young children (=> their language acquisition) and also has been being important for very young children (=> their language acquisition). But phonetical sound was not important for the general language, because in the beginning of general language there were only chemical signs - at that time there was no possibility for any development of sound.

In any case:

One has to have electric transmitter, for example: nerves.

Without logic consciousness makes no sense because there must be a construction of a logical relationship for the consciousness, even also when it is merely an imagination. Without logic language makes also no sense. But what about logic? Does logic make sense without consciousness? No. Does logic make sense without language? Probably yes. A very primitive bacterium somehow “knows” what to do in order to survive, but probably does not need a language (note: language does not necessarily always mean „human language“, but also “language for all beings”).

Another consideration:

Luxury.

If we consider the principle „luxury“, we come to other results: in that case namely the language came perhaps first because the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning behind it because of the luxury of grunts.

Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. „Das Menschheitsrätsel“, 1922) the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo - Wissen, September 1998, S. 43-47): “The human beings are descended from the throw” (translated by me) and “human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore because they are luxury beings” (translated by me), no beings of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but on the contrary: beings of alienation, of insulation (cp. isles and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions ... etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general then?

One of my fields of study has been linguistics (degree: Magister) and language acquisition and language development - both are not the same (!) - was the theme of my diploma thesis. Sound is one of the high leveled kinds of language, thus it was NOT the beginnig kind of language.

Chomsky is a Leibnizian, a Kantian, a Humboldtian. He says what G. Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716), Imanuel Kant (1724-1804) and F. Wilhelm C. C. F. von Humboldt (1767-1835) have said a very long time before him.

Leibniz, Wolff, Kant - that's the line from Leibniz to Kant (with some more philosophical„stations“ and persons between them, for example Martin Knutzen) which leads to many other lines, amongst others to Wilhelm von Humboldt. Why I am mentioning Wilhelm von Humboldt? Because of the fact that you mentioned Chomsky. Chomsky's linguistic theories are based on the philosophy and especially on the ideas of Leibniz and especially of Wilhelm von Humboldt (Neu-Idelaismus - New-Idealism). Generally it may be right to say that he is at first a Kantian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Humboldtian, but in some aspects (see above: linguistics) it is reverse: at first a Humboldtian, then a Leibnizian, and then a Kantian. Let's say he is a rationalist and idealist.

According to linguists language is more than merely a “sensing scheme” or a tool of behaviour. And I think the linguists are right. The function you mentioned are existent anyway. But according to many (not all!) technicians, or materialists, or behaviourists, there is nothing existent beyond their technical, or material, or behavioural “world”. And I think that's wrong.

There is an interdependence between language and logic. But which of both came first? Chomsky and Pinker say: “language”.

Language, language development, language acquisition ....

A) Language (a) in general and (b) in particular.

B) Language development (a) in general and (b) in particular.

C) Language acquisition (a) in general and (b) in particular.

D) Human language (a) in general and (b) in particular.

E) Human language development within (a) evolution and (b) history (especially of the different cultures).

F) Human language acquisition relating to the (a) first language and (b) second (foreign) language(s).

G) Future of language (A-F).

Explanation:

Aa) What language in general and actually means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Ab) What language in particular means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Ba) What language development in general and actually means,also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Bb) What language development in particular means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Ca) What language acquisition in general and actually means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Cb) What language acquisition in particular means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Da) What human language in general and actually means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Db) What human language in particular means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Ea) What human language development within evolution means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Eb) What human language development within history means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Fa) What human language acquisition relating to the first language means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
Fb) What human language acquisition relating to the second (foreign) language(s) means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.
G) What the future of language means, also and especially according to philosophy / science.

So A), B), C) refer to the language in general and in particular, D), E), F) refer to human language (what we usually mean when we say “language”) as well in general and in particular as within evolution and history, and F) refers again to the language in general and in particular.

“S”, “NP”, “VP”, “PP”, “N”, “V”, “Prep”, “Det” and others are part of the synatx tree (diagramm, a.k.a. “phrase marker”) which belongs to Chomsky’s “Transformational Generative Grammar” (“TGG”).

S = Sentence NP = Noun Phrase VP = Verbal Phrase PP = Prepositional Phrase N = Noun V = Verb Prep = Preposition Det = Determiner

The resulting sentence could be: “The dog ate the bone”. Such a tree diagram is also called a phrase marker. They can be represented more conveniently in text form, (though the result is less easy to read); in this format the above sentence would be rendered as:
[S [NP [D The ] [N dog ] ] [VP [V ate ] [NP [D the ] [N bone ] ] ] ]

It is in fact impossible to show or even prove respectively disprove with physical means and methods what physics is; that is only possible with language and with philosophy. This is roughly that what Heidegger once said in an interview.

If you will “square the circle” someday, then those who have the power to determine or even dictate the relations between humans and their language, especially its semantics, will probably change the definition of “circle” and the definition of “square”.

But „someday never comes“, said John Fogerty (**).

Impossible?

What do you think about the future of the translators?

Language is the competence to form infinte linguistic terms with a finite inventory of linguistic forms. It has much to do with thoughts, mentality, conceptions, beliefs, imaginations, conventions, experiences, awareness, knowledge, information, communication ... and so on. It is such a complex system that one could say that machines could never reach this high competence that humans have. But is it not merely a question of time whether machines will be able to use language like humans do?

English is not a very good example when it comes to understand any of all kinds or the linguistic reference. There are languages with a grammar that shows clearly all kinds of reference between the linguistic forms because the linguistic deep structure is more noticeable / distinguishable in that languages than (for example) in the English language. The linguistic deep structure can be learned by machines as well as knowledge and experience.

Is translation a insurmountable problem for machines? Are machines not going to translate more effectively than humans?

Geramn and English resemble each other, because both are Germanic languages. Especially the everyday language is very much similar. Low German and Dutch are even more similar to English than High German. I can also speak Low German and therefore also understand Dutch.

„Fischer's Fritze fischte frische Fische.“
Translation:
„Fisher's Fritze fished fresh fish.“

„Was du ererbt von deinen Vätern hast, erwirb es, um es zu besitzen.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, „Faust“ (I), S. 39.
Translation:
„What you have inherited from your fathers, acquire it in order to possess it.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, „Faust“ (I), p. 39.

Heraklit:

„Everything flows.“

„Ever-newer waters flow on those who step into the same rivers.“

„All entities move and nothing remains still.“

„Everything changes and nothing remains still ... and ... you cannot step twice into the same stream.“

„Lachen ist die beste Medizin.“
Translation:
„Laughing is the best medicine.“

„Wo viel Licht ist, ist auch viel Schatten.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, „Götz von Berlichingen“, 1773.
Translation:
„Where much light is, there is also much shadow.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, „Götz von Berlichingen“, 1773.

„Das ist nicht das Gelbe vom Ei.“
Translation:
„That is not the yellow of the egg.“ The meaning is: „It's not exactly brilliant.“

„Lieber ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende.“
Translation:
„Rather an end with scare than a scare without end.“

„Nur wer gegen den Strom schwimmt, kommt an die Quelle.“
Translation:
„Only who swims against the flow, comes to the source.

Language is the competence to form infinte linguistic terms with a finite inventory of linguistic forms. It has much to do with thoughts, mentality, conceptions, beliefs, imaginations, conventions, experiences, awareness, knowledge, information, communication ... and so on. It is such a complex system that one could say that machines could never reach this high competence that humans have. But it is merely a question of time whether machines will be able to use language like humans do. So when?

Provided that each (thus: one) human had his / her own, thus a so-called „individual“ language and / or a so-called „individual“ ontology, do you believe that some or even many humans would agree on their languages and / or ontologies?

They can be afraid of losing their „individual“ languages / ontologies, because they don't know whether the other „inidividual“ languages / ontologies are in agreement with their own, thus their „individual“ languages / ontologies. How can they be sure that their „individual“ languages / ontologies become one „inter-individual“ or „societal“ language / ontology (so to speak: as an „individual“ language / ontology of a society) without any loss?

The use of tools that do not belong to the own body are alrerady a prestage of luxury; the use of language, if it is close to the value of the human language, as well; games do all mammals have (maybe it is a pre-prestage of luxury). B.t.w.: Luxury can be measured by the degree of insulation. The more living beings are able to live on an own „island“ (meant as a metaphor!), the more they are luxury beings. Or, in other words, the more living beings are able to behave against the Darwinistic evolution, the more they are luxury beings. Insulations give those beings a relative (!) independence of adaptation to nature. The adaptation to nature has not vanished but has been added by dissociation of nature. And the only living being that has achieved this independence in a sufficient extent is the human being.

The question is how we value this relative (!) independence. This relative independence is caused by insulation or dissociation of nature with the main effect: luxury. And this insulation is (a) natuarlly caused by the relatively huge brain and (b) culturally caused by the huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language of human beings.

That's an interesting theme.

I know Chomsky's language theory very well, because I have studied linguistics as well. Philosophically, Chomsky is influenced by the German philosophers Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Wilhelm von Humboldt.

Do you know Daniel L. Everett?

The newest „alternative“ to Chomsky?

There is no native morality but a native system of values. Babies do not have morality; morality requires that the child can understand most of the language of those who have already morality. The language of those who have already morality leads to the understanding of morality, to a consciousness of morality, ethics, philosophy of law, ... and so on. It is a question of a language-dependent education. A baby understands baby talk and merely a very, very little of the language of those who have already morality; so a baby is not able to understand enough of the language with morality, thus a baby is not able to understand morality.

A baby has values, is able to value; but a baby has no morality, is not able to judge morally.

Please, do not confuse morality with values, norms, rules, laws.

According to some language philosophers and some linguists language determines the thinking and the actions.

In the Land of Lies war is „peace“, ideality is „reality“, dreams are „non-dreams“, deseases are „cures“, ..., and so on.

Everyone should know the language of the author he is concerned with.

The differences between two Germanic languages are not as large as the differences between i.e one Germanic language and one Romanic language. Very huge are the differences between one Indogermanic language and i.e. one Afroasiatic language.

To know i.e. the language of the Koran is very useful in order to understand the Muslims and their religion, their „spiritual exercise“ (Peter Sloterdijk).

To study Kant does not necessarily mean to invest „thousands of hours“, but you need more time for studying Kant, if you do not know the German language, than you need, if you know the German language. So it is a huge adavantage to know the German language when it coems to understand Kant, his country, his culture, and - last but not least - his philosophy. This does not only concern the time you need or other special aspects but also general aspects.

If a child has to go to a foreign country, then it will soon be adapted to this country - mainly because of the learned language.

That is not debatable at all, my friend.

Learning a language (the first one, the second one, ... and so on) has nearly always consequences, and this consequences are always positve consequences.

„Ignorance und arrogance dance the same dance.“ - Paul Mommertz.

Is the difference between sex and gender already completely hidden behind the English language, namely behind the word „gender“?

„Gender“ is a word of rhetoric, of political strategy, of control.

I mean that we need merely one word for it. What counts the most in this case are the biological facts, because biology is the begin and end of life. If a male wants to be a female, then he can go to a surgeon who changes his male sexual organs into female sexual organs; if a female wants to be a male, then she can go to a surgeon who changes her sexual organs into male sexual organs . If a male wants to behave like a female, then he can do it and is called a „gay“; if a female wants to behave like a male, then she can do it and is called a „lesbian“. So there is no problem at all.

Or are you of the opinion that we should worship them?

Which of the fwo words was the first one in the English language: „sex“ or „gender“?

One word is used in a biological (especially: physiological) sense, the other word is used in a psychological/sociological (especially: political) nonsense.

Politicians and media folks create a problem in order to manage this problem, thus to control the people according to the slogan „divide and rule“ („divide and conquer“).

Obfuscating differences is also a huge problem, but in the case we are talking aboout the „problems“ are invented, produced, created in order to manage them, and „to manage them“ means „to control people“.

At first it is said that there are many problems because of diffenrences, then it is said there should be no difference and therefore i.e. „gender mainstreaming“ must be established.

The differnce between „sex“ and „gender“ is not comparable with differences like „left“ and „right“, „up“ and „down“, and other opposite relationships, because there is no opposite relationship, and there is no difference but the difference between biology/physiology and politcs/media.

The meaning has been another one than today. All Englsih speakers have used the word „gender“ in a different sense than it should be used according to the current politicians and media folks. Since politicians and media folks dictate the „gender mainstreaming“ the English speakers have to - and most of them do (!) - use the word „gender“ in a different sense than before.

So it's not me who wants to steal your word „gender“, but it's the rulership that has already stolen it, at least it original meaning.The control is the main problem.

The rulers need the lie in order to rule, and those who are ruled need the lie in order to not tbe pushed over the edge. The truth is that humans need the lie and that humans also need the truth in order to overcome the lie, but the question is whether and, if yes, when they will fully overcome the lie.

„Da steh ich nun, ich armer Tor! // Und bin so klug als wie zuvor“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, „Faust“, 1790 / 1808, S. 27.
Free translation:
„And here, poor fool, I stand once more, // No wiser than I was before.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, „Faust“, 1790 / 1808, p. 27.

„Easter“ (German: „Ostern“) comes from „morning“ (German: „Morgen“), especially from „dawn“ (German: „Dämmerung«“ in the sense of „Morgen-Dämmerung“, „Morgenröte“), from Ostara, the Germanic goddess of spring. The Old-Germanic word „Austro“ > „Ausro“ („Morgenröte“) is the common root for the English word „Easter“ and the German word „Ostern“ and means in all probability a spring feast / spring festival.

Wikipedia wrote:

„Easter ....

Etymology ....

The modern English term Easter, cognate with modern German Ostern, developed from an Old English word that usually appears in the form Eastrun, -on, or -an; but also as Eastru, -o; and Eastre or Eostre. The most widely accepted theory of the origin of the term is that it is derived from the name of a goddess mentioned by the 7th to 8th-century English monk Bede, who wrote that Eosturmonaþ (Old English 'Month of Eostre', translated in Bede's time as »Paschal month») was an English month, corresponding to April, which he says »was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month«.“ **

Wikipedia wrote:

„English Easter, German Ostern, and related

Main article: Eostre

Old English Eostre continues into modern English as Easter and derives from Proto-Germanic *austron meaning 'dawn', itself a descendent of the Proto-Indo-European root *aus-, meaning 'to shine' (modern English east also derives from this root).

Writing in the 8th century, the Anglo-Saxon monk Bede describes Eostre as the name of an Old English goddess: »Eosturmonath has a name which is now translated »Paschal month«, and which was once called after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance.«

Since the 19th century, numerous linguists have observed that the name is linguistically cognate with the names of dawn goddesses attested among Indo-European language-speaking peoples. By way of historical linguistics, these cognates lead to the reconstruction of a Proto-Indo-European dawn goddess; the Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture (1997) details that »a Proto-Indo-European goddess of the dawn is supported both by the evidence of cognate names and the similarity of mythic representation of the dawn goddess among various [Indo-European] groups« and that »all of this evidence permits us to posit a [Proto-Indo-European] *haéusos 'goddess of dawn' who was characterized as a ›reluctant‹ bringer of light for which she is punished. In three of the [Indo-European] stocks, Baltic, Greek and Indo-Iranian, the existence of a [Proto-Indo-European] 'goddess of the dawn' is given additional linguistic support in that she is designated the 'daughter of heaven'«.

The first to propose this theory was Jacob Grimm, who in his Deutsche Mythologie, first published in 1835, linked Bede’s Eostre with the Old High German for Easter, ôstarâ, and wrote: »This Ostarâ, like the Anglo-Saxon Eástre, must in the heathen religion have denoted a higher being«. He linked the word with Latin auster (meaning »south«) and with Austri, the male spirit of light mentioned in the Edda, who if thought of as female would be called Austra. Grimm concluded: »Ostara, Eástre seems to have been the divinity of the radiant dawn, of upspringing light.«

John Layard, quoting Billson, cites several authorities both for and against the existence of the postulated goddess and himself concludes in favour. The contributor Lincke to the Handwörterbuch des Deutschen Aberglaubens also cites scholars on both sides, but himself draws a negative conclusion. One German scholar describes Ostara as a »pseudo-goddess», the result of a misunderstanding.

As of 2014, the Oxford English Dictionary has described alternatives to this etymology as »less likely», adding that »it seems unlikely that Bede would invent a fictitious pagan festival in order to account for a Christian one«. Of course, given how common false patronymics and false etymologies were in classical and medieval histories, it is possible that Bede was sincerely repeating an etymology he heard elsewhere without having to implicate Bede in intentionally inventing a fictitious pagan festival.

The name for Easter in Old English, including West Saxon, is usually not the singular feminine noun Eastre, but instead the plural noun Eastrun, -on, also -an. The neuter plural noun Eastru, -o is also found.

In 1959, Johann Knobloch proposed a different etymology. Writing of »the relationship between dawn and springtime, between night - or early morning - and daybreak in the Christian Eastern rituals of the East and the West», he proposed that the Old High German name for the feast, Ost(a)run, as a Gallo-Frankish coinage, drawn from Latin albae in the designation of Easter Week as hebdomada in albis and in the phrase albae (paschales). The Germanic word is connected with an Indoeuropean word for the dawn (usás-, Avestan ušab-, Greek hwV, Latin aurora, Lithuanian aušrà, Latvian àustra, Old Church Slavonic za ustra), and Knobloch links this derivation with the word albae in the phrases in Church Latin, with which are associated the French and Italian words for the dawn, and connected it with the dawn service of the Easter Vigil in which those to be baptized faced east when pronouncing their profession of faith. Jürgen Udolph, himself a proponent of a different view, says that, although the theory that the words »Easter« and »Ostern« come from the name of a Germanic goddess reconstructed by Jacob Grimm as Ostara is the most widespread at a popular level, Knobloch's proposal enjoys most support.

A still more recent theory connects the English and German words not with the dawn but with a word associated with baptism. Jürgen Udolph published in 1999 his Ostern: Geschichte eines Wortes, in which he argued for an origin from the North Germanic verb ausa, »to pour». A pre-Christian rite of »baptism« and name-giving was referred to as vatni ausa, »to pour water over». Since baptism was the central event in the Easter celebration in the first centuries of Christianity, it was argued that this background explains the name given to the feast.“

It is a Germanic heathen tradition. Later (!) the Christians tried to mix the Germanic tradition with the NEW (Christian) „tradition“ - partly successfully, partly not successfully.

The contacts between e.g. the Ancient Egyptians, the Ancient Persians, and the Ancient Greeks on the one side and the Ancient Germans on the other side are not as important as the contacts between the Ancient Romans and the Ancient Germans, if you want to know whether „Easter“ („Ostern“ > „Ostara“) has anything to do with the Christianisation in Central-, West-, Northwest-, and North-Europe where the Germanic languages / dialects have survived. Many Ancient Germans lived also in Ancient Greece and in the Balkans, but their dialects (mainly Gothic) died out. I was mainly referring to history and to linguistics, especially to the language history of those Germanic languages / dialects which have survived until today.

The contacts between e.g. the Ancient Egyptians, the Ancient Persians, and the Ancient Greeks on the one side and the Ancient Germans on the other side had also existed for a very long time.

And by the way:

Almost everywhere where the early agriculture already existed existed also something like godheads (deities) of the four seasons (winter, spring, summer, autumn), similar to our example here: the goddess of spring named Ostara (the root for e.g. Ostern / Easter). The words „Ostern“ and „Easter“ are Germanic words and their linguistic root is the Germnaic goddess of spring: Ostara.

The people of agriculture were /are very much connected with the four seasons. The people of the cities (citizens, urbanites, the townsfolk) destroyed / destroy this tradition.

The entire concept behind Easter is „A New Beginning“, yes, thus spring or - in our example - the goddes of spring Ostara (later: Ostern, Easter) stands fo this new beginning. That is the sense of it. Like I said: All people of agriculture had to be and were very much interested in this new beginning, e.g. the birth of life after being below ground level and/or under snow (thus: after winter), the beginning of the sowing for the next harvest (in summer and autumn) .... Thus this new beginning was very, very, very relevant to the early agriculture people. The urban people destroyed this relevance more and more.

The Christian Easter which is not the original Easter; it refers to the historical fact that the Christians tried to Christianise the Ancient Germans by a mix of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and Ostara, the goddess of spring, If they had no tried this mix, then they would have been unsuccessful. The original Easter is a heathen Easter referring to spring, a new beginning, birth of life, seed / sowing.

The birth of Jesus Christ (in English it is called „Christmas“) has to do with the beginning of winter (24. December in those days), the winter solstice which was also a very meaningful date for the Ancient Germans. The Christians tried to Christianise them by a mix of the birth of Jesus Christ and the winter solstice. If they had not tried this mix, then they would have been unsuccessful.

The original Easter is Germanic or even Indo-Germanic (Indo-European), because „Ostara“, „Ostern“, „Easter“ are Germanic words with an Indo-Germanic root and tradition. Other humans had similar traditions, for example the Ancient Egyptians, the Ancient Persians (they are also Indo-Germanic), the Ancient Greeks (they are also Indo-Germanic), and many other people, but the contacts and influences are no proof for the thesis that the one tradition caused the other. So the most certain source we have is the linguistic source, thus the language history.

The tradition of the (Indo-)Germanic spring feast / festival is at the minimum 4000 years old, probably older, and the tradition of the Egyptian spring feast / festival is older, but that does not necessarily mean that the Egyptian spring tradition influenced the (Indo-)Germanic spring tradition. If humans have agriculture, then it is very much probable that they also have developed a tradition of the four seasons with e.g. feasts / festivals and godheads of this four seasons, especially of the winter solstice (beginning of winter) and the spring equinox (beginning of spring). That is factually imperative.

Another examples are huts, houses, and even something like pyramids. If there have been humans for a long time, then it is probable that they have built e.g. huts, houses, or even something like pyramids, because huts, houses, or even something like pyramids are very useful and something humans are very much interested in.

„»Curious Traveler:

This must be masquerade!
How odd!
My very eyes believe I?
Oberon, the bearded God
Here, to night perceive I!

Supernaturalist

I am overjoyed at being here,
And even among the rude ones,
For if bad spirits are 'this clear
There also must be good ones.

Oechestra

grayling mist and sleepy cloud
Sun and Moon have banished
Foliage rustles, reeds pipe loud
All the show has vanished.«“ **

Here follows the original text:

„Neugieriger Reisender:

Ist das nicht Maskeradenspott?
Soll ich den Augen trauen,
Oberon, den schönen Gott,
Auch heute hier zu schauen?

....

Supernaturalist:

Mit viel Vergnügen bin ich da
Und freue mich mit diesen;
Denn von den Teufeln kann ich ja
Auf gute Geister schließen.

....

Orchester:

Wolkenzug und Nebelflor
Erhellen sich von oben,
Luft im Laub und Wind im Rohr -
Und alles ist zerstoben.“

- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, „Faust“ (II), S. 190-194.

Do you like it?

It is from the „Walpurgisnachttraum“ („Dream of the Walpurgis Night“).

Dream of the Walpurgis Night - would that be something for you(r dream)?

Man suche nur nichts hinter den Phänomenen; sie selbst sind die Lehre.“
Free translation:
„Search nothing beyond the phenomena, they themselves are the theory.“

There are six prefixes which mean less than nano (billionth), namely: pico (trillionth), femto (quadrillionth), atto (quintillionth), zepto (sextillionth), yocto (septillionth). For example: a proton has a diameter of about 1.6 to 1.7 femtometres.

Maybe Galilei exaggerated when he said that mathematics is the language of the nature. Anyway. We - the humans - have no other choice than to use our language in order to explain the observed nature (universe), because this explanation can only be done by the use of the language we have (and we have no other), scientifically spoken: by the use of linguistics and mathematics - and the intersection of both is logic.

Your way of „linguistics > objects > consciousness“ (**) must be considered as one way containing two ways:

Both ways (1,1 and 1,2) of the one way (1) are necessary - for example: for language development and language acquisition, and also for consciousness development and consciousness acquisition.

Ancient Indian history and languages, especially Sanskrit as the language of the Vedas, should be known by Europeans too, but they are not much known by Europeans - unfortunately. Since 2000 years Europe has been estranging by foreign religions, especially by Christianity that emerged in one of the deserts of the Arabic peninsular. The Europeans could learn much from those religions that are more akin to the European ancient religions.This is meant culturally.

If you want to put the two words „atheist“ and „newborn“ together - in a logical sense (!) -, then you have to define both words and not merely one (like you [**] do). If you want to define what a „newborn“ really „is“ - and if you are capable of doing that (!) -, then you will soon note that a „newborn“ can never be a theist, can never be an atheist, can never be an antitheist. It is already known, so there are no linguistic „revolutionaries“ necessary. We know this by definition, by dictionaries, by lexcica, by logic, by science, by reason, by common sense, by good sense, by good judgement, by experiences, by perception of newborns, and by much more.

Tweaking the definitions:

An example of a definition is the word „theism“. In order to be a theist one has to be capable of (A) believing, (Aa) believing in a god or more gods (this makes you a believer in god or gods), and (B) processing this in an intellectual / professional way (this makes you a theist). If you are a theist, then you can become an antitheist, and an atheist, if you fulfill some further preconditions. This was - b.t.w. - what I meant when I said Mutcer was „implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause“ (**|**). The theological cause is always the belief, and the succession of this theological development is always: => (1) belief => (2) godbelief => (3) theological knowledge, for eaxmple as => (3a) theism => (3b) antitheism => (3c) syntheism (synthesis of theism and antitheism) or (3d) atheism.

So it is not possible for one to be a godbeliever, if this one is not capable of believing. And it is also not possible for one to have theological knowledge, if this one is not capable of a god(s)belief. Furthermore it is not possible for one to be a theist, if this one is not capable of the required theological knowledge. In addition it is also not possible for one to be an anthitheist, if this one has not been a theist before. And it is also not possible for one to be an atheist, if this one has not been an antitheist and a theist before. If you want to deny „something“, you have to know this „something“. If you want to form a synthesis out of theism and antitheism, you have to know what „theism“ and „antitheism“ mean and be capable of forming a synthesis out of theism and antitheism. But if you want to be released from theism, antitheism, and syntheism, know what they mean, and are sure you can ignore them, then (and only then) you can honestly call yourself an „atheist“. So in reality there are merely few or even no atheists.

Do you think that language is based on an instinct?

A) No.
B) Yes.
C) I do not know.

If you voted „B“: What do you think about that kind of instinct?

B1) It is an interactional instinct.
B2) It is a mere language instinct.
B3) It is an interactional and a language instinct.
B4) It is neither an interactional nor a language instinct.

A prenatal human interacts with the mother's womb, a postnatal baby interacts with the mother, other familiar persons, and surrounding things; but a non-baby child interacts and speaks with many humans and many things, thus already uses a real language (e.g.: English).

Without speech (language) human beings would not have come into the world: „The »birth« of the human luxury beings was the use of fire which was associated with the use of language.“ **

Why do humans have their language?

1) Language is a very much elaborated form of communication (information system) - there is an interdependence between language and communication (information system).
2) Language serves and supports thinking - there is an interdependence between language and thinking.
1 + 2) Language is a cultural tool - there is an interdependence between language and culture.

Without language humans would almost exclusively be like animals: (1) they would not speak but merely communicate like animals; (2) they could not have philosophy and other elaborated systems of thinking; (1 + 2) they would not have their own cultural tool, the typical human tool for culture.

For example:

If you are capable of using fire, then you are powerful and can defend yourself against all animals, sit at your bonfire and talk with other hunters about the hunt, about the past and the future, thus you have more leisure, more luxury; and this gives you and your culture a push in all directions, especially in spritual / intellectual directions, and then a feedback from all those directions.

Language has an innate and a non-innate feature. The capability of language learning is an innate feature, but if the environment of the said infant is without language, then this infant will not learn any language, and if an adult has never had any language experiences, then the language learning is almost impossible for this adult. So there is a critical point of time as a border for the capability of language learning. The capability of language learning gets lost (the older a human becomes the more the capability of language learning gets lost), generally and especially, if there is no language environment, no possibility of language exercises.

The workload and the speed of a little child's language learning are not to top after the age of that little child who learns the language for the first time.

Instead of „Er ist nicht zu Hause (zuhause)“ you can also say „Er ist nicht daheim“ <=> „He is not at home“.
Instead of „Ich gehe nach Hause“ you can also say „Ich gehe heim“ <=> „I am going home“ or „I go home“.

The English (and b.t.w.: also the Low German) preposition „to“ is the right translated form of the High German preposition „zu“ in the term „will to power“ or „will to might“ <=> „Wille zur Macht“. But it is also true that the English (and b.t.w.: also the Low German) preposition „to“ requires a following verb, if the foregoing word is a noun, and this is mostly also required by the High German preposition „zu“.

The German preposition „zu“ does not always but mostly also require a following verb, if the foregoing word is a noun. „Wille zur Macht“ or „Liebe zum Detail“ are examples of the absolutely accepted exceptions of a rule. So the preposition „zu“ in the term „Wille zur Macht“ is the right preposition, and therefore the term „Wille zur Macht“ is correctly translated by „will to power (might)“.

Will (noun and foregoing word of the preposition »to«) to (preposition) power (noun).

The English rule and the German rule are the same. The German rule allowed the said exception of that rule much earlier than the English language - that is the only difference.

Behind the word „zur“ are two compund words: „zu“ + „der“.

The German „zu“ and the English „to“ have the same root. In Low German „to“ is still used instead of „zu“ which is High German. So „to“ is not only used in English but also in Low German.

So the translation of the German „Wille zur Macht“ into the English „will to power“ or „will to might“ is correct.

The source language is German, and the German philologist Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche meant two nouns and a preposition between them: „Wille zur Macht“ - not „Wille Macht zu haben“ („zu haben“ <=> „to have“) - both are possible in German (and b.t.w.: in English too), one with a following noun and one with a following verb; and Nietzsche decided to write „Wille zur Macht“, because he had the will to do that, and it was no problem, because it does not violate the German language.

The rules and the exceptions are the same in German and English. The term „will to power“ is accepted in English.

It matters which native speaker Nietzsche was, and Nietzsche was German, thus a German native speaker, and wrote in German as his native language. So German is the source language. The translation has to start with the source language. ALWAYS!!!!

And b.t.w.: Nietzsche was a philologist!

Is the „common-sense-is-dangerous“-statement more dangerous than the common sense?

The precise translation:
- „Es“ <=> „id“
- „Ich“ <=> „ego“
- „Über-Ich“ <=> „superego“.

„»Warum willst du dich von uns Allen
Und unsrer Meinung entfernen?«
- Ich schreibe nicht euch zu gefallen,
Ihr sollt was lernen.“
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.

Try this free translation:

Why do you want to go away from all of us and our opinion? I do not write in oder to please you, you shall learn something.

Language is more than communication. The science of language is called „linguistics“. The following Illustration shows linguistics as the system of language within the „universe of the eight greatest systems“(physics, chemistry, economy, semiotics, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics):

2 years old children are capable of understanding whole sentences although they can merely produce 2 or 3 words in one sentence by themselves.
Some adults are not capable of understanding whole sentences although they can produce them by themselves.

The English word „marry“ can be translated with many German words and in three different grammatical forms (non-reflexive/active, reflexive/passive, reflexive/active forms). The following table shows the different active forms:

When you say that a priest married your wife and you (**), then „marry“ means in German „trauen“, also „vermählen“, „ehelichen“, „verehelichen“, „verheiraten“ - but never„heiraten“; when you say that a priest married your wife (**), then „marry“ means in German „heiraten“, also „vermählen“, „ehelichen“, „verehelichen“, „verheiraten“ - but never „trauen“. So there is a difference between the active act of a priest or/and a registrar on the one hand („trauen“ etc. but not „heiraten“) and the act of the two who became a couple on the other hand („heiraten“ etc. but not „trauen“).

This was what I thought when I read your sentence: The priest who married my wife and I told us that he founded an interfaith group in Tokyo, merging Catholicism and Buddhism.“ **

And after it I was joking a bit. So please excuse me a bit.

Without language no philosophy and science.

„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.

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 1960’s 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 (1970’s and 1980’s).

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“.

Try to think in a similar way as you speak, because you always speak in a similar way as you think.

Short explanation: The cooperation of thinking and speaking puts a spiral in motion that inevitably leads to philosophy.

So a three years old child is already capable of a philosophising (regardless how primitive is is).

Thinking without any linguistic reference is onesided.

Just think about it:

The core is what we can call „information“ - in order to be „in form“ (to survive) . This leads at last, namely when it comes to higher culture, to the question: „How can I be sure that the information is true?“ All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives. And all knowledge is information, but not all information is knowledge. Belief is also based on information, but not all information leads to belief. Information is the superordination of belief and knowledge.

Belief and knowledge are exactly the same, but they have the same evolutionary root.
Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help, because knowledge did not accure without help. If you believe that knowledge is absolutely independent, then you are more a believer than those who say the opposite.

All understanding has to do with information, but not all information has to do with understanding. A stone that gives information to a geologist does not need to understand the information that it gives.

Eliminating belief does not epistemologically help. Knowledge did not occur out of the nothingness and also not without help. If you believe that knowledge is absolutely independent, then you are more a believer than those who say that knowledge is not absolutely independent.

Information is in the outer circle - as the superset of belief and knowledge -, and it is also an intersection of belief and knowledge. Both belief and knowledge have their origin in information (their intersection) and lead to information (their superset). The intersection and the outer circle had been one circle (without belief and knowledge) before belief and knowledge were „born“. A stone (for example) does not have belief or knowledge but does nevertheless give information.

Information is the whole process, whereas understanding is merely a part of it. You do not need to know or to understand the informations you give. For example: I have got information about you, but you do not know this information. Another example: trees do not know and not understand the information they give and get. Many many other examples can be given. Most living beings are without understanding but with information. And these most living beings do what is true or false, although or, better, because they are not capable of understanding, knowing, thinking - but capable of giving and getting information. They do not need to know and to understand what true or false is - they just do it (and mostly with more success than those „higher“ living beings with knowing and understanding).

Plants, for example, seem to understand what the words „true“ and „false“ mean, but, of course, they do not, because they have no nervous system. They do not need to understand what „true“ and „false“ mean. But they act and react as if they understood the meaning of „true“ and „false“. And by the way: their actions and reactions are averagely more successful than those of the living beings with a nervous system.

First of all, one has to understand what others say and then, secondly, what they mean. If you read my words I am just writing, then you have to be capable of knowing the letters, the syllables, the words, the sentences, the whole text and, of course, the grammatical structure and the relations of all that, and after it you can begin with your interpretation of what the people mean, because the people and their world are part of the context but not the text itself.

Each human him-/herself and humans themselves are what we call „media“. Actually they do not need other media (books, newspaper, radio, tv, internet and so on) than themselves.

Imagine you inhabit an epistemological house with two floors. The first floor as the lower floor is your belief and the second floor as the upper floor your knowledge. If you take away your first floor, you are not able anymore to inhabit your house; but if you take away your second floor, you can remain in your house and just inhabit the first floor.

Belief and knowledge have the same roots, but they are not equal, because belief is more relevant than knowledge when it comes to epistomological certainty. Knowledge can be easier destroyed than belief. If you are uncertain, then remember your epistemological beliefs, because your beliefs make you more certain again than knowledge. The conclusion that knowledge can give you more epistemological certainty than belief is a fallacy. If you want to maintain your knowledge, then support it with your belief - like the lower floor supports the upper floor. This does not men that knowledge is not relevant. No! Knowledge is jeweled, but it is more fragile than belief. That is the reason why knowledge needs more to be maintained or nursed than belief. But this maintaining or nursing is not possible without belief. That is the reason why belief is more relevant than knowledge. Your knowledge is of no benefit to you without belief. It is worthless without belief.

If someone wants to make out of knowledge belief or/and out of belief knowledge, then the most effective way is to change the semantics of both words, namely by exchanging both meanings. That is what the rulers and their functionaries have been doing for so long by their so called „political correctness“, which is just not more than rhetoric, propaganda, semantical supremacy. They are destroying knowledge, because they try to replace it by belief, which they call „knowledge“.

Do you know the Lord and Mephistopheles?

„Der Herr: Kennst du den Faust?
Mephistopheles: Den Doktor?
Der Herr: Meinen Knecht!
Mephistopheles: Fürwahr! er dient Euch auf besondre Weise.
Nicht irdisch ist des Toren Trank noch Speise.
....“ **

„The Lord: Do you know Faust?
Mephistopheles: The doctor?
The Lord: My servant.
Mephistopheles: Ah, he serves you well, indeed!
He scorns earth's fare and drinks celestial mead.
....“

Another one:

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote:

„Der Herr: ....
Es irrt der Mensch, so lang er strebt.“ **

„The Lord: ....
Man errs, till he has ceased to strive.“

Source: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust, Prolog im Himmel (Prologue in Heaven).

According to logic and linguistics, there must also be the prefix „post“ (cf. for example „posthuman“), if there is the prefix „pre“ (cf. for example „prehuman“), and there must also be the prefix „super-“ (cf. for example „superordination“), if there is the prefix „sub-“ (cf. for example „subordination). It is a question of word meaning or concept definition. For example: the term „a posteriori“ is the semantic, especially temporal, and thus also conceptual opposite of the term „a priori“, and the term „superconscious“ is the semantic and thus also conceptual opposite of the term „subconscious“.

And even if science does not prove or disprove this empirically, then there nevertheless remains the theoretical possibility of it.

So the „superconsciousness“ as the opposite of the „subconsciousness“ is what is beyond the „consciousness“, whereas the „consciousness“ itself is beyond the „subconsciousness“ which is beyond the „unconsciousness“. If we believe in an area between the „consciousness“ and the „unconsciousness“, then we can also believe that the „consciousness“ is an area between the „subconsciousness“ and the „superconsciousness“. I would even say that the word „consciousness“ stems from a higher quality than it is currently meant. This meaning has got lost, and my concept of „superconsciousness“ is an attempt of memory, of bringing it back into use.

If we bring the prefix „post“ and the noun „humans“ together, then these compound words form the word „posthumans“ with the meaning „temporally after the humans living X“, whereby „X“ can be either (a) humans or (b) other living beings, because this depends on the more or less exact definition of „posthumans“. Actually „posthumans“ should be humans as well, but they do not have to be humans. This may become clear by another example: A „postwar“ should but does not necessarily mean a „war“. So the prefix „post“ is a bit tricky (and by the way: the prefix „pre“ too). Nonhuman living beings can and some of them will probably survive a huge nuclear catastrophe. So according to the definition-in-the-wider-sense (see: b) they will be the posthumans, but according to the definition-in-the-narrower-sense (see: a) they will not be the posthumans, because nonhuman living beings are not humans.

Reality must match deductions based on language, yes. The linguistic relativity should not be underestimated but also not overestimated.

Language is the most important tool. But there are many preconditions necessary for the use of the human language, and one of them is the human brain, thus the human intelligence.

It is not good that, according to the English language, the word „science“ mainly refers to „natural science“, all other branches are not mainly regarded as scientific branches, but at least they are sometimes called „human sciences“ or „moral sciences“, otherwise: „arts“ or „humanities“.

Where is philosophy here? Should it be there?

I mean: Philosophy is somehow science too. All scientific theory is somehow philosophy.

Information is serving self-preservation. Without self-preservation or, more exactly, without any interest in self-preservation information would be useless.

Lies are told again and again. Most of the success of lies is based on repetition.

We will not get rid of the ghosts which we have called for. (Loosely based on Goethe.)

„Logic is merely the proper use of language (»dialectics«).“ (**) Yea!

The word „belief“ is originally not meant „religiously“ or even „theologically“.

Now, the trick is to not use belief as a dogma but merely as an epistemological „crutch“. If there will be more certainty, then you will not use it anymore and put it in your „cellar“.

It is at least no advantage or satisfaction to you, if you must always say „I know nothing“ or „I know that I know nothing“. Philosophy and science do not have 100%-answers. So it is better to live with an epistemological „crutch“ than with stupidity or/and lies.

The epistemological „crutch“ helps you to find a solution or not, to come a to yes/no- or true/false-decision. It does not dogmatize you, or, in other words, it depends on your personality and character whether it dogmatizes you or not: if it does, then you are not a good philosopher or scientist; if it does not, then you are a good philosopher or scientist. Science would never have been successful without help like what we call „empirism“ („observation“, „experiment“, „extrapolation“, and so on and so forth), „deduction“, „induction“, and other „crutches“.

If this all turns out as a dogma, then it is not the „crutch“ that is to be blame but those humans who are corrupt or too dumb.

Science and philosophy have always used such „crutches“. Otherwise they would never have developed (historically evolved).

....

Belief is needed.

A word can be linguistically interpreted as an unit of a logical sememe - therefore I sometimes call a word „logeme“ („log[ic]“ + „[sem]eme“).

Whereas the logical analog of a linguistical „sentence“ is a „thought“.

The smallest carrier of meaning is a morpheme and the largest a text.

A society with an economy that is based upon information (including knowledge and belief) is much more environment-sparing than a society with a money economy that is based upon energetic resources. Information (but not energy and resources) can be reproduced arbitrarily. So information is the better money basis. I would suggest a money system of two monetary units: „I“ („Information“) and „E“ („Energy“), so that, for example, 100 cents would consist of 98 I-cent and 2 E-cent, and both could not really be separated from each other.

The people of the media - the „mediots“ (from: die „Medioten“ - Udo Lindenberg) - should be punished for their sins.

It is not only linguistically but also genetically/biologically right to differentiate between „I“ and „we“.

The child in a womb, regardless whether this child is a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus, is an „I“, a living being, one living being. This child and the mother are two different organisms, two different living systems, two different living beings. If, for example, the blood of the mother comes in direct contact with the blood of the child in her womb, then there is a very high probability that the child or the mother or both will die because of that fact. How we know this? We know this because of medicine/biology/genetics.

If we want to talk about environmental influences, then we have to leave the „I“, because we have to know what the environment is and does and how it influences the „I“. Then we can also use all the other prepositions. And then we can also talk about ecology, economy, sociology, psychology ... and so on.

It is no linguistical accident that we have the prepoition „I“ and call it the „first person“. That there is something in our body that says „I“ is also no accident. So it would not be a mistake to philosophically talk about an „I“ too, and the history of philosophy has clearly shown that the „I“ is not only a matter of linguistics and biology/genetics/medicine but also of philosophy. It is just logical.

Nobody can deny this.

Heidegger’s „man“ does not exactly mean what the English „man“ means.

Each one is the other, and no one is her-/himself. Being-with-one-another manages averageness, inauthenticity.

But does the word „rationalization“ not also have a positive meaning? I know, the psychologization has changed the meaning of the word „rationalization“, but the word had a different meaning before that psychologization. I prefer the non-psychologized meaning of the word „rationalization“. Or is this not any longer possible in English? Am I now not „welcomed“ to the psycholgism club?

Political correctness, psychologism and sociologism, for example, are deceptive.

History has shown that all so-called „human rights“ have almost always been hidden rationales and hidden justifications for exploitation everything and everyone the exploiters want to exploit.

The more rhetoric laws amd rhetoric rights the humans invent the more human they are. This is meant in a negative and a positive way, but the negative one prevails the positive one the more the more laws or rights are invented. At least, this is the case in modernity. So, if we use your way of morality, we have merely two small „chances“ (it is questionable whether they are chances or not): (1) we stop inventing rhetoric laws and rhetoric rights, (2) we stop modernity.

The said laws and rights are full of rhetoric, elocution, thus: speaking technique (it is more or less the same as faking technique).

It is not true what certain physicists say: „the vacuum is nothing, and nothing is not nothing, so that something can be created out of nothing, the vacuum“. It is not true, because it is impossible - by definition.

All what physicists may get in that case is a linguistic change, thus a new meaning of the word „nothing“ which leads to a new meaning of physics and other science sectors, to a new belief, a new religion, a new theology, a new philosophy. That is what they want, because they want what their rulers want them to want. Physicists and other scientists depend on politico-economic rulers because of the research funds, thus: money.

So at last science will completely lose its meaning.

All Germanic and Romanic languages have articles - some have three (male, female, neutral), some have two (male, female), and one (English) has merely one.

Morality has to be learned. It is a matter of education. The DNA says nothing about morality but merely about the potential to learn. If a human learns morality in a wrong or an evil way, then it is because of a false learning. Not morality but learning morality is in the DNA.

Norms, morality, ethics are not based on DNA, but the learning of what norms, morality, ethics mean (note: they change) is based on DNA. Learning, which is mainly based on DNA, is not the same as norms, morality, ethics, which are not based on DNA but on culture, education, learning.

There is no gene for morality, for ethics, for philosophy. All what humans can do when it comes to good or evil is to learn what it means, and that is also the reason why it is absolutely useless to educate little children before they have reached the age of the acquisition of the adult language. Language (I mean the adult language - not the „baby talk“) is required for e.g. the learning what good or evil means.

If a human who has reached the child/adult border, thus an adolescent age of about 14 years or some years more (it depends on each case), and does not knwo what morality in the sense of a good-and-evil-system means, then this human will probably never leran what it means. That is the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a branch of linguistics semantics is included in linguistics. According to my model (see the graphics below) philosophy is on the „top“ (thus seemingly similar to your model), but this „top“ is no real top, because it can be turned upside down. And if it is turned upside down, the physics is on the „top“ which is no real top.

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

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

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

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

It seems that some people are talking as if nothing would be everything - so as if black would be white, right (correct) would be left (wrong, false), war would be peace, ... and so on.

Science has to do with two sides of its „coin“: theory (logic, language) and empirism (scientific practice, experience) - both connected with deduction and induction.

The media calls each of the trillionaires and billionaires a „philantrope“.

Linguistically said a predicate is what the subject does, either without or with a connection to an object. Concerning the interpretation of any object, a subject is relatively free. But this does not prove or disprove that the subject dominates the object or that there is an object at all.

The problem of the subject/object dualism is not solvable.

One should never trust the media.

Humans themselves are already media: So they know to lie successfully.

Nobody comes into life as a subjectivist or an objectivist. In order to become one of the both or no one of the both subjectivity and objectivity must be learned. This process begins in the womb.

What do the words „subject“ and „object“ mean originally? From here you have to begin with your research. The next thing is the development of the human object of your research. Then ask yourself: „How does a human being come into life and learn, especially learn the difference between subject and object?“ Look at the test with the mirror. As a very little child one learns to recognize oneself in a mirror.

We have to define the words „subject“ and „object“, because it is possible that our definitions differ from each other.

In order to know what a „subject“ is, one must at least have a self-concept; and in order to know what an „object“ is, one must be capable of istinguishing between the own self and the rest (which is outside of the own self).

Tactility already exists when the human embryo is 2 months old, taste already exists when the human fetus is 3 months old, smell already exists when the human fetus is 5 months old, hearing already exists when the human fetus is 6 months old, seeing already exists when the human fetus is 9 months old.

The sense of balance needs more time and starts when the human embryo is 2 months old.

But do you think that the embryo or the fetus is capable of distinguishing between the own self and the rest (which is outside of the own self)?

„Ich bin ein Teil von jener Kraft, // Die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft. // .... Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint! // Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht, // ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht; // Drum besser wärs, daß nichts entstünde. // So ist denn alles, was ihr Sünde, // Zerstörung, kurz das Böse nennt, // Mein eigentliches Element.
....
„Ich bin ein Teil des Teils, der anfangs alles war, // Ein Teil der Finsternis, die sich das Licht gebar, // Das stolze Licht, das nun der Mutter Nacht // Den alten Rang, den Raum ihr streitig macht. // Und doch gelingt's ihm nicht, da es, so viel es strebt, // Verhaftet an den Körpern klebt.“ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, S. 64-67. **
Translation:
„I am Part of that Power which would // The Evil ever do, and ever does the Good. // .... I am the Spirit that denies! // And rightly too; for all that doth begin // Should rightly to destruction run; // 'Twere better then that nothing were begun. // Thus everything that you call Sin, // Destruction - in a word, as Evil represent - // That is my own, real element.
....
But I'm part of the Part which at the first was all, // Part of the Darkness that gave birth to Light, // The haughty Light that now with Mother Night // Disputes her ancient rank and space withal, // And yet 'twill not succeed, since, // strive as strive it may, // Fettered to bodies will Light stay.“ - Johann Wolfgang (von) Goethe, Faust (I), 1790 / 1808, p. 64-67. **

You know what the words „Herkunft“ and „Ursprung“ mean? Both words refer to the origin/s. As far as I remember, Nietzsche said something about the opposite of „Herkunft“ and „Zukunft“, because „Herkunft“ does not only mean „origin“ but also „past“, whereas „Zukunft“ always means „future“.

There are different climates, different weathers, different cultures, different languages, different thoughts. So why should there not be differences in thinking systems, philosophies? There are such differences.

T h e   f u l l   v e r b   „ I S “   i s   N O T   a m b i g u o u s .

A = A is the principle of identity.

The „is“ itself can never be wrong, because ist stands for the principle of identity. What can be wrong is the use of the “is“.

Several people use the language in several ways, so some people even use the verb „is“ in a false way.

Normally, poor or incorrect judgement is and should be corrected by teaching the correct judgement. But the next question follows immediately: „What is the correct judgement?“. The only possibility we have is to keep on referring to logic, because all other possibilities can and often do lead to the misuse.

What happens to a logic built on misused identifiers as well as poor judgement? It would be a logic that is very much reduced for most of the people. „Less is more“, „black is white“, „male is female“, „left is right“, „right is wrong“, „war is peace“ ... and all the other uncountable examples of the misuse of words would boom (like in Orwell's „1984“, for example). It would be like it almost already is.

Let us compare the set „linguistics“ and its subsets with the set „sun“ and its subsets.

1)	Set:	Linguistics		2)	Set:	Sun
1,1)	Subset:	Logic		2,1)	Subset:	Hydrogen
1,1,1)	Subsubset:	Mathematics		2,2)	Subsubset:	Helium
1,1,2)	Subsubset:	Others		2,3)	Subsubset:	Others

Question: What happens if you take the hydrogen away from the sun?
Answer: The sun becomes bigger because of the helium burning.

If there were no mathematics, then logic would use linguistics instead of mathematics (like the logic of children, especially of little children, does).

Observe your little children when they try to calculate in a really mathematical way for the first time. You should find out that they use language and a bit later also their fingers in order to come closer and closer to the real mathematics.

„Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muß man schweigen.“ - Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1922.
Translation:
„Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.“ - Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1922.

Moralität ist Sittlichkeit.
Translation:
Morality is morality.

The translation is difficult, because both „Moralität“ and „Sittlichkeit“ are always translated by „morality“.

„Sittlichkeit“ means both the actions originating from a moral/ethical („sittlich“) „attitude“ („Gesinnung“) and that attitude itself which corresponds to the „law of the customs“ / „moral law“ („Sittengesetz“), the ethical principle / ethical norm / practical principle as a generally valid rule.

My thoughs are not English. So I have to translate each thinking element into the English language. In other words: I am aware of the fact that „Geist“ and „spirit“ are not the same. The words „Geist“ and „Ghost“ have the same root. They had the same meaning before this meaning split. So maybe it is not possible anymore to properly trannslate „Geist“ into English, which means that it is also not possible to properly trannslate e.g. „Geisteswissenschaft“ into English.

„MEPHISTOPHELES :  Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) :  Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
....
WAGNER :  So muß der Mensch mit seinen großen Gaben // Doch künftig höher’n, höher’n Ursprung haben.
....
HOMUNCULUS (in der Phiole zu Wagner) :  Nun, Väterchen! wie steht’s? es war kein Scherz // Komm, drücke mich recht zärtlich an dein Herz.
....
WAGNER (betrübt) :  Am Ende hängen wir doch ab // Von Kreaturen, die wir machten.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), S. 114, 115 und 122.
Translation:
„MEPHISTOPHELES :  What is happening? // WAGNER (quieter) :  A man is being made.
....
WAGNER :  So man with his great skills shall have // To have a higher, higher origin in the future.
....
HOMUNCULUS (in the phial to Wagner) :  Well, Daddy! how’s things? it was no joke // Come, press close to my heart tenderly.
....
WAGNER (saddened) :  In the end, we do depend // On creatures that we made.“ - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust (II), p. 114, 115 and 122.

Language is one of the really relevant differences between human beings and all other living beings.

„Was du nicht willst, das man dir tu, // das füg auch keinem andern zu.“
That means something like: „Do as you would be done by.“

„Handle so, daß du die Menschheit sowohl in deiner Person als in der Person eines jeden andern jederzeit zugleich als Zweck, niemals bloß als Mittel brauchst!“ - Immanuel Kant.
My translation: „Act so that you always treat humanity both in your own person and in everyone else’s person as an end, never as a mere means.“
„Handle stets so, als ob die Maxime deines Handelns durch deinen Willen jederzeit zur Grundlage einer allgemeinen Gesetzgebung dienen könnte.“ - Immanuel Kant.
My translation: „Act always as if the maxims of your action could, through your will, serve at any time as the basis of a general law.“

„Meaning“ is the central concept of semantics which is one of the most important subdiscipline of linguistics. The semantical research can be done in a synchronic and in a diachronic (etymological) way. So meaning has a history too. Animals do not reall know that a certain phenomenenon has a meaning; but they know the meaning of some phenomenons, because they have experienced them. So one has to have something like the human language in which one can analyse sound (phonemes) and the smalles forms with a meaning (morphemes), then words, sentences, texts.

Just observe little children when they learn the language of their parents or family. They learn that certain speech-forms, thus lingusitic forms, have certain meanings, either inward or outward. If these meanings are inward, then they are part of the language itself; and if they are outward, then they are part of both the language and the environment. So meanings can change (see also above: diachronic [etymological]), are in permanent contact with the environment of any language. The inward located meanings have a more subjective or „individual“ character, and the outward located meanings have a more objective character, and both are in permanent contact.

Everything that is relevant to the one who is learning a language can be used as an example. Thus: Everything. A tree for example becomes a semantical meaning as an inward meaning when the linguistic form „tree“ is internalized (learned).

By „inward meanings“ I mean here the forms that have already been internalized by the child, either incorrectly, then the child has to learn more, or correctly, then the child can use them for the next steps of learning. By „outward meanings“ I mean here the forms that are new for the child, thus have not already been internalized by the child, are just outwards in the environment of the child. So the linguistic forms and their meanings inside the body (brain) of the child become firmer and more and more (like an inventory of a company / corporation for example), whereas the linguistic forms and their meanings outside the body (brain) of the child (and still inside the bodies [brains] of the child’s parents for example) become less and less. At last, when the language is almost (almost!) acquired, the child (about 3 years old) could already go to school, if there was not the other language precondition that must be fulfilled: the language of writing / reading (which is a skill the child is not capable of before the age of 5 years).

So there is already meaning in the language before one learns this meaning. So we learn a language that has already been learned by others. But if you observe a young child who is learning the parental language, then you can ascertain how pre-linguistic meanings become linguistic meanings. Everything becomes more and more abstract and spiritual (later even philosophical and mathematical). That is a huge advantage.

Language and logic preceded the concept „herd morality“.

It is our - the human - language that also preceded e.g. the logical concept „herd morality“ and not the other way around. The concept „herd morality“ is based on an interpretation, on language, on thinking, on logic. Wether there was a „herd morality“ before it was invented logically by using language logically (philosophically) or not is a matter of the interpretation and changes during the time; but I have good reasons for saying that language preceded e.g. the logical concept „herd morality“, and I have given evidence for that. Try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what ethics is by using logic, and you will be successful; but try to teach a child of a certain developmental age what logic is by using ethics, and you will be unsuccessful.

The lie has almost always more power than the truth, and this is because of the interests of the most powerful people. So, unfortunately, the most people do not know the most parts of the true or real history during their lifetime, and after one or two (or even more) centuries, when the true or real history will be published, they will be dead.

The people of the European politics and media are talking about Trump as somebody who is an enemy of Europe or, at least, has nothing to do with Europe. Also, the people of the European politics and media are saying about the last occurrences in Charlottesville (Virginia) that the leftist are harmless and the rightists are guilty of the volence. In other words: Europe has become the new USA as the new USSR. I think, there is merely a slight difference between the Europe and the USA when it comes to politics and media.

Semantics is a subdiscipline of the disciplines (1) semiotics, (2) linguistics, (3) logic, (4) mathematics. It can only deal with meanings and definitions. Each linguistic lexem (word) that can be find in a encyclopedia, a dictionary, a lexicon can only be described by its meaning and defintion, perhaps supported by other language forms (see: (1), (2), (3), (4) and the chart below), but not by more.

So if you want to know what, for example, a „circle“ is, then you have to refer to (a) the meaning and definition of the word „circle“ and to (b) the history of its meaning and definition, which means that they can change over time. But the result of this change (caused e.g. by an experiment) is always either a new or a renewed kind of meaning and definition.

And mathematics is a subset of logic, logic is a subset of linguistics, linguistics is a subset of semiotics, and they all are language.

The smaller a subset is or the more properly, coherently, consistently the subsets and sets are connected, the more exact is the information.

In German it is said „Leben hat Sinn“ („life has sense“), not „Leben macht Sinn“ („life makes sense“).

Song of the Luddites (by Lord Byron, 1816):

„As the Liberty lads o’er the sea
Bought their freedom, and cheaply, with blood,
So we, boys, we
Will die fighting, or live free,
And down with all kings but King Ludd!
When the web that we weave is complete,
And the shuttle exchanged for the sword,
We will fling the winding-sheet
O'er the despot at our feet,
And dye it deep in the gore he has pour'd.
Though black as his heart its hue,
Since his veins are corrupted to mud,
Yet this is the dew
Which the tree shall renew
Of Liberty, planted by Ludd!“

Four steps:

1) Perception - based on the sense organs (subjective) and signs (objective). Pre-Knowledge (semiotic language).
2) Knowledge through linguistic skills - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1) and on linguistic language.
3) Knowledge through the pure logic of language - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2) and on pure logical language.
4) Knowledge through mathematical language - based on perception and semiotic language (=> 1), on linguistic language (=> 2), on pure logical language (=> 3) and on mathematical language.

Now an example: We want to know what a circle philosophically means.

If we know how and wherefore mathematicians use certain definitions, then this does not necessarily mean that they use it in order to get the truth. They are just searching for consistent statements (in their mathematical language).

The „higher“ Occidental mathematics has much more to do with functions than with numbers. Its geometry has mainly become a functional theory too. But what does that tell you about the circle when it comes to the first three steps I mentioned above? No mathematician denies the meaning or/and definition of a circle giving in a currently valid dictionary. We already had a similar discussion about „1 = 0.999...~?“ (**). 1 and 0.999...~ are never identical, but according to the Occidental mathematics functions have become more important than numbers, because functions do work (just: function) much better than pure numbers.

And what about the physicists? Do they say that sunrise and sunset do not exist according to your perception? Do they deny that the Sun is going up and down according to an observer? Do they insist that you have to always say that sunrise and sunset are caused by the Earth rotation? No.

In other words: Does the answer to the question whether a circle is just circular (without sides) or has sides just in order to calculate in a better, the Occidental way of mathematics not also depend on perspectives?

I mean: Would you say that sunrise and sunset do not exist, namely in the world of your perception? Certainly not.

So do we at last not have the same discussion here as almost always: subjectivity versus objectivity (**).

We should have more than one currency, and the first one should be a currency of knowledge, wisdom, information.

And we must take another direction and slow down .

If we do not get that first currency of knowledge, wisdom, information and do not take another direction and slow down, then we will get the huge catastrophe. It is possible to avoid this. But it requires responsible rulers instead of the current ones who are godwannabes, too greedy, too corrupt and going to bring the huge catastrophe to the humans.

Schools, universities and mass media are intended to damage the intelligence of people.

Two points are important here:

(1) Cooptation of schools, universities and mass media as institutions working for the globalists who want the monopoly and monarchy..
(2) If the economic and - in particular (!) - the demographic situation is like the one we have in our western countries, then the average intelligence decreases, and teachers, professors, journalists which do not go along with the mainstream have to damage the intelligence, otherwise the colleagues will punish them by mobbing and firing.

Someone asked me recently whether one needs education. The answer depends on whether one means (A) the education as such or (B) the school education which is basically a state education.

(A) If the education as such is meant, then: yes, one needs education.
(B) If the school education which is basically a state education is meant, then: yes (Ba) and no (Bb).

(Ba) Yes because of those who are genetically less intelligent and can use the school education as a chance to become more intelligent.
(Bb) No because of a situation like the described one (=> 2).

Look at the syntax. A sentence requires a subject, not necessarily an object.

Subjects have an advantage.

Epistemologically said, subjectivity and objectivity are oppositions. For example: the subject is the observing one, the object is the observed one. It is similar to the grammatic active/passive-opposition, thus not only to the grammatic subject/object constellation.

According to my understanding, scientists have to be objectivists; but when they become corrupt and greedy, so that they depend on their money givers, then they are no objectivists, but subjectivists; because they only say what their money givers want them to say. The methods are the other reason why scientists can and mostly do become subjectivists.

The words „subject“ and „object“ are linguistic (grammatic) and philosophic (epistemic) concepts.

The object/subject relationship is different from the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity and different from the relationship between a subjectivist and an objectivist.

Many scientists got fired because they had been objective.

Language is not only relevant for communication, but also for e.g. expression without any communication partner.

Also, communication can be misused.

We do not only talk in order to communicate, but also in order to e.g. get power ... and so on. So, communication can also be something like a lie, a fake, a mask, an excuse ... and so on and so forth.

Communication is not only used, but also misused, especially for power, control. And that is absolutely relevant for all living beings.

I am not saying that each kind of strategizing has to do with lying and faking. I am saying that lying and faking have to do with strategizing. Do you know anyone who uses a lie without a streategy behind it?

Language is related to how humans think, yes, but it is also related to how humans communicate in general and how they try to get power (control) and to keep their power (control), and it has its artificial side too. So the use of language is almost univeral.

The following text is the translation of Johann Heinrich Voß’ poem „Der Herbsttag“:

„Der Herbsttag Die Bäume stehn der Frucht entladen, Und gelbes Laub verweht ins Tal; Das Stoppelfeld in Schimmerfaden Erglänzt am niedern Mittagsstrahl. Es kreist der Vögel Schwarm, und ziehet; Das Vieh verlangt zum Stall, und fliehet Die magern Aun, vom Reife fahl. O geh am sanften Scheidetage Des Jahrs zu guter letzt hinaus; Und nenn ihn Sommertag und trage Den letzten schwer gefundnen Strauß. Bald steigt Gewölk, und schwarz dahinter Der Sturm, und sein Genoß, der Winter, Und hüllt in Flocken Feld und Haus. Ein weiser Mann, ihr Lieben, haschet die Freuden im Vorüberfliehn, Empfängt, was kommt unüberraschet, Und pflückt die Blumen, weil sie blühn. Und sind die Blumen auch verschwunden; So steht am Winterherd umwunden Sein Festpokal mit Immergrün. Noch trocken führt durch Tal und Hügel Der längst vertraute Sommerpfad. Nur rötlich hängt am Wasserspiegel Der Baum, den grün ihr neulich saht. Doch grünt der Kamp vom Winterkorne; Doch grünt beim Rot der Hagedorne Und Spillbeern, unsre Lagerstatt! So still an warmer Sonne liegend, Sehn wir das bunte Feld hinan, Und dort, auf schwarzer Brache pflügend, Mit Lustgepfeif, den Ackermann: Die Kräh'n in frischer Furche schwärmen Dem Pfluge nach, und schrein und lärmen; Und dampfend zieht das Gaulgespann. Natur, wie schön in jedem Kleide! Auch noch im Sterbekleid wie schön! Sie mischt in Wehmut sanfte Freude, Und lächelt tränend noch im Gehen. Du, welkes Laub, das niederschauert, Du Blümchen, lispelst: Nicht getrauert! Wir werden schöner auferstehn!“ Johann Heinrich Voß

„The autumn day The trees stand unloaded to the fruit, And yellow foliage drifts away in the valley; The stubblefield in light thread Gleams in the lower midday beam. The bird’s swarm wheels, and moves; The cattle demands for the stable, and flee The meagre meadows, paled from the rime. Oh go on the gentle scabbard day Of the year finally out; And call it summer day and carry The last hardly found bunch. Soon clouds rise, and black behind it The storm, and his enjoying, the winter, And wraps in flakes field and house. A wise man, dear ones, snatches the joys in over-fleeing, Receives what comes unsurprised, And picks the flowers, because they bloom. And if the flowers have also disappeared; So stands at the winter stove entwined Its festival cup with evergreen. Still drily leads through valley and hill The long been familar summer path. Only reddishly hangs on the water level The tree that green you recently saw. Yet greens the field of the winter grain; Yet greens with red of the hawthorns And spill berries, our bed for the night! So quietly recumbent in the warm sun, We see the coloured field upward, And there, on black fallow ploughing, With lust whistling, the field man: The crows in fresh furrow swarm After the plough, and scream and make a noise; And steamingly the horse team drags. Nature, how nicely in every dress! Still in the dying dress as nicely! It mixes gentle joy in melancholy, And smiles watering still in the walking. You, wilted foliage, that shivers down, You little flower, lisps: not mourned! We will more beautifully rise!“ (Translated by me.)

By the way:

Rainer Maria Rilke wrote:

„Herbsttag

Herr, es ist Zeit. Der Sommer war sehr groß.
Leg deinen Schatten auf die Sonnenuhren,
und auf den Fluren lass die Winde los.

Befiehl den letzten Früchten, voll zu sein;
gib ihnen noch zwei südlichere Tage,
dränge sie zur Vollendung hin, und jage
die letzte Süße in den schweren Wein.

Wer jetzt kein Haus hat, baut sich keines mehr.
Wer jetzt allein ist, wird es lange bleiben,
wird wachen, lesen, lange Briefe schreiben
und wird in den Alleen hin und her
unruhig wandern, wenn die Blätter treiben.“

Spanish translation:

„Día de otoño

Señor: ya es tiempo. El verano fue muy grande.
Pon tu sombra en los relojes solares,
y en los campos suelta a los vientos.

Manda los ultimos frutos a llenarse;
dales todavía dos días más sureños,
apurales hacia la culminación y mete
la ultima dulzura al vino pesado.

El que no tiene casa ahora, ya no va a construir.
El que está soló ahora, va estarlo por mucho tiempo,
Permanecerá despierto, leerá, escribirá largas cartas
Y paseará inquieto en las avenidas, de aquí para allá,
Mientras las hojas se las lleva el viento.“

English translation:

„Autumn Day

Lord, it is time. Let the great summer go,
Lay your long shadows on the sundials,
And over harvest piles let the winds blow.

Command the last fruits to be ripe;
Grant them some other southern hour,
Urge them to completion, and with power
Drive final sweetness to the heavy grape.

Who's homeless now, will for long stay alone.
No home will build his weary hands,
He'll wake, read, write letters long to friends
And will the alleys up and down
Walk restlessly, when falling leaves dance.“

That’s a good poem too. Isn’t it?

„Being“ is the equivalent to the Ancient-Greek „on“ („ón“) whick led to „ontology“, the „science of being“.

Therefore I use the word „being(s)“ instead of the word „thing(s)“. The other reason is the succession or the chronology from beings (things) to living beings (things) and to human beings (things).

Now my question: Is it customary to say „human things“?

I mean that a „subject“ needs an object (an objectivation, at least a predication) in order to be a subject.

If the semantics of the word „discoverer“ or the word „discovering“ has to meet two conditions - (1.) to be the first one who has arrived and (2.) to know for sure what exactly has been discovered -, then nobody has ever discovered North America.

„Am Ende hängen wir doch ab, von Kreaturen, die wir machten.“ **

My translation: „At the end, nevertheless, we depend, on the creatures which we made.“

„Der Mensch ist ein Tier, was eine Erziehung nötig hat.“ **

My translation: „The human is an animal that needs an education.“

„Wenn die Bedingungen der Möglichkeit in ihrer Totalität da sind, dann bilden sie zugleich Notwendigkeit.“ - Nicolai Hartmann.
My translation:
„If the conditions of the possibility are there in their totality, then they form at the same time necessity.“

Objectivity is never intersubjectivity. Objectivity is always objectivity. Subjectivity is always subjectivity. So, intersubjectivity is always communicating subjectivity, thus it always remains subjectivity.

Objectivity and subjectivity can never come together. They can come to a consensus, but each consensus is merely intersubjective, thus always subjective and never objective.

The object and the subject are never interchangeable in the same observed and described situation.

A linguistic example: „John sees Mary“. Grammatically: John (subject) sees (predicate) Mary (object). If you changed subject and object here, then you would have another observed and described situation: „Mary sees John“ (S-P-O) or „John is seen by Mary“ (O-P-S). If you want to say that both are seeing each other, then you have to say for example: „John sees Mary, and Mary sees John“ (S-P-O, S-P-O [thus: two S-P-O sentences]) or „John and Mary see each other“ (S-P-O) or „John is seen by Mary, and Mary is seen by John“ (O-P-S, O-P-S [thus: two O-P-S sentences]) or „John and Mary are seen by each other“ (O-P-S) ... or similar S-P-O or O-P-S or even P-S-O or P-O-S sentences. But, regardless which of the options you choose, you will never be capable of changing subject and object in one sentence. So, object and subject are always separated from each other. Always, thus also in science and philosophy, in epistemology.

John is never Mary, and this stands for: Subject (S) is never Object (O). Whether John is subject or object and Mary object or subject depends on the situation and on the observation and/or description of this situation. And as an observer and/or describer you can choose a more objective or a more subjective observation and/or description of a situation (happening). But you will never be capable of changing the logic behind it, especially the epistemological form, namely the subject/object dualism (dichotomy).

So, you have no chance to change or overcome reality and certain forms of linguistics, logic, mathematics.

When epistemology and the subject/object dualism (dichotomy) are not „in fashion“, then this does not mean that they have vanished.

Philosophy without language is not possible.

Philosophy without language is not possible. It is logic that connects thoughts and language. It is not possible to communicate with each other without using any logical form.

And my example „John sees Mary“ includes already the otpion too that John can see Mary more objectively than subjectively or more subjectively than objectively. An object is an object, regardless whether it is more objectively or more subjectively observed or described or valued. Even the objective fact that a subjectivist observes, describes and values an object subjectively does not change the fact that there is an object.

It is an objective fact that there are subjects. So, it is a fact that there is also intersubjectivity; and intersubjectivity itself is subjectivity; it can come to a consensus, and this consensus is an objective fact too, but consensus itself and intersubjectivity itself are not objectivity. Objectivity must idealistically fulfill the condition that something can be observed and/or described by someone who is not part of the object. The situation of intersubjectivity is a „social“ situation, linguistically said: communication. This can be observed by an observer, so that this situation can be objectively described, so it can become an object, of course, but that does not mean that it has become objectivity. Intersubjectivity itself is and remains always subjectivity. The word composition already says this. And it is so too acording to epistemology, philosophy, science and everything else. Linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians have also come to the conclusion (consensus?) that this is the case. A dictionary is a linguistic thing, regardless how specialized it is. The said linguists, philosophers, scientists and historians are subjects who try to objectively observe and describe a situation, a being, a development, a phenomenon (in our example: intersubjectivity) and so on; this observation and description can nevertheless be done more objectively or more subjectively; observations and descriptions as well as values can of course themselves be observed and described too as being an intersubjective situation, as being an object, but not as being objectivity, because subjectivity is never objectivity. If you want to observe or to describe (and at last perhaps: value) reality, you have to reduce subjectivity (and thus also you yourself as a subject) as much as possible. Objectivity has to do with reality.

So, intersubjectivity is indeed fundamental when religions and science and many other similar phenomenons become „designed“ (see: consensus), but that does not mean that intersubjectivity is objectivity. Intersubjectivity is always subjectivity.

In order to know what the object reality is all about, any kind of subjectity must be reduced as much as possible, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of that object reality, and that is not possible. And this is also the case when it comes to the subject: In order to know what the subject really (objectively) is all about, a subject must be the object of the subject, because, idealistically said, the observer or describer must be outside of each object, and that is not possible. The philosophers of the past knew this, and on average they were more intelligent than the dement philosophers of the present are and much more than the very dement philosophers of the future will be, if there will be philosophers at all in the future.

There is only one reality.

The inevitable way that modernity has been following since the so-called „industrial revolution“ has reached a point where the very much accelerated development gets even more accelerated. Can we slow down the modern velocity? If the answer is „no“, what does this mean for the future? It is likely that this does not mean that the people will sit there and be sad, no, they will likely be happy according to their situation in general and their spiritually limited capabilities in particular.

One of the examples could be a cyborg with many artificially optimized muscles and joints but a consciousness that does not work better and more than the consciousness of a dog.

The above example was already anticipated in the last decades of the 18th and the first decades of the 19th century when Johann Wolfgang von Goethe studied the real Faust, designed his story of Faust and wrote it down. And his Faust of the second part died, because he had reached his goal.

Another example could be the humans of the end of history as Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel described it in his main work „Phänomenologie des Geistes“, published in 1807.

A further example could be the „last men“ who became famous in 1883: „»Wir haben das Glück erfunden« – sagen die letzten Menschen und blinzeln.“ - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. („»We have discovered happiness« – say the last men and blink.“)

However, these humans or „post-humans“ will not be unhappy. They will live without history (**) and without work. We - the current humans - think that this will be very sad, and we are absolutely right about that. But they will not think so. And they will not think much but believe much on a very low level. They will be almost absolutely dependent and very naively believe in the opposite.

To me, this development is the most probable one for the future (although presignals have been becoming apparent since the beginning of our modernity). One of the presignals of this situation in the future is the increasing replacement of the human nature by the artificially human technology, thus machines.

The humans will have merely two options or chances in order to stop the continuation of this development or, at least, to slow down the modern velocity. One option or chance is the avoidance of the complete replacement of humans by machines, because this complete replacement will lead to the lost of the human control over the machines, so that the machines will control or even kill the humans. The other option or chance is a huge catastrophe in the very near future that will lead to a new beginning, provided that there will be enough survivors of that catastrophe. The difference between this two scenarios and the most probable scenario is that the humans will not lose their relatively freedom and the extent and independence of their consciousness in the case of the said two scenarios and the exact opposite in the case of the most probably scenario. What will be the worst case scenario then?

There is an interdependence between linguistics and philosophy, science and almost everything else. This is because of the fact that language is the most striking feature, the main feature of humans. And it is not difficult but often very effective to linguistically analyze the speech of philosophers or scientists or everyone else.

- Register -