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
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
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
Animal languagesare 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).
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
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 philosophicalstations 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).
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 /
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 Chomskys 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
[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
But someday never comes, said John Fogerty (**).
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
Fischer's Fritze fischte frische Fische.
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.
What you have inherited from your fathers, acquire it in order
to possess it. - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust
(I), p. 39.
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.
Laughing is the best medicine.
Wo viel Licht ist, ist auch viel Schatten. - Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe, Götz von Berlichingen, 1773.
Where much light is, there is also much shadow. - Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe, Götz von Berlichingen, 1773.
Das ist nicht das Gelbe vom Ei.
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.
Rather an end with scare than a scare without end.
Nur wer gegen den Strom schwimmt, kommt an die Quelle.
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
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
Ignorance und arrogance dance the same dance. - Paul
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,
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:
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
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.
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.
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«.
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 Bedes
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
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 uab-, Greek hwV,
Latin aurora, Lithuanian aurà, 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
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
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.
This must be masquerade!
My very eyes believe I?
Oberon, the bearded God
Here, to night perceive I!
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.
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:
Ist das nicht Maskeradenspott?
Soll ich den Augen trauen,
Oberon, den schönen Gott,
Auch heute hier zu schauen?
Mit viel Vergnügen bin ich da
Und freue mich mit diesen;
Denn von den Teufeln kann ich ja
Auf gute Geister schließen.
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
Man suche nur nichts hinter den Phänomenen;
sie selbst sind die Lehre.
Search nothing beyond the phenomena, they themselves are the
- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Wilhelms Meisterjahre, 1821-1829,
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:
1,1) Linguistics => objects => consciousness,
1,2) Consciousness => objects => linguistics.
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?
C) I do not know.
If you voted B: What do you think about that kind of
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 neverheiraten;
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 1960s German speakers used the term ich
glaube very much oftener than the term ich denke
- maybe this ratio was 90 to 10. Since about 1990 certain German
speakers have been using the term ich denke very much
oftener than the term ich glaube - maybe this ratio
is 99 to 1 (and for all German speakers maybe 80 to 20 or 70 to
30). So the ratio of the use of the terms ich glaube
and ich denke has reversed within merely two decades
(1970s and 1980s).
The 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
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
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
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
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?
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote:
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.
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
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«).
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]
Whereas the logical analog of a linguistical sentence
is a thought.
The smallest carrier of meaning is a morpheme and the largest a
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.
Heideggers 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,
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,
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 Altzheimers 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
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  finger and another 
finger, and one more  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
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. **
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
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
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.
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.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, 1922.
Moralität ist Sittlichkeit.
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.
Was gibt es denn? // WAGNER (leiser) :
Es wird ein Mensch gemacht.
WAGNER : So muß
der Mensch mit seinen großen Gaben // Doch künftig höhern,
höhern Ursprung haben.
HOMUNCULUS (in der Phiole zu Wagner) :
Nun, Väterchen! wie stehts? 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
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! hows 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 elses
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 childs 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
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 oer 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!
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
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
(Bb) No because of a situation like the described one (=>
Look at the syntax. A sentence requires a subject, not necessarily
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
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
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:
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 birds 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:
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.
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
Y paseará inquieto en las avenidas, de aquí para allá,
Mientras las hojas se las lleva el viento.
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.
Thats a good poem too. Isnt it?
Being is the equivalent to the Ancient-Greek on
(ón) whick led to ontology, the science
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.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote:
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.
Immanuel Kant wrote:
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
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
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
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.