01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [771][772][773][774][775][776][777][778][779][780] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
771) Arminius, 21.07.2015, 00:10, 02:43, 03:59, 04:27, 14:44, 15:11 (3324-3329)
You should not be surprised if someone asks you whether you want the humans to completely return to nature, to completely become animals, because you refer to generalities like nature.There is the word revolution in the title of this thread, and we have had enough so-called revolutions and all of them have been more than gruesome.Why do you think that there has to be a better ethical theory than the one that is presently being taught in classrooms (of the US, I guess, right?)?
James S. Saint wrote:
Intentionally. On purpose. By design.James S. Saint wrote:
How can SAM do this successfully?
James S. Saint wrote:
So you think that it would be possible to live in a society void of pretense then (and only then), if this society were a SAM Coop. There has not been any SAM Coop. So do you think there will be one?
Is it possible to live identically, thus according to the sentence: A is A (compare: A = A)?
As I already said several times: That (**) can work only then, if SAM is and remains small, and if there is no other form of society and corporation than SAM.
The dasein / existence of the current machines is authentic. If the machines will remain as they currently are and humans will still live then, then the machines will perhaps cause an authentic dasein (existence, life) of the humans by use of SAM. |
772) Arminius, 22.07.2015, 15:36, 15:59, 16:00, 16:00, 16:43, 20:43, 22:24, 23:32, 23:59 (3330-3337)
James S. Saint wrote:
That is what I am saying.James S. Saint wrote:
If the others are not like SAM, then they try to infiltrate SAM and will perhaps destroy SAM.James S. Saint wrote:
No. Animals are not capable of destroying human governing styles.James S. Saint wrote:
That does not necessarily prevent the danger of infiltration and destroying of SAM by others.
James S. Saint wrote:
By dasein I roughly mean what Heidegger's existence philosophy means by it.
James S. Saint wrote:
They cannot prevent the misuse of information by not telling their address.
James S. Saint wrote:
Love is a great word with a huge field of meaning. I guess you mean something like agape (New Testament), an unselfish love.James S. Saint wrote:
Yes, but that is difficult to implement in reality.
Amorphos wrote:
Life in a negative sense of valuation is not only about suffering but also about death. Humans want to be immortal - like gods.
|
3336 |
»Will to« can never be followed by a noun in English. **
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. ** **
It's impossible. The 'to' is not a preposition here, but part of the infinitive (»to live«, »to fight«). **
There is no such thing as »will to (noun)«. **
But in German, Wille zu is followed by a noun, sometimes a nominalized verb (Wille zum Leben). Thus, Wille zur Macht is perfectly normal. **
The zur means »for«, just as it does in zum Beispiel. Thus, since »for« is the correct translation of zur (and »to« is incorrect), a noun such as »desire« or »wish« is called for. **
3337 |
3338 |
It doesn't matter whether German allows Wille zu + verb or noun. I have seen plenty of examples of both. My point is that in English, 'will to' + noun is impossible, because the 'to' is not a preposition but part of the infinitive. **
There is no »will to cheese«, »will to ketchup«, »will to peanut butter«, etc., but »desire for« works for those nouns, and for any noun. But, observe that »desire for« cannot be followed by a verb: »desire for eat«, »desire for run«, »desire for fly« are improper formations. **
773) Arminius, 23.07.2015, 03:48, 04:10, 04:25, 04:54, 05:16, 16:37, 17:44, 18:14, 18:50, 19:33, 20:09 (3339-3349)
Ornello wrote:
You just admitted that an exception was axccepted. The native speakers of the English language accepted the to in the term will to power, probably because there were more examples before the will to power. Centuries before this there was the same linguistical change in Germany.Ornello wrote
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, as I said several times (**|**). So to is not only used in English but also in Low German.Ornello wrote:
It is possible, but I guess that it did not happen in that way.Ornello wrote:
Again: The exception of that said rule was accepted and is accepted by the native speakers.Language changes.The verbs machen (German) and make (English) and the nouns Macht (German) and might (English) had lost their former much deeper relationship, so that the rule Nomen + zu + Verb (Wille zu machen) / noun + to + verb (will to make) was not possible anymore and became a rule exception: Nomen + zu + Nomen (Wille zur Macht) / noun + to + noun (will to might). Use other examples in order to ascertain this rule exception by negating the other examples.
I am speaking of both the German and the English rules in order to show why both (and not merely one of the both) languages changed.The English langauge has changed, Ornello.
The German zu does almost always mean to. Hence I wrote:
That guy seems to be stupid.Believe me, Ornello, for does almost always mean für, and zu does almost always mean to.
Do you speak any of the said two languages? If yes, then it can only be English. You do not know anything about the German language, thus you should be silent when it comes to translate words form German into English and from English into German.There are so many examples for the rules I mentioned, so that a list of them would just be too long for this thread.You have no idea. Your posted article is not correct, because it is suggesting that languages contain more exceptions than rules. A language with more exceptions than rules is no language. The posted examples are indeed correct, but do not disprove the correct statement that for does almost always mean für, and zu does almost always mean to.So the translation of the German Wille zur Macht into the English will to power or will to might is correct.
No. The said rules and exceptions (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**) are the same in both languages: German and English. You have no idea but something to learn; so you should be silent when it comes to the knowledge of language(s). So if you cannot learn a foreign language, then try to learn the English language, especially the history of the English language, and you will see that will to power is the correct translation of Wille zur Macht. In addition, the English title of the book has been accepted since it was released. You are like Mutcer because he also has no will to learn. Try to learn some English, Ornello. It pays.Good luck!
Ornello wrote:
Warum wissen Sie dann nichts über das Deutsche, zu wenig über das Englische und nichts über die Geschichte des Deutschen und des Englischen? Erzählen Sie mir nichts. Sie sind garantiert kein professioneller Übersetzer.You are no professional translator. Otherwise you would know the rules and exceptions I was talking about (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**) . The rules and exceptions are well known. I am a professional linguist (incl. philologist, translator). Don't tell me.The rules and exceptions have to do with the language history of both German and English.Please send me one of your translations, Ornello! I can guarantee you that you are no professional translator!Sie haben keine Ahnung von Sprache, keine Ahnung von Grammatik, keine Ahnung von Sprachgeschichte. Dies haben Sie mit dem, was Sie über die Regeln und Ausnahmen in der Grammatik der beiden Sprachen Deutsch und Englisch gesagt haben, sehr deutlich gezeigt.
You did not read my posts carefully. As I said several times: it was the same rule that lead to a change in both languages - in German earlier, in English later. It was the same rule that was involved. Why are you not capable of understanding that? The grammatical rules are like physical rules. There is no language without grammatical rules. A language without grammatical rules is no language. A nature without physical (natural) rules is no nature. It does not matter whether you call them rules: they do their work.P.S.: I am still waiting for your translations.
Your posts are incoherent, because you have no idea how language works and changes, you are confusing e.g. a preposition with an infinitive. That is absolutely ridiculous.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.P.S.: I am still waiting for your translations, Ornello.
Ornello wrote:
As I said: You are no professional translator.Ornello wrote:
You have an excuse for everything, Ornello. This time it is the scapegoat ideology again. You are wrong.Ornello wrote:
You have an excuse for everything, Ornello. This time it is the scapegoat ideology again. You are wrong.Ornello wrote:
That is nonsense, Ornello. Nobody said that one should never translate into a foreign language. 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!!!!I can guarantee you that you are no professional translator.
Again: You do not read my posts carefully. I did not say that syntax had nothing to do with the structure of language. I said that syntax has nearly nothing to do with what we were talking about. You are confusing syntax with grammar. But grammar and syntax are not the same. Grammar is more than syntax, and syntax is more than morphology.You have an excuse for everything, Ornello. You are wrong. |
774) Arminius, 24.07.2015, 04:35, 05:17, 05:28, 15:23, 15:39, 15:43, 16:01, 16:10, 16:38, 17:54, 19:05, 19:42, 20:19, 20:37 (3350-3363)
Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child the more similar to an adult.
James S. Saint wrote:
Would it make a great difference in the case of the certain extinction of all human beings?
Great and Wise Trixie wrote:
I offer the follwoing thread (**|**).
If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, upbringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.
James S. Saint wrote:
I thought so: SAM is a matter of hope.
Opa wrote:
Yes.
Opa wrote:
I started the topic with that question in order to find out what some ILP members think about the topic.
Opa wrote:
I also can understand that.Opa wrote:
Feel free to do it.
Lexica - especially for those who can't get rid of Google and Wikipedia.
Think about the following question: Is the common-sense-is-dangerous-statement more dangerous than the common sense?
Your writer is wrong.
What do you think about the quantity of those who haven't any (**) common sense?
What do you think about the quantity of those who haven't any common sense?
We can say that an authentic human life
means a life according to the human's nature, whereas an unauthentic
life means a life according to the human's culture/s.
|
3363 |
775) Arminius, 25.07.2015, 21:46, 23:23, 23:45, 23:59 (3364-3367)
States will probably also disappear.
Laughing Man wrote:
States as we know them will probably disappear, because they are too expensive and can be easily replaced by a machine network that works much more efficiently than a human state. This is already in works. Feel free to call this machine newtork state, but keep in mind that this machine newtork will be much more than a human state.
Not everybody accepted / accepts the law of the jungle as common sense.
You mean as SAM? |
776) Arminius, 26.07.2015, 00:41, 17:47 (3368-3370)
Laughing Man wrote:
An electro cigarette? * Giggles in the background *
Ben J. Schmoe wrote:
Because they are part of the nature.I wrote:
___Orbie wrote:
You told me that you believed in the world peace/perpetual peace (Kant), so at least in this way you are a Kantian. .... Do not forget .... |
777) Arminius, 27.07.2015, 18:15 (3370-3379)
Political correctness has caused further disintegration - of course. |
778) Arminius, 28.07.2015, 01:39, 04:37 (3371-3372)
The precise translation:
|
3372 |
Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids. ** **
779) Arminius, 29.07.2015, 01:31, 01:39. 01:46, 03:05, 03:40, 03:51, 04:45 14:56, 15:33, 17:25, 17:36, 19:55, 21:30, 22:01, 23:50 (3373-3387)
Topic: Is the Darwinistic selection principle false?Thesis:The Darwinistic selection principle is false, unless human beings were not included in that theory.Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.
Ben J. Schmoe wrote:
This thread should be called Cheating Fun.
Great and Wise Trixie wrote:
Shouldn't a philosopher live alone?
Animals can also have the cold or the flu.
Most of the best philosophers of all times lived alone.Should all people be philosophers?Most of the people should not live alone (thus: should not be philosophers).
Sorry, Ben. You have misunderstood me. I was merely referring to the statement in your post (These puzzles are on Wikipedia with solutions explained. **) but not to you personally.If people can get all the solutions and their explanations from other websites, then this thread is more about cheating than mathematics.What you did was right, Ben. Don't worry.
Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution itself is an equivocation. It even contains a contradiction, because the humans do do not completely fit it. On the one side humans fit Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution when it comes to human nature, but on the other side humans do not fit Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution when it comes to human culture/s respectively to the modern era/s of human culture/s.
What do you not understand?
Your ideological (modern religious) statement (**) is meaningless, because your false god Darwin was partly wrong, regardless whether it is hard for an Darwinistic theist like you to believe it (by the way: Darwin was a theist too - a pantheist).When it became obvious that the natural selection was partly false, the sexual selection was invented. When it became obvious that the sexual selection was also partly false, the kin selection was invented. When it became obvious that the kin selection was also partly false, the social selection was invented. And so on, and so on .... The natural selection is - more or less - contradicted by the other selections, especially and completely by the social selection. The Darwinistic selection principle is merely a farce.The theologist Darwin was a Malthusian, and Malthus was an economist.In nature (in nature!) fitness or success is measured by reproduction. Living beings that have the most offspring are the fittest, thus are most successfull (because you can merely be most successful, if you are the fittest). Success is the consequence of fitness. The success follows the fitness. So when it comes to nature it is absolutely correct to say that successful living beings live on, because they have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings, whereas successful living beings die out, because they have no offspring or less offspring than the unsuccessful living beings. But when it comes to humans, especially to modern humans culture/s, it is not correct to say that, because modern humans are fit, thus successful, when they have no offspring or less offspring than those humans who are not fit, thus unseccessful.The said social selection contains the possibility of selecting against the Darwinistic selection principle. And this happened and happens. Thus it was and is a fact.
James S. Saint wrote:
This definitely means that the selection principle of Darwin, the Darwinans, and the Darwinianists is false.James S. Saint wrote:
The Political Correctness wants us to speak of fitness.James S. Saint wrote:
This also means that the selection principle of Darwin, the Darwinans, and the Darwinianist is false.James S. Saint wrote:
Partially true and partially false scientifically means false, because it has to be regarded as false, if merely one part of a theory is false. It is the theorist who has to provide a correct theory.
Opa wrote:
No. All what you said was no news to me.Opa wrote:
The English translation of Freud's Es is id. Why do you not know this? A German native speaker must explain the English translation of Freud's Es to an Englsih native speaker who claims to know some of Freud's books. That's odd.Opa wrote:
Where do you come from? What is your first language? And what are your other languages, if you have any?Opa wrote:
That's odd. However, I am glad to see that my information has benefited you.Opa wrote:
I know almost all books of Freud, and my translations are correct. You can believe me. Freud's Es is translated by id.Opa wrote:
You should not stop him to often, because children need freedom in the sense of as much free space as possible, and mothers usually constrain / box their children too much because mothers are usualy too much frightened when it comes to rear, nurture, educate their children.Opa wrote:
As I said: All what you said was no news to me.Opa wrote:
Then you are judging falsely. I am not a Freudian(ist). I am no ...(ist) at all. Freud meant his Über-Ich (superego) as the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of the (A) culture, and for a child this means the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of: (A,a) mother, father, siblings - thus family -; (A,b) kindergarteners, teachers, peer groups and other groups - thus society.
James S. Saint wrote:
Yes. What is really very much questionable and partially not true is the selection principle - not more. Darwins theory of evolution is based on three principles: (1) variation, (2) heredity, (3) selection.James S. Saint wrote:
Those who claim to be atheists are antitheists, or theists, or both (that's possible), and in this case Darwin is their false god. There are many of those false gods - as you know; but the main problem are not the false gods themselves but those stupid ideologists (modern-religious zealots) who believe in them.
Opa wrote:
Fast alle Titel meiner Threads sind Fragen. Ich möchte wissen, was andere ILP-Mitglieder wissen und glauben oder meinen zu wissen.Opa wrote:
Ja, im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Aber nicht in der Fachsprache Freuds.Opa wrote:
Bei mir ist es noch länger her.Opa wrote:
Ja.Opa wrote:
Das ist auch richtig.Opa wrote:
Ja, wahrscheinlich, denn ich bin nicht mehr sehr an Freud interessiert.Opa wrote:
Ganz genau, ja.Opa wrote:
Es ist gut.Opa wrote:
Eine Entschuldigung ist nicht nötig. Danke für die Antwort. Ich habe mich sehr gefreut.
Opa wrote:
Vielleicht. Manche Gedanken habe ich ja schon erzählt. Die anderen Gedanken werden folgen.Opa wrote:
Deshalb schrieb ich »Fachsprache Freuds«. Der Unterschied zwischen »Es« und »es« ist im Deutschen gegeben, aber im Englischen nicht mehr: »it« und »it«. Um den Unterschied auch im Englischen deutlich machen zu können, hat man einen Unterschied erfunden: »id« und »it«.Opa wrote:
Wohl nicht mehr so sehr wie früher - dank Internet u.ä..Opa wrote:
Vielleicht, ja. |
780) Herr Schütze, 30.07.2015, 20:28 (3388)
Ist es da ein Wunder, daß es den islamischen Terror oder z.B.
den IS gibt?
|
==>
|