Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz  Kommentare zu Kommentaren im Weltnetz
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

<= [991][992][993][994][995][996][997][998][999][1000] =>

Jahr  S. E. 
 2001 *  1
 2002 *  1
 2003 *  1
 2004 *  3
 2005 *  2
 2006 *  2
2007 2
2008 2
2009 0  
2010 56
2011 80
2012 150
2013 80
2014 230
2015 239
2016 141
2017 160
2018 30
2019 18
2020 202
2021 210
2022 40
2023 40
P. Z.
S.E. (S.)
T. (S.)
P. Z.
S. E.
 K. (S.) 
S.E. (S.)
K. (S.)
T. (S.)
* Von 2001 bis 2006 nur Gästebuch, erst ab 2007 auch Webforen und Weblogs.

NACH OBEN 991) Arminius, 13.03.2017, 15:08, 15:46; Alf, 13.03.2017, 16:28, 16:58, 18:17, 18:22, 18:48 (5883-5889)


Mags J. wrote:

„To me ... life makes sense, but not our existence.“ **

But, Mags J. (), how can life make sense to you and your existence not make sense to you?

All life is existence, but not all existence is life.

So: If your existence is senseless, then your your life is senseless too. Or (the other way around): If your existence makes sense, then your life makes sense too.

Have a nice existence by having a nice life.


As long as there is capitalism (techno-creditism), there is communism (egalitarianism) too. Their „Synthesis“ (cp. Hegel) is globalism or „humanitarianism“ where communism and/or capitalism are/is not gone, but merely „aufgehoben“ (Hegel).

Arminius wrote:

„And by the way:

When it comes to the obfuscation of familial, genealogical and successful filiations (especially if they are the basics for the premises of a so-called »social life«) the alleged »enemies« capitalism/liberalism and communism/socialism are the best friends.“ ** **

Maybe we should try to continue this conservaion in the following thread, Jerkey.


Kriswest wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Where does art come from?« ** **

Communication.“ **

Agreed. And more exactly?


I can mostly agree with that (**). This all works via media. There is still a huge interest in feminism (comparable with all kinds of socialism). If feminism get's lost, a certain power get's lost too, albeit this power is not and has never been a female power.


I guess you mean the following three „religions“: „Terasem“, „Unitarian Univeralism“, „Bahai' Faith“.

But are they real religions?


Kriswest wrote:

„Art is a form of communication.“ **

So you are saying that art comes from art?


Kriswest wrote:

„Art is communication.“ **

Yes, agreed again, but the question (as the title!) of this thread is: „Where does art come from?“ ** **


NACH OBEN 992) Alf, 16.03.2017, 21:02; Kathrina, 16.03.2017, 20:33, 20:54 (5890-5892)


Kriswest wrote:

„It comes from the need to communicate.“ **

O(oo)k(aa)a(yy)y .... But .... What's „the need to communicate“ then to you?


Amorphos wrote:

„I currently don’t have a soul.“ **

Everyone should always have a soul.

Amorphos wrote:

„If the soul isn’t me what is it? Surely the soul is what we become in the afterlife. I & I, the same self, the same person, and not two persons where one is deep inside?
There is no deep inside me, as far as I can tell that’s all illusions or causal things.“ **

What is a „soul“ to you then?


Yes (**), at least temporarily.


NACH OBEN 993) Kathrina, 17.03.2017, 14:15; Alf, 17.03.2017, 17:34, 19:30; Arminius, 17.03.2017, 19:37; Alf, 17.03.2017, 21:33; Arminius, 17.03.2017, 22:17, 23:41 (5893-5900)


And where are my posts?


Kriswest wrote:

„The need to let others know things you know to let others know how you feel , to let others know know intent and a few asundry other things but, those are primary.“ **

„Communication“ is too general. All living beings communicate in the way you just described, most of them by using only chemical signs, some of them by using also other signs, but only humans by using also language as a very complex system of linguistic signs. So the fact that only humans have art and only humans have such a complex system of linguistic signs could be an indication of a very deep connection between them. I think that there is a developmental connection between an instinctive faith or belief on the one hand and art and language on the other hand, provided that all fundamental requirements are already given (e.g.: upright gait, relatively free hands, relatively huge and very complex brain).


Sorry. Wrong thread.


Marx was a Links-Hegelianer (Left-Hegelian). He turned many parts of Hegel's conception upside down - so, for example, Marx said „das Sein bestimmt das Bewußtsein“ („the Sein [being] determines the consciousness“), which was just the opposite of what Hegel had said before him: „das Bewußtsein bestimmt das Sein“ („the consciousness determines the Sein [being]“").

The reason why I am saying that „communism is not dead“ has to do with Hegel's Dialektik, which is - by the way - not turned upside down by Marx. So we do not have to consider Hegel and Marx separately in this case. I think this is well considered in the thread I linked to. So I would prefer to continue the discussion in that said thread.


Thank you (**) very much.


Encode Decode wrote:

„Immanuel Kant wrote:

»All our knowledge begins with the senses, proceeds then to the understanding, and ends with reason. There is nothing higher than reason.«“ **

That's right.

Encode Decode wrote:

„This is extremely similar to the inspiration I have in my mind.“ **

Can you tell more about that inspiration you have?


Today, the said „9 days“ (**) are over.

„Magnus Anderson
Posts: 2730
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm“ **

Happy birthday, Magnus Anderson.


Mags J. wrote:

„Because ... »our« existence as a species is an odd rarity, and the reason and purpose for that existence still an unknown ... if everything has purpose, what is ours? beyond a life that makes sense, but an existence that does not.“ **

Existence is not merely „»our« existence as a species“, existence refers to both individuals and groups (including „»our« existence as a species“). You could also speak of „»our« existence as living beings“ or „»our« existence as (a gathering of) atoms“ or „»our« existence as (a gathering of) particles“. You are talking about the difference between one’s personal life and the species’ „life“ which you call „existence“. But existence does not refer to merely one of them. Existence is more than life, existence was earlier than life, existence is the basis of life, whereas life is the higher form of existence, and according to the formal definition: life is a subordinated form of existence; so existence is its superordinated form.

In other words:

Every living being is an existing being, but not every existing being is a living being.


Stones do exist, but they do not live. They are existing beings, but they are not living beings. Trees are existing and living beings.


NACH OBEN 994) Kathrina, 19.03.2017, 20:02, 20:09; Alf, 19.03.2017, 20:25, 20:47; Kathrina, 19.03.2017, 22:51, 23:32; Arminius, 19.03.2017, 23:58 (5901-5907)


Sex brings happiness, at least temporarily.

Do you agree?


I can merely find some of my posts, thus: not all. That's a posting problem, isn’t it?


Kriswest wrote:

„And all that breaks down to one individual attempting to communicate to one or more individuals. Our complexity and bonds does not change that. Art is a form of communication. Tell a person how to get to a store without language. Art allows communication when words do not suffice.

We are in agreement about that. But again: The question (as the title!) of this thread is: „Where does art come from?“ ** **

Alf wrote:

„Where does art come from?“ ** **

Kriswest wrote:

„Communication.“ **

Alf wrote:

„Kriswest wrote:

»Art is a form of communication.« **

So you are saying that art comes from art?“ ** **

Alf wrote:

„Kriswest wrote:

»Art is communication.« **

Yes, agreed again, but the question (as the title!) of this thread is: »Where does art come from?« (**|**).“ ** **

If you are only saying that art comes from art (art is communication and comes from communication), then that does not or at least not sufficiently enough answer the question (as the title) of this thread: „Where does art come from?“ (**|**).


Mackerni wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»I guess you mean the following three ›religions‹: ›Terasem‹, ›Unitarian Univeralism‹, ›Bahai' Faith‹.

But are they real religions?« ** **

Are you one of those Christian-kooks who think that anything that isn't Christian is automatically a cult?“ **


Why are you so prejudiced?

Mackerni wrote:

„These religions call themselves religions. Terasem also calls itself a non-profit, a charity, among other titles. It certainty is a religion. It's obvious if one takes a look at the beliefs of an afterlife and a deity, Terasem answers those questions.

I'd consider Unitarian Universalism a philosophy of a religion more than a religion outright. Still, they have humanist teachings of love and acceptance. Things like the six sources of faith and the seven principles are but a introduction to the faith of UU.

Baha'i is definitely a religion. They have scripture, holy sites, daily rituals, a dead prophet. What more could you ask for in a religion? The Baha'i Faith even brands itself as a world religion. Out of all three of these Baha'i has the most followers; between five to seven million.“ **

I’m not convinced.



Frank Zappa said:

„Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is the Best“

Do you agree?


Topic: Is Donald Trump Dangerous?

Is Donald Trump really the leader of a new, hate-filled authoritarian movement?
Is it true that nothing is more harmful to the idea of the West and world peace than Donald Trump as the president of the United States?
Does Donald Trump really want „a ruthless America“?
Is Donald Trump a neo-fascist?
Is Donald Trump a narcist?
Who is he?


Surreptitious 57 wrote:

„Questions about the meaning of life become superfluous once randomness is understood, because statistical improbability and divine purpose tend not to be mutually compatible.“ **

I am afraid that that is not 100% true.

It is still a bit questionable whether „randomness is understood“ and whether „statistical improbability and divine purpose tend not to be mutually compatible“.


NACH OBEN 995) Alf, 20.03.2017, 02:14; Kathrina, 20.03.2017, 03:13; Arminius, 20.03.2017, 05:05; Alf, 20.03.2017, 16:00, 16:39, 16:44; Kathrina, 20.03.2017, 17:14; Alf, 20.03.2017, 17:30, 17:45, 19:08, 22:25 (5908-5918)


Kriswest wrote:

„Art does not come from art.“ **

But you’ve said that it does. See again:

Kriswest wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Where does art come from?« ** **

„Communication.“ **

Kriswest wrote:

„Art is a form of communication.“ **

Kriswest wrote:

„Art is communication.“ **

That's what you've said: Art comes from and is (a form of) communication. So the conclusion of your own words is: Art comes from art.

S o r r y .

Kriswest wrote:

„Art comes from the need to communicate, emotions, ideas, knowledge.“ **

Only if you mean the interaction of human emotions, human ideas, human knowledge. And if you mean the interaction of human emotions, human ideas, human knowledge, we are again in agreement, but will have to define that more closely.

O t h e r w i s e :

We turn around in a circle again.


Amorphos wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»What is a „soul“ to you then?« ** **

It is me /my form or body and mind in the afterlife, but it isn't something else which is not me but is commanding me from the inside - is what I am saying.“ **

Ah, I see.

Amorphos wrote:

„Welcome to ilp btw.“ **

Thank you.


Old Europe wrote:

„What do you think about Peter Sloterdijk?“ **

Peter Sloterdijk is one of the best or even the best philosopher of the current era.

Sloterdijk's ideas seek to integrate different components that have been erroneously considered detached from each other. Consequently, he proposes the creation of an „ontological constitution“ that would incorporate all beings—humans, animals, plants, and machines.

Sloterdijk regards cultures and civilizations as „anthropogenic hothouses“, installations for the cultivation of human beings; just as we have established wildlife preserves to protect certain animal species, so too ought we to adopt more deliberate policies to ensure the survival of Aristotle's zoon politikon.

Old Europe wrote:

„The spheres are, according to WIKIPEDIA (** ) his opus magnum. More than 2500 pages, a real philosophical adventure. The first volume already contains nearly 650 pages and it will take me some time to read this. But the first impression is great...

As Sloterdijk is polarizing the minds in the german speaking countries, I would like to ask you all in the english speaking countries, whether his work does the same. It is only, because I'm curious. It will not influence my meaning about Sloterdijk. I think, he is one of the most important contemporary philosophers and I like reading his books. But this should not give the impression, that I'm very strong in philosophy. No, philosophy is only one of my hobbies and I prefer the themes, which have relation with philosophy of art, culture, contemporary politics and media. Maybe this, combined which his great style, is the reason, why I like Sloterdijks work ....“ **

The exploration of these spheres begins with the basic difference between mammals and other animals: the biological and utopian comfort of the mother’s womb, which humans try to recreate through science, ideology, and religion. From these microspheres (ontological relations such as fetus-placenta) to macrospheres (macro-uteri such as nations or states), Sloterdijk analyzes spheres where humans try but fail to dwell and traces a connection between vital crisis (e.g., emptiness and narcissistic detachment) and crises created when a sphere shatters.

Sloterdijk has said that the first paragraphs of Spheres are „the book that Heidegger should have written“, a companion volume to „Being and Time“, namely „Being and Space“. He was referring to his initial exploration of the idea of Dasein, which is then taken further.


Sloterdijk also argues that the current concept of globalization lacks historical perspective. In his view it is merely the third wave in a process of overcoming distances (the first wave being the metaphysical globalization of the Greek cosmology and the second the nautical globalization of the 15th century). The difference for Sloterdijk is that, while the second wave created cosmopolitanism, the third is creating a global provincialism. Sloterdijk’s sketch of a philosophical history of globalization can be found in „Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals“ (2005; translated as „In the World Interior of Capital“), subtitled „Die letzte Kugel“ (“The final sphere“).

Fiscal kleptocracy.

Sloterdijk claimed that the welfare state is a „fiscal kleptocracy“ that had transformed the country into a „swamp of resentment“ and degraded its citizens into „mystified subjects of tax law“.

Sloterdijk opened the text with the famous quote of leftist critics of capitalism (made famous in the 19th century by Proudhon in his „What Is Property?“) „Property is theft“, stating, however, that it is nowadays the modern state that is the biggest taker. „We are living in a fiscal grabbing semi-socialism – and nobody calls for a fiscal civil war.“

He repeated his statements and stirred up the debate in his articles titled „Kleptokratie des Staates“ (transl. „Kleptocracy of the state“) and „Aufbruch der Leistungsträger“ (transl. „Uprising of the performers“) in the German monthly Cicero – Magazin für politische Kultur.

According to Sloterdijk, the institutions of the welfare state lend themselves to a system that privileges the marginalized, but relies, unsustainably, on the class of citizens who are materially successful.

In January 2010, an English translation was published, titled „A Grasping Hand – The modern democratic state pillages its productive citizens“, in Forbes and in the Winter 2010 issue of City Journal.

Sloterdijk's 2010 book, „Die nehmende Hand und die gebende Seite“, contains the texts that triggered the 2009–2010 welfare state dispute.


„Die moderne Welt wird sich als eine Zeit erweisen, in der die Wünsche durch ihr Wahrwerden das Fürchten lehren.“- Peter Sloterdijk, „Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit“.


Topic: Many, many post no or a few posts, and a few post many posts.

Many ILP members post no or a few posts, and a few ILP members post many posts.



5009 ILP members (69.10%) have posted no or less than 10 posts. Not more than 1435 ILP members (19.80%) have posted 10-99 posts. But merely 805 ILP members (11.10%) have posted 100 or more than 100 posts.

That's interesting, isn’t it?

I’d like to know what you think about it.


Magnus Anderson wrote:

„We create art in order to make certain valuable aspects of life persistent, to preserve them, to record or memorize them. That's the purpose of it.“ **

And when art is decadent, it is just the other way around.


Mowk wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Where does art come from?« ** **

Does it come from anywhere or is it manifest in the moment; drawn from yesterdays headlines? Art is likely the least original thing on the planet. So far it is only a product of reflection.

And what is a thing that can only be said is the thing after consensus. It did not exist until someone claimed it as art. That should give anyone a clue to form where it comes. What of all the poor objects existing in limbo crafted by human hands, are they not objects of their own account. A screw is art. Before this was that it was thing, craft, edifice. idealog. I got a bunch of things objects, that I have crafted, no one sees them, are they art? They are lumps of clay, fashioned. Art is cultural, not absolute.

What do you think art is? The natural world does not give one fuck about what man thinks is art. That should tell us something about what we think about art.“ **

The „natural world“ is not interested in „what man thinks is art“, and man is not interested in what the natural world is interested in.


You know all Christians, Mackerni?


Mowk wrote:

„Do you believe then, that the natural world is capable of expressing interest?“ **

Note that I used quotation marks („natural world“ [**|**]) and that all living beings are part of that „natural world“.


Gib wrote:

„Amorphos wrote:

»I currently don’t have a soul.« **

Sorry to hear that. Hope you get it back someday.“ **

I hope so too.


The following map shows „the world according to Donald Trump“ according to the Huffington Post (UK):

The World According To Donald Trump

Does the Huffington Post want us to take that seriously?


Jerkey wrote:

„If present trends continue, truths and lies will become inseparably intertwined.“ **

That's nothing new. Truths and lies have always been inseparably intertwined by all kind of governments.


NACH OBEN 996) Alf, 21.03.2017, 01:22, 01:36, 14:54, 15:23, 15:49, 16:27; Kathrina, 21.03.2017, 17:41, 17:52, 18:37; Alf, 21.03.2017, 19:21; Kathrina, 21.03.2017, 19:40, 19:53, 20:06, 20:38, 20:54; Arminius, 21.03.2017, 23:51 (5919-5933)


„»Honeymoon« phase of a new administration“ (**)?


You don’t know how I feel, and I was not talking about Christians, but about your three „religions“, and not judging like a Christian or whoever.


On the internet, 20% of all nodes attract 80% of all links. All this seems to obey the 80/20 rule (**).


You haven’t answered my question. It was the first question between us: Are your alledged „religions“ real religions?


Almost all US presidents have been gangsters who support their gangsters. Trump is just the current one.


Mackerni wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»You haven’t answered my question. It was the first question between us: Are your alledged „religions“ real religions?« ** **

Well, they are real to me. All three of them are unique in their own ways.“ **

To you, okay, but that's no argument, but merely your opinion, not more. Sorry. I haven't got an argument from you. So why should I be convinced, Mackerni?


Gib wrote:

„Rationality is overrated.“ **

Rationality is not overrated. It is more underrated than overrated. Perhaps it was overrated in the past (e.g. during the Age of Enlightenment), but currently it is not overrated. In times where everything has to be femine, feministic, consumeristic, „politically correct“, emotional ... and so on and so forth ..., there is no or at least not enough room for rationality.


Gib wrote:

„Load your questions much, Kathy?“ **

What’s your point, Gibby?


First of all, I want to gather several answers to my questions. After it, I will start making statements.


Mackerni wrote:

„Why are you arguing to me about something that is as pointless and arbitrary as your definition of religion?“ **

You don’t know my definition of „religion“.

My question was the first question between us, and this question included your definition of „religion“. But you didn't want to give me your definition of „religion“, and instead of giving it, you asked me unsuccessfuly to give you mine. Your answer that your alledged „religions“ were „real to“ you is not sufficient. You have to say how you know that your alledged „religions“ are real religions, if you want to convince somebody. Your personal opinion is not sufficient.

Mackerni wrote:

„Yes, my opinions are my own but why do I need to validate them to you?“ **

I have never said that you „need to validate them“.

Mackerni wrote:

„I've already told you how I felt and you reject my notions. I don't need to speak to you anymore; I have answered your question.“ **

All you have answered is that you like your three „religions“, and that is no convincing statement when it comes to the question whether your alledged „religions“ are real religions.


You want a more objective answer, but Mackerni can only give you a subjective answer.


Who are „these guys“ (**)?


Gib wrote:

„Wasn't C# originally Java? I think Microsoft bought the language from Oracle and has been improving on it since. They're still two different languages but I think C# began as a clone of Java.“ **

According to Anders Hejlsberg, C# is „not a Java clone“:

Wikipedia wrote:

„C#'s principal designer and lead architect at Microsoft is Anders Hejlsberg, who was previously involved with the design of Turbo Pascal, Embarcadero Delphi (formerly CodeGear Delphi, Inprise Delphi and Borland Delphi), and Visual J++. In interviews and technical papers he has stated that flaws[citation needed] in most major programming languages (e.g. C++, Java, Delphi, and Smalltalk) drove the fundamentals of the Common Language Runtime (CLR), which, in turn, drove the design of the C# language itself.

James Gosling, who created the Java programming language in 1994, and Bill Joy, a co-founder of Sun Microsystems, the originator of Java, called C# an »imitation« of Java; Gosling further said that »[C# is] sort of Java with reliability, productivity and security deleted.« Klaus Kreft and Angelika Langer (authors of a C++ streams book) stated in a blog post that »Java and C# are almost identical programming languages. Boring repetition that lacks innovation«, »Hardly anybody will claim that Java or C# are revolutionary programming languages that changed the way we write programs«, and »C# borrowed a lot from Java - and vice versa. Now that C# supports boxing and unboxing, we'll have a very similar feature in Java.« In July 2000, Anders Hejlsberg said that C# is »not a Java clone« and is »much closer to C++« in its design.“ **


Impious wrote:


Ein Bild von Impious

Spot the Blueberry.“ **

Is that you, Impious?


James S. Saint wrote:

„And perhaps organic life is merely the necessary precursor to the perfected mechanized life form, otherwise incapable of forming on such a planet as Earth.

Perhaps like the ape to the human or even the parent to the child, you are but the caterpillar to your much superior replacement.

Perhaps the wisdom is that each stage keeps replacing itself until it finally reaches a level of intelligence to understand how to not go any further - to learn how to be joyfully and successfully stable (aka "The End of Days").

Evolution would dictate such.“ **

That is possible, yes.


NACH OBEN 997) Arminius, 22.03.2017, 03:49, 18:40, 18:53, 19:24, 23:26, 23:55 (5934-5939)


Old Europe wrote:

I just ordered Safranski's Heidegger biography and his rather new Schiller biography (**) and his book »Wieviel Wahrheit braucht der Mensch?«. Rüdiger Safranski is a master in writing biographies about great philosophers and their time. The biographies are always more than pure biographies in classical sense. Sometimes Safranski even develops very interesting own ideas, but always based on the biographies. He is able to make the reader curious to read the work of the philosophers/writers he write about and about others which are less known. Anyway, the topics are always very good investigated and brought together with pilosophical craftsmanship and are written in a very clear and precise a little poetic style. I believe, that Safranski is a very sirious writer and that the time reading his books is never lost time. You can always learn from his books. Maybe the Schiller biography will never be translated into English, because I have the impression, Schiller is rather unknown in the English speaking world, but this is only an impression. The critics about the Schiller biography are throughout very enthousiastic and positive.

Old Europe“ **

That is absolutely right. Are you German, Old Europe?


According to RM:AO, gravity / gravitation and electromagnetism are something like concomitants of the affectance.


Surreptitious 57 wrote:

„Questions about the meaning of life become superfluous once randomness is understood, because statistical improbability and divine purpose tend not to be mutually compatible.“ **

„Randomness just means where there are multiple possibilities, no single outcome can be guaranteed, because not all of the variables are known.“ **

That does not prove what you said before: „Questions about the meaning of life become superfluous ....“

Questions about the meaning of life do not have to, but can even become more important in that case.


Honeybees are very successful and efficient. In one point - offspring (!) - they are even more efficient than humans.


If it is right that „Trump is a paradigm of revision“ (**), what kind of revision is it and where does it exactly lead to?

To times before Hegel, thus: before 1770? Or what do you mean?

Your text does not make this clear.


Hello again.

Yes (**), but isn't „reactionary“ also a general term?

What exactly makes those ideas you mentioned so „reactionary“?

„Great president“ or „implemented, socially proved movement“, a „possibility“ or not - that all does not express very much, does it?

I am not a Trump fan but hoping that you will enlighten me. Please clarify!


NACH OBEN 998) Arminius, 23.03.2017, 02:09, 18:42, 19:50, 21:23, 21:47, 22:12, 22:13, 23:02; Kathrina, 23.03.2017, 23:23; Arminius, 23.03.2017, 23:30; Kathrina, 23.03.2017, 23:41 (5940-5950)


I found the following defintion of „reactionary“, but I must say that I do not fully accept it:

„A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics (discipline, respect for authority, etc.) that are negatively absent from the contemporary status quo of a society. As an adjective, the word reactionary describes points of view and policies meant to restore the status quo ante.“ **

The definition is one that refers to the French revolution, and the French revolutionaries were not better than those they fightet against, all other revolutionaries after them have given evidence, because they were even more terroristic. In addition: All revolutionaries react! So they themselves are reactionaries.

What remains if all those definitions of „reactionary“ are not really convincing?


Surreptitious 57 wrote:

„There cannot be any objective meaning to life if it occurred randomly which it did. Even if life did not occur randomly, that would still not imply meaning. Asking what is the meaning of life is a loaded question because it assumes there is a meaning. If it could be objectively determined then it would be known. But it cannot because it is purely subjective“ **

No, or let us say: that is only half a truth (if „half a truth“ is possible at all). You do not know whether life is „occured randomly“ or not (**|**). The question whether there is a meaning of life does always make sense, and people always ask this question. It does not assume that „there is a meaning“, as you suggest (probably because you yourself assume that there is no meaning). It is just a question. Everyone may find an answer to this question, regardless which answer it is. That is the reason why I opened this thread.

If you assume that there is no meaning of life for you, then just say that there is „no meaning of life for you“ (again: for you!). You have no objective - but only a subjective (**|**) - argument against those who say that there is an objective meaning of life. There is no proof of the thesis that there is no meaning of life.


Tattoos are a kind of group pressure - comparable with fashion. The modern fact that fashion prevails over morals means that it even determines the morals. Let us see where this will lead to ....


Arminius wrote:

„According to Peter Sloterdijk religion is exercise, training.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„According to Peter Sloterdijk human beings live in symbolic immune systems and in ritual hulls / shells. If it is right that humans yield or produce humans, then they do it not mainly by work and its products and also not by work on themselves or by »interaction« or »communication«; they do it by their lives in exercises / trainings. So humans arise out of repetitions /recurrences, Sloterdijk says.“ ** **


Wisdom is great and music the best. Would that be a compromise?


Kriswest wrote:

„Zappa was most likely stoned when quoted.His thoughts seem incomplete as being high can do this.“ **

Zappa and drugs:

„Zappa's output is unified by a conceptual continuity he termed »Project/Object«, with numerous musical phrases, ideas, and characters reappearing across his albums. His lyrics reflected his iconoclastic views of established social and political processes, structures and movements, often humorously so. He was a strident critic of mainstream education and organized religion, and a forthright and passionate advocate for freedom of speech, self-education, political participation and the abolition of censorship. Unlike many other rock musicians of his era, he personally disapproved of and seldom used drugs, but supported their decriminalization and regulation.


During the recording of Freak Out!, Zappa moved into a house in Laurel Canyon with friend Pamela Zarubica, who appeared on the album. The house became a meeting (and living) place for many LA musicians and groupies of the time, despite Zappa's disapproval of their illicit drug use.


Zappa stated that he tried smoking cannabis ten times, but without any pleasure or result beyond sleepiness and sore throat, and "never used LSD, never used cocaine, never used heroin or any of that other stuff." Zappa stated, »Drugs do not become a problem until the person who uses the drugs does something to you, or does something that would affect your life that you don't want to have happen to you, like an airline pilot who crashes because he was full of drugs«. He was a regular tobacco smoker for most of his life, and strongly critical of anti-tobacco campaigns.

While he disapproved of drug use, he criticized the War on Drugs, comparing it to alcohol prohibition, and stated that the United States Treasury would benefit from the decriminalization and regulation of drugs. Describing his philosophical views, Zappa stated, »I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a ›temporary license to exist'‹ - in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government - it doesn't own you.«


Kriswest wrote:

„Music the best?? The best what? Social interaction? Possibly what he meant. Is it??? In a way yes.“ **

Was the great musician Frank Zappa also a great philosopher? ** **


Copied post in another thread.


Zappa wasn’t the greatest musician. There were others who were greater than him, especially in earlier centuries. But this is not what this thread should deal with. I used the Zappa quote in order to just ask more generally: IS MUSIC THE BEST?


Guess when the third one (**) will be tattooed too!


Music makes us feel good. Isn’t that a good argument?

Music moves humans of all cultures, in a way that doesn’t seem to happen with e.g. animals. Nobody really understands why listening to music - which, unlike sex or food, has no intrinsic value - can trigger such profoundly rewarding experiences.

Music is exquisitely emotionally evocative, which is why a touch of happy music makes even unrelated pictures seem more pleasant. In light of the above, then, we are led to the conclusion that the artifact of music should contain some distinctly human elements.


NACH OBEN 999) Kathrina, 07.04.2017, 15:57, 16:28; Herr Schütze, 07.04.2017, 17:05; Kathrina, 07.04.2017, 19:33, 20:35, 20:40 (5951-5956)


Randomness has not much to do with the question whether life makes sense. It is a fact that life is everywhere in the universe where it has got a chance. Our universe tends to life.



Here are the EU losers (on the left) and the EU winners (on the right):

EU-Gewinner und EU-Verlierer

This relations and the fact of blackmailing are the reasons why the EU and the Euro still exist.

The EU net payers as the EU losers should leave the EU. There should be an EU net payers exit.


„Die tägliche Haßrede im »Spiegel«: ... Ratten-Vergleich.“ (Thomas R. E. Lentze, 20.11.2016, 15:04 **).

Guten Abend, Herr Lentze.

Ich hoffe, es geht Ihnen gut.

Zum Thema „Spiegel“:

Die Zeitschrift „Spiegel“ wurde von uns schon vor rund vier Jahrzehnten mit dem Attribut „notorisch denkfaul“ abgetan, und jeder „Spiegel-Journalist“ (ob männlich oder weiblich) hat sich immer mehr als das offenbart, was er immer schon gewesen ist: Narziß.

Rudolf Augstein setzte sich noch in den 1960er Jahren immerhin indirekt mit dem Denken auseinander, beispielsweise in dem 1966 geführten Gespräch mit Martin Heidegger, doch das kommt einem seit vielen Jahren bereits so vor, als wäre es vor Jahrhunderten gewesen. Einem Rudolf Augstein der 1960er Jahre würde heute fristlos gekündigt und der Prozeß gemacht.

Doch schon in den 1950er Jahren hatte Hans Magnus Enzensberger eine kritische Analyse über „die Sprache des Spiegel“ verfaßt und eine Reihe von Thesen aufgestellt: Das angebliche Nachrichtenmagazin „Spiegel“ sei im Grunde gar kein Nachrichtenmagazin, da es seinen Informationsgehalt in die Form von „Storys“ kleide, es übe nicht Kritik, seine Leserschaft werde nicht orientiert, sondern desorientiert.


Trump is a liar, like any other politician. The newest example of the same old examples is the fact that the United States of America have attacked Syria again. Trump once said that, if he became the president of the USA, he didn't want the USA to attack foreign countries again. Now, Trump is the president of the USA and a foreign country is attacked again by the USA.


I was talking about a lie.


Music has its extreme sides too, hasn’t it?


NACH OBEN 1000) Arminius, 17.04.2017, 01:41, 01:58, 02:03; Herr Schütze, 17.04.2017, 02:12; (5957-5960)


The first who discovered America were the Vikings under Leif Eriksson who lived from 970 to 1020. They discovered it around the year 1000.

Wikinger (Vikings)

„Leif had one ship and a crew of 35, including himself. History records the group as containing 34 Vikings and 1 German. After leaving Greenland, they first happened upon an undiscovered island made of rock with ice mountains in the background. The second island they found contained flat white sand beaches and woodlands. Continuing westward, the third giant island they found may not have been an island at all. Many historians believe that Leif and his crew had just discovered the New England coast.“ **

In 1473, an expedition under the command of the Germans Didrik Pining und Hans Pothorst with their navigator Johannes Scolvus and the Portuguese João Vaz Corte-Real discovered America also before Christopher Columbus (1492).


Yes. First they sold the gas to the islam terrorists, then they lied about that fact and many other facts - as usual. Do you remember what was told (1) about the port of Havanna, (2) about the Lusitania, (3) about Pearl Harbor, (4) about the Gulf of Tanking, (5) about the Twin Towers, (6) about the chemical weapons in Iraq, (7) about the gas in Syria? Answer: (1) Lies, (2) lies, (3) lies, (4) lies, (5) lies, (6) lies, (7) lies.

Being a super power means being a super liar. Saddam Hussein said that Bush’s lie about the chemical weapons in Iraq was „the mother of all lies“.

Power, lies and slavery correlate with each other.

„It is better to fall alone with the free than to go in triumph with the slaves.“ - Ernst Jünger, On the Marble Cliffs (original: Auf den Marmorklippen), 1939. Translated by me.


So you are saying that the life of the human species makes no sense, whereas the life of a single human being makes sense, at least for you. So perhaps we have to distinguish between evolution and history, between nature and culture or a person. Then the answer to the question of the meaning of life has indeed two sides. A person or a couple, a family, a kin, a clan, a tribe, a nation, a culture can have a goal, so that life makes sense, probably because of getting respect, the will to power, or/and just because of each moment. This could also mean that the life of the human species makes sense. But can we know that for sure? Maybe there is only a subjective answer possible, an answer of a person, a couple, a family, a kin, a clan, a tribe, a nation, a culture - if each of them is a subject. The objective meaning could be the framework condition of evolution or nature, for example the fight against the entropy, or the completion, the achievement, the perfection of what was set or placed with its earliest beginning, the fertilizaition, conception.

The human species is merely a zoological concept. But a human as a person or humans as another subject - like a couple, a family, a kin, a clan, a tribe, a nation, a culture - can have, should have and often do have a goal which shows that their life makes sense, has a meaning.

By the way: It is possible too that the „Brexit“ can become a meaning of life to you, if you spend your life time with it (and - perhaps - get power because of it).

Kathrina wrote:

„Randomness has not much to do with the question whether life makes sense. It is a fact that life is everywhere in the universe where it has got a chance. Our universe tends to life.“ ** **



»Guten Abend, Herr Lentze.

Ich hoffe, es geht Ihnen gut.« (Herr Schütze, 07.04.2017, 17:05 [**|**])

Guten Abend, Herr Schütze!


Ja, ich bin gesund und munter, und ich hoffe, Sie sind es auch.“ (Thomas R. E. Lentze, 08.04.2017, 20:09 **).

Danke. Mir geht es auch gut.

»Einem Rudolf Augstein der 1960er Jahre würde heute fristlos gekündigt und der Prozeß gemacht.« (Herr Schütze, 07.04.2017, 17:05 [**|**])

Warum?“ (Thomas R. E. Lentze, 08.04.2017, 20:09 **).

Nun, ich glaube, daß der „Spiegel“ in den 1960er Jahren trotz des beginnenden Wandels seine volksverhetzende Fratze noch nicht so deutlich zeigen konnte, wie er es heute kann, und darum auch noch nicht so deutlich zeigte wie es heute tut.

„An dieser Stelle muß ich einräumen, über die früheren Zeiten nicht mehr gut im Bilde zu sein. Gelegentlich habe ich aber einige sehr gründliche Spiegel-Artikel aus den frühen Jahren ausgegraben. Das sind bzw. waren allerdings immer auch »Storys«; insofern hat Enzensberger recht.

Aus meiner Sicht ist die unverhohlene Rechtslastigkeit, also Parteilichkeit, das wesentliche Kennzeichen des »Spiegel«. Alles was politisch rechts ist, wird gnadenlos verteufelt; rechte Politiker werden in ungünstigen Posen abgebildet; nie wird von Linkspopulisten oder gar Linksextremisten, aber immer von Rechtspopulisten geredet, und diese nach Möglichkeit als verkappte Nazis dargestellt. Daß zum linken Lager grundsätzlich auch ein rechtes Lager gehört, einfach der Ausgewogenheit wegen, wird ignoriert. Der »Spiegel« ist ein Hetzblatt.

Verblüffend ist, daß der »Spiegel« sich auch durch die Kritik seiner Leser nicht belehren läßt, jedenfalls nicht umgehend. Es ist ja schon mal erfreulich, daß kritische Kommentare überhaupt erscheinen dürfen. Man kann den Eindruck gewinnen, daß der »Spiegel« an ihnen seine Grenzen austestet. Ich meine die Grenzen der Manipulation und Volksverhetzung.

Das Volk, selbst das links orientierte, läßt sich anscheinend nur bis zu einem gewissen Grade verhetzen. Besonders deutlich wird das am Minderheiten-Thema. Ständig erscheinen Artikel, in denen die weibliche, negride oder homophile Minderbeteiligung in verantwortlichen Aufgabenbereichen oder anläßlich von Kulturpreis-Verleihungen skandalisiert wird. Natürliche Unterschiede werden geleugnet. Vielfalt in der Hose, aber bitte nicht im Kopf und Kultur. Buntheit im Trieb-, aber nicht im Meinungsspektrum. Beides korreliert negativ: Wo der Sex entfesselt wird, da wird die geistige Freiheit eingeschränkt; wo der Sex hingegen gelenkt wird, da entsteht Hochkultur.

Doch wie gesagt, die meisten Leser protestieren, wenn derartige Artikel, besonders zur Weiberquote, erscheinen. Sie erkennen, daß nicht jeder Homophile oder Neger, der bei einer Preisverleihung sich übergangen fühlt, dies einer »gruppenbezogenen Menschenfeindlichkeit« verdankt, und sie erkennen ebenfalls, daß Führungsstellen nicht mit gleichviel Weibern wie Männern (= Menschen im engeren Sinne) besetzt werden können. Oft genug stehen ja gar nicht einmal genug weibliche Bewerber zur Wahl.

Warum lese ich den »Spiegel« (genauer: Spon) trotzdem? Weil dort ständig sehr viele Nachrichten erscheinen. Der Gefahrenabwehr halber lese ich täglich aber auch die Online-Ausgabe der »Jungen Freiheit«. Erst so entsteht die nötige Ausgewogenheit. Eigentlich tut sie das sogar nur teilweise, denn die »Junge Freiheit« ist nicht so weit rechtslastig, wie der »Spiegel« linkslastig ist.“ (Thomas R. E. Lentze, 08.04.2017, 20:09 **).

Ja, das ist richtig.

Übrigens fällt auf, daß die Sex-und-Politik-Angelegenheit im prüden „British Empire“ des 19. Jahrhunderts nicht zufällig andersherum war: Über Sex durfte man nicht reden, wohl aber über Politik. Heute ist es genau umgekehrt, denn heute darf man nicht über Politik reden, wohl aber über Sex.

Wo der Sex regiert, da ist die poltische und geistige Freiheit verboten.

Das erinnert an panem et circenses im antiken Rom.

Frohe Ostern!