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 |
<= [1081][1082][1083][1084][1085][1086][1087][1088][1089][1090] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6580 |
6581 |
Show me that God is a contradiction (one of your false premises).
Show me that a contradiction is impossible (one of your false premises).
Show me that absolute perfection is an impossibility (one of your false premises).
Show me that God is an impossibility (one of your false conclusions). ** **
6582 |
I want to spend my inheritance, when i get it, in the far future, upon a bunch of small interconnected houses.
I will find and invite people to live there. It will be on dad's farm land, so no rent issues.
We will have gardens and self-supplied organic foods.The religion of Canada is freedom of choice.
So I must accept that first.
Next, I try to share my beliefs if it can help someone out. **Dad and Andrew don't like my idea at all.
They are ok with andrew spending his spare money on beer and weed.
Buying a new car or stuffing animals you've shot.
But when it comes to a commune, giving things to others,
that is some kind of a crime.These humans are foolish and I won't let that stop my plans.
It's only a matter of time until I set something up. **
6583 |
6584 |
6585 |
Arminius wrote:
»
- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Flür, Bartlos), Europa endlos, 1977.
« ** **
I guess, you know this one too:
Dont you? ** **
Not to forget this one:
- Kraftwerk (Hütter, Schneider, Roeder, Flür), Autobahn, 1974.
** **
|
6586 |
6587 |
Not surprising, this is exactly the mentality of the American government. **
6588 |
Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors. ** **
My philosophy has fundamentals that can empirically also be found in nature, a.k.a the universe, and theoretically also be found in cosmology and geology: (1) actualism, (2) exceptionalism, (3) cataclysm, (4) cyclicism. ** **
6589 |
6590 |
6591 |
And »impossible« doesnt mean »unlikely« (to real people anyway). Impossible means that it is 100% certain that it does not exist at all. **
6592
Don't expect friends, don't expect fun, don't expect a good life, don't expect anything; and if you get something, it's a bonus. **
6593 |
6594 |
What exactly is logic? **
Your (**) arguments have nothing to do with this thread. **
6595 |
6596 |
|
6597 |
6598 |
6599 |
Arminius wrote:
»Life could be so easy. But the greed destroys everything. If animals were smarter and capable of speaking, they would certainly say: »Humans are beings of greed«. ** **
Arminius ... certainly few people would disagree.
Let's use your comment as a 'baseline' for further thought. A real world example ... so many people attribute the meteoric rise of China to Deng Xiaoping ... him being the person who opened the doors to China after these doors had been virtually closed to the outside world for almost 500 years.
Deng Xiaoping's strategy hinged on two axioms:
1) Cross the river by feeling the stones(with your feet) Find a stone ... step on it ... when convinced it's safe have your other foot find the next stone ... and in this way cross the river. ergo ... exercise cautious adventurism.
2) A little greed is OK ... ergo ... opening the door to greed only a crack will serve our purpose at the moment and we can easily close it again at the appropriate time.
His strategy seems to have worked ... and China has recently reached the stage where they want to close the door to greed again. ergo ... the highly publicized anti corruption campaign. The jury is still out on whether they will be successful or not.
For me, this real world example says the following:
1) Greed in certain circumstances has merit. **
2) Greed does not die a natural death ... greed must be killed ... an enormous and perhaps impossible task.
Let's change the scope of the example to the world ... the human race. Pervasive greed throughout human history brought us to where we are today ... not all bad. Has the time for greed to die come? I think so. Will greed die a natural death ... simply from old age? :-) Not likely.
What can/should we do? **
6600 |
6601 |
Arminius wrote:
»Mags J. wrote:
That is not how I pictured you look at all, Arminius. **
Why? I mean how did you picture my look then?« ** **
Less brawny/rugged, as your gentle demeanor (based on your literary offerings here) belies that. **
|
6602 |
6603 |
6604 |
6605 |
6606 |
Being the subjectivist you can always agree to disagree and being evasive is a virtue among the effeminate. So thats why most people will choose the Its all cool, man, its all just an opinion, man. option.
But, there comes a point where the masses become irritated with all the most extreme looney cases among them who demand equal air time or even more air time with their subjective opinions and thats when they cry for more objectivism. Objectivism for them means that an authority figure(s) sets boundaries for right opinions.Johann Wolfgang von Gothe wrote in The Experiment as Mediator of Object and Subject:
»Those human beings undertake a much more difficult task whose desire for knowledge kindles a striving to observe the things of nature in and of themselves and in their relations to one another. We no longer have the standard that helped us when we looked at things in relation to ourselves. We lack the measure of pleasure and displeasure, attraction and repulsion, use and harm. We must renounce these and as quasi-divine beings seek and examine what is and not what pleases. True botanists should not be touched by the beauty or the utility of a plant. They should investigate the plants formation and its relation to the remaining plant kingdom. Just as the sun coaxes forth and shines on all plants, botanists should consider all plants with an even and quiet gaze and take the measure for knowledgethe data that form the basis for judgmentnot out of themselves but out of the circle of what they observe.
People are in their lives much more often subjective than objective with their assessment of something and why wouldnt they. Its their life which depends on evaluating something in accordance with their needs.
Objectivity helps with this decision making, it provides a more accurate evaluation of reality in particular longterm consequences but ultimately the decision is always based on what is good for us as a subject, or what we deem to be good.So what is a subjectivist and an objectivist?
Does the subjectivist denounce the validity of trying to be objective in an assessment of reality?
Does the objectivist not ultimately consider his subjective preferences and needs when making decisions? Are they universal? **
6607 |
|
6608 |
Arminius wrote:
»The goal of an objectivist is to just not consider his subjective preferences and needs in order to make decisions.« ** **
Do you mean to not exclusively consider his subjective preferences when making his decisions or do you mean to not consider his subjective preferences? **
Because objective inquiry is always detached from making decisions. Its about understanding the phenomenon at hand.
A judgement is always subjective but of course its not necessarily based on only very narrow-minded considerations. **
For some Europeans there exists a desire to be objective in their judgement of others or in other words a sense of fairness, of truthfulness which must be fulfilled. **
This sense can be misdirected and exploited by hypocritical cheats and liars. **
6609 |
When you judge something then you do this in relation to an ideal, like a notion of good and bad in a specific context.
So when you say that a judgement itself can be objective then I presume that you see some ideals or an ideal to be independent from a thinking subject, to be out there as a guiding principle.Or are you thinking in terms of laws of nature and deriving ideals ... for people, to be ultimately based on them? **
|
6610 |
|
6611 |
Alf wrote:
»Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors.« ** **
They do (tend to eradicate all other competitors)? Has something happened that I don't know about? **
Some bot vs. human war? **
Has this tendency been proven in the field, as it were? Or is this just simply a bold claim you have decided to make? **
Machines need resources like any other product otherwise they will become obsolete. That does not necessarily mean elimination of competitors although that is an option. **
»Machines need resources too. Similar to living beings, they will tend to eradicate all other competitors.« ** **
6612 |
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe wrote in The Experiment as Mediator of Object and Subject (original: Der Versuch als Vermittler von Objekt und Subjekt - 1792 **):
»Those human beings undertake a much more difficult task whose desire for knowledge kindles a striving to observe the things of nature in and of themselves and in their relations to one another. We no longer have the standard that helped us when we looked at things in relation to ourselves. We lack the measure of pleasure and displeasure, attraction and repulsion, use and harm. We must renounce these and as quasi-divine beings seek and examine what is and not what pleases. True botanists should not be touched by the beauty or the utility of a plant. They should investigate the plants formation and its relation to the remaining plant kingdom. Just as the sun coaxes forth and shines on all plants, botanists should consider all plants with an even and quiet gaze and take the measure for knowledge the data that form the basis for judgment not out of themselves but out of the circle of what they observe.«
**
6613 |
|
6614 |
6615 |
The soul is similar to Kants »Ding an sich« (»thing at itself« / »thing as such«), Schopenhauers »Wille« (»will«). ** **
Those terms do not have the function to avoid science, objectivity, knowledge, recognition, insight ... and so on and so forth. The opposite is true. With those terms we are more capable of getting more information about the other things than without those terms. They are and work like scientific and mathematical constants and variables.
Humans (especially the Faustian humans) want to understand and to explain everything. And if they did not use such terms, they would be less able to understand and to explain most things.
These terms do not forbid anything. They are just epistemological constants and variables. As if they were saying: As long as you are not able to find a solution use us as constants or variables. And they are not only epistemologically important.
The speed of light is a natural constant. Who says that the speed of light explains »most things away« (**)? - In spite of the fact that natural constants are not like social or spiritual constants, I would say that they all work very similarly. ** **
Spirtual, at least mathematic constants are even less random than natural constants. Think of mathematic constants like »pi« or »root two«. They work! They function!
The translation is not seldom difficult; so the word »spiritual« may confuse some people here; but what I mean by it is a superordinate of - for example - logic, mathematics, philosophy, law .... ** **
6616 |
Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science. **
This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things? **
6617 |
And where is Otto West (seriously)? ** **
|
6618 |
6619 |
6620 |
6621 |
|
6622 |
As I understand it from her user notes, it was for http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 8#p2683698 and (predominantly) the subsequent postings. **
6623 |
Alf wrote:
»The more global control, the more Liberias.« ** **
And at last the whole planet Earth will consist of about one million »Liberias«? ** **
6624 |
Brando wrote:
»Rahner favours the Idea of Heidegger, that there is ... a fundamental way of existence apart from science.« **
There is such a way of existence apart from science, yes, of course.
Brando wrote:
»This is to him the same as being aligned with god. The idea that we must have a total scientific knowledge to found our existence does mean hell. Is this a correct way to see things?« **
The fundamental way of existence apart from science is needed. Science should have a non-sciencific opponent. Also, science has become too corrupt just because of many reasons, and one of this many reasons has been the lack of a fundamental way of existence apart from science. ** **
6625 |
6626 |
6627 |
Only Humean wrote:
»Arminius wrote:
Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings. ** **
Then please, show me a machine that completely replaces a human being and let me know how much it costs.« **
One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.
Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *
Phase / stage | Average machine rate | Average economic status (living standard / wealth / welfare) | Average fertility rate | |
1) | 1770-1870 | LOW | LOW | HIGH |
2) | 1870-1970 | MIDDLE | MIDDLE | MIDDLE |
3) | 1970- | HIGH | HIGH | LOW |
* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).
Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.
In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the evolution of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called progress and the so called revolutions) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!). ** **
6628 |
6629 |
Arminius wrote:
»Only Humean wrote:
Arminius wrote:
'Again: p is NOT false and q is NOT false. Because: All expensive things are replaced by cheaper things. And: We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.' ** **
Then please, show me a machine that completely replaces a human being and let me know how much it costs. **
One example for those human beings are the killed unborns in the occidental area because they have been being the most humans who have been being completely replaced by machines. If you want to know when, how many, where, under which costs, and why humans are completely replaced by machines you ONLY have to look at the Occidental demographic development (especially since the end of the 18th century). The correlation between demography on the one hand and culture (civilisation), economy, intelligence, and - last but not least - technique / technology on the other hand is so obvious that it can not be denied anymore. Look at the data, numbers, and facts of demography and you will find out that the relatively fast decline of the Occident is caused by cultural (civilisational) effects, which include the economical, scientifical, and - last but not least - technical / technological effects, to which the machines belong.
Table for the machines rates and the fertility rates since 1770 in the occidental (industrial/mechanical) area: *
Phase / stage | Average machine rate | Average economic status (living standard / wealth / welfare) | Average fertility rate | |
1) | 1770-1870 | LOW | LOW | HIGH |
2) | 1870-1970 | MIDDLE | MIDDLE | MIDDLE |
3) | 1970- | HIGH | HIGH | LOW |
* The declared values are relative values (compared to the average values from 1770 till today), so for eaxmple LOW does not mean generally low, but relatively low, and this relative value is also an average value of one phase. And as said: the values refer to the occidental area, its people, its machines (so: immigrants are not included).
Please notice that this values can clearly show that there is a correlation between machines and fertility. If the machine rate is high, then the fertility rate is low.
In the first phase (stage) and in the first half of the second phase (stage) the machines cause an increasing population, but in the second half of the second phase (stage) and in the third phase (stage) the machines cause a shrinking population. Because of the fact that the evolution of machines is going to lead to more phases, new phases (amongst others because of the so called progress and the so called revolutions) one can generally say that machines cause a shrinking population, in other words: machines replace human beings more and more (in an exponential way!).« ** **
And when will the third phase end? ** **
6630 |
Ur-thoughts are conscious too. All thoughts are conscious. Even if they are in contact with instincts: Thoughts are always conscious. ** **
6631 |
Arminius wrote:
»Alf wrote:
The more global control, the more 'Liberias'. ** **
And at last the whole planet Earth will consist of about one million Liberias?« ** **
Unless the globalists will be stopped.. ** **
==>
|