1431) Kathrina, 03.03.2021, 00:44, 00:48, 02:26, 02:57, 03:04, 03:14, 17:34 (7961-7967)

Why have you (**) been banned from KTS?

Just for fun?

Kathrina wrote:

„Magnus Anderson wrote:

»I am not sure Sculptor is a troll. He seems to be merely unpleasant (not that such should be tolerated.) Lev Muishkin was worse, I think.« **

But then you couldn't have petitioned either, because there are no rules in this webforum about who is a troll and who is a stalker, although you can find out pretty easily by going through post by post, thread by thread. You can figure it out! Funny that »Facebook« as the largest web forum in the world has „fact checkers“ as censors and the small web forum »ILovePhilosophy« doesn't even have a moderation.

I have given many more references than you have and, unlike you, have also spoken of stalking. Have you ever had to endure stalking? I have looked at the relevant posts again.

And as for the communists, well, it's clear anyway that they tend to cover for a communist. There would have to be a neutral moderation. But there is not. We should renew the moderation in a neutral direction. See Great Again's thread »Renewing the Moderation« (**|**). But will such a renewed moderation work?

What else remains as a poster is the ignore list.“ ** **

Mags J. wrote:

„@ Kathrina.

I quite liked Lev, but trolling others around ain’t a great thing to be doing. People get off on doing it, I guess.“ **

Ierrellus summed it up quite well:

Ierrellus wrote:

„You want a good example of a stalker. Try the one that rides my ass.“ **

Ierrellus wrote:

„Lev Muishkin. He follows most of my posts with ad homs.“ **

QUESTIONS ARE QUESTIONS!

Gib wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»IS HUMANITY THE BEST OR DANGEROUS?

Is humanity the best or dangerous?

»Humanity« is one of the most misused and subsequently misunderstood words.

As its main goal, humanity should have the harmonious education of the valuable dispositions typical of human beings. But in practice, it has often been the other way around.

I would like to know your opinion about this.

Thank you.

Every day (!) about 10000 ABORTIONS in USA, Canada, EU. And the difference between RICH and POOR today is about as big as the difference between an elephant and a bacterium (!). Not to mention the wars!« ** **

Your questions are all over the place.“ **

And that's a good thing!

Gib wrote:

„Is humanity the best or dangerous? Why so dichotomous? Why not sometimes good, sometimes not so good? And dangerous to who? Other animals? The environment? To itself?“ **

Look at my signature.

I combined the question of whether music is best with the question of whether Trump is dangerous and the question of whether Biden is dangerous.

You can discuss anything, you just have to want to.

Gib wrote:

„In what way do you think the word »humanity« is misunderstood? Is it not as simple as the community of all human beings? If this is wrong, who are you to say you know the right meaning?“ **

I am Kathrina. Hello.

Gib wrote:

„And what is the »harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings«? And why should humanity have that as its goal?“ **

This all is what some of the ILP members (me inclusive) should discuss. Others are seemingly not capable of doing it.

Gib wrote:

„By the sounds of it, you think we're going in the opposite direction, and that's a bad thing.“ **

Who is „we“?

Gib wrote:

„So have you made up your mind? Is humanity overall dangerous?“ **

This all is what some of the ILP members (me inclusive) should discuss. Others are seemingly not capable of doing it.

Gib wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»I would like to know your opinion about this.« ** **

About what?“ **

See above and below. « ** **

Gib wrote:

„Narrow down your question.“ **

No.

Look. If you want a discussion, you should think about the topic anyway. The more room you give for such a discussion, the better the quantity and quality of the thought contributions.

You see it differently, because you would rather have an established basis that has already been checked off beforehand, to which you then only want to say „yes“, so that you can finally embrace everyone again.

I will not change a single word in the opening post. Besides, you can see that the opening post is very well received.

Thank you and have a nice day.

The question whether or not human kindness has destroyed more than it has nurtured is indeed interesting (**), and I would add the question whether or not nurturing causes destroyment and destroyment causes nurturing.

Attano wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»›Humanity‹ is one of the most misused and subsequently misunderstood words.« ** **

Yes, I agree. Together with »nature«.“ **

Yes (e.g.: nature is not capable of selecting). And other words too.

That (**) was crazy, really. Stalking, trolling, throwing ad hominems against Ierrellus without end.

For humanists and so-called „humanists“ (), humanity has a very high value. However, most humanists do not answer the question of what humanity actually is. There are many others who, for that reason or not, have arrived at an interpretation of humanity that not only calls humanity into question, but even turns the very meaning of the word upside down. But the original meaning itself is also not quite clear, because already at the time when this word appeared - in antiquity - mischief was done with it.

Not I, dear Gib, but Cicero presented the harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings with regard to reason and mind as the main goal of humanity. This should be accompanied by the highest development of human culture and morality and accordingly behavior towards fellow men, indeed towards all creatures. The idea of humanity experienced its actual foundation and development in the 18th century in the era of New Humanism. For Kant, humanity is „the sense of the good in community with others in general; on the one hand, the general feeling of participation, on the other hand, the ability to be able to communicate intimately and generally, which qualities, combined together, constitute the sociability appropriate to humanity, by which it differs from animal confinement“.

Humanity as a value can really be understood as „the best“ (well, with values one rather says „the highest“), as for example music can be evaluated as the best. Due to the fact that humanity has been misinterpreted and misunderstood because of the misuse, humanity can also be understood as something that is dangerous, because in its name wars, killings of people and many other creatures, environmental destruction, pollution of the planet Earth and also already its environment have been carried out. The „human rights“ have been used more and more only by a few people in the sense of destruction, murder and pollution for reasons of greed for power. This will become worse and worse in the future if this crime will not be stopped. But what can you expect when it is the criminals themselves who (are supposed to) „stop“ and „punish“ their own crimes?

As if the contamination of the Earth would not be enough, the few - the rulers - have also littered the cosmic environment of the Earth, expose all creatures to the sprayed and vaccinated poisons, high-energy radiation (5G, 6G) and the control of AI. These few, but rulers, make the middle class - the Western middle class -, pay for all this. And 99.9999% of all humans are supposed to subordinate themselves to all this voluntarily.

I already said all that in a shorter form in my opening post, and the others got it right the first time, which is why I'm still wondering what you have your problems with, Gib.

It is not always necessary to explain what one means with a lot of sentences or even a lot of books or websites, even more so when one wants to have a discussion. Most of the time, a few sentences are much more useful for driving a discussion.

1432) Kathrina, 04.03.2021, 00:39, 19:25; Kultur, 04.03.2021, 23:33 (7968-7970)

Obsvr wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Is God there in any situation?

And to what extent is there a relationship between God and any situation at all?

Do you have any suggestions?« ** **

I accept the notion that God IS the situation itself. QED.“ **

God is the situation itself? An interesting statement. But the situation is the present state in a room or space. So God is this present state in a room or space? Then he must be everything at this moment in this room or space - except me. Is that right?

QED.

Gib wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»I already said all that in a shorter form in my opening post, and the others got it right the first time, which is why I'm still wondering what you have your problems with, Gib.« ** **

Proly 'cause they went with the general gist of what you said, which I stated above that I got. But I like to get a bit more specific because otherwise I feel like it's guesswork and that I'm just expressing my own thoughts rather than addressing your question. That plus the question addresses topics that are too broad and complex to have a simple yes/no answer.“ **

That's right. It is also one of the main reasons why I do not want to define the meaning of the word „humanity“ or its definition very precisely myself. This would anyway irritate more than enlighten.

Since technology and subsequently economy, media and politics have become frantic, it is hardly possible to keep track of exactly who changes what, when, where and why. Also, many word meanings change in the process. This can go so far that a „neo-speak“ (Orwell said „newspeak“, which he referred however to the communism) results alone due to the technical development.

If one assumes in any case that „humanity“ is rather dangerous than e.g. best, then one should (be allowed to) expect that the word for it will either be changed in such a way that people understand its meaning, how dangerous „humanity“ is, or else the word meaning will remain the old one (e.g. in the sense of Kant or Humboldt), but then people will have to learn to turn this meaning of the word around, because if people will not do this, they will not notice how much they are lied to and deceived (we have enough examples of this from history, especially the communist examples since 1917).

Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.

Gib wrote:

„Encode and I came up with this rendition of what the harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings means:

Gib wrote:

»I think Kathrina is trying to say that we can all have a common education that we all share (harmonious) about our differences (predispositions). <-- At this point, I think ›typical of human beings‹ speaks for itself.« **

“ **

Wilhelm von Humboldt, the brother of Alexander von Humboldt, defined the task of the state as providing external protection and internal legal security, but otherwise holding back as much as possible and leaving as much freedom as possible for individual and national development.

Many will perhaps prefer to see the word „national“ replaced by the word „global“, but we have never had a „global society“ and we would first have to experience a „global society“ in order to be able to judge whether it can also function in the same way as a national one (I don't think so, because a „global society“ can only lead to oppression, surveillance and violence, many deaths).

Gib wrote:

„But since you said the idea was originally Cicero's, I'll have to look it up.

You can have abstract and exotic definitions of „humanity“ but I don't get what's so wrong with „the community of human beings on the planet Earth“. <-- I think that's the definition. Simple. Common sense. Creative and profound definitions like Kant's are fine ....“ **

Yes.

Gib wrote:

„... I wouldn't say that most people misunderstand what humanity really means just because there are these esoteric definitions out there. <-- Those are the fringe ones.“ **

There are not or at least not only esoteric definitions. There are simply too many misunderstandings, because there are too many misinterpretations, and „controlled misinterpretations“ can also be called „ intentionally misused interpretations“.

The masses as the huge majority in any society are not interested in „definitions“ anyway, but use words, and words have meanings. But even in meanings the masses are not very interested, although they should actually know that words always have meanings.

The masses prefer to let think instead of thinking themselves.

So again: Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.

Gib wrote:

„Anyway, on the question of whether humanity is overall good or overall evil, I'm inclined to say evil--I don't have any facts to back that up, I'm just cynical--but I must also repeat this is a very heavy question with no clear yes/no answer. How does one even measure the overall good or evil that comes out of human beings? And shouldn't one have to define »good« and »evil« first? Get some consensus from a reasonable number of people? And should we be judging the overall good/evil of humanity as a whole, or would such a judgment be meaningless in light of the fact that individuals are good/evil?“ **

Yes, but if you really like to go into the details, you should have noticed that I beat you to it, too, because I intentionally did not speak of „good versus evil“, but of „best versus dangerous“, because I juxtaposed something morally evaluated with a rather natural experience in life.

And my further intention was to leave it up to discussion how to relate the two.

Gib wrote:

Questions, questions, questions. <-- You see KathrineKathrina? That's where my mind goes with questions that are this broad and general... I try to give my answer but end up posing more questions.
^ But at least I got something started.“ **

Yes, you did. Thank you.

My username, my indication of my location, my avatar and my signature are supposed to point out that there is something which is becoming rarer and rarer, because it has become civilization, i.e. degenerated culture, but that should be striven for all the more as a non-degenerate form, if that is at all possible and not simply a fateful development, something which is hardly becoming, but has almost only become.

Cultures exist almost only as a degenerated or fossilized, frozen, senile forms. The English language bears witness to this. In English, when culture is spoken of, the word „civilization“ is usually used, thus admitted that culture has become a degenerated, fossilized, frozen, senile form.

The word „Kultur“ is meant to indicate this, and that is why it is not written in English, because among all occidental languages, English is the most degenerated language - no wonder, it has become the world's „lingua franca“.

Whether one tries to explain cultural degeneration in terms of fate or certain memes, it remains pretty much the same. What we should be thinking about, in my opinion, concerns two questions:

1)	How can we shape cultural decline (degeneration) so that we can reasonably endure it?
2)	Will a new culture (according to Spengler, it would be the ninth) come?

1433) Kathrina, 05.03.2021, 00:06, 00:19, 00:25; Alf, 05.03.2021, 02:07, 02:25, 18:57, 19:17, 19:41, 20:27 (7971-7979)

Encode Decode:

„Kathrina wrote:

»With ›humanity‹ I meant both: ›humanity‹ and ›human kindness‹. The English language, unfortunately, does not distinguish so much in this matter. And I intentionally avoided the word ›humanism‹.« ** **

You can call me Encode or Aaron.

It is important to begin thinking about this at a more basic level - the level of people or indeed the individual. I will give my thoughts starting with people and proceed from there. I think human kindness is important, even in this day and age. On the other hand, kindness that people take for granted is a bad thing. I can see how human kindness is for the best but also dangerous. I don't think we can make up our mind about this given that people, in general, are incongruous with respect to each other. Humanity, as it stands, is not harmonious(in both senses that google lists: forming a pleasing or consistent whole; free from disagreement or dissent). I do however have to mention that this could be argued from one side or the other. Is human kindness for the best or is it dangerous? This would make for an interesting debate. In recent times, however (as is evident even on this forum) it is apparent that a debate needs an audience with a healthy mind. “ **

It basically doesn't matter who you start with, Encode, one human or all humans. This was also known in ancient times. But go ahead, please.

Pandora? Do you (**) mean the ILP Pandora?

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Hey, you’re (**) a Biden’s biotch, report on Biden’s triumphs with all those flattering NYT and Washington Post articles. Share why he’s our savior. Explain why it’s great that Biden started a war in Syria.“ **

I would also be very interested in that.

Didn't he once say that he fought as a soldier against the victorious Vietnamese? Now he is fighting again against Asian people, this time West Asian people - the Syrians -, and he is fighting (again?) with Joe Biden this fight against a technically, but not morally inferior people - like back then in Vietnam.

Man. This text would have to be accompanied by many musical instruments and I would have to put it on the music market with the title: „The Universal Soldier“.

„He's the Universal Soldier
and he really is to blame.
His orders come from far away no more.
They come from here and there and you and me,
and brothers, can't you see
this is not the way to put an end to war.“ **

The United States of America should not be allowed to have any weapons at all, no nuclear weapons, no chemical weapons, no biological weapons, no missiles either, no airplanes, no tanks, no soldiers, no rifles, no guns, no knives. The United States of America should be allowed to have only stones (and some hands to be able to use the stones).

The US-Americans have started enough wars and brought them over the whole mankind, over the whole planet Earth.

Kathrina wrote:

„Since technology and subsequently economy, media and politics have become frantic, it is hardly possible to keep track of exactly who changes what, when, where and why. Also, many word meanings change in the process. This can go so far that a „neo-speak“ (Orwell said „newspeak“, which he referred however to the communism) results alone due to the technical development.

If one assumes in any case that „humanity“ is rather dangerous than e.g. best, then one should (be allowed to) expect that the word for it will either be changed in such a way that people understand its meaning, how dangerous „humanity“ is, or else the word meaning will remain the old one (e.g. in the sense of Kant or Humboldt), but then people will have to learn to turn this meaning of the word around, because if people will not do this, they will not notice how much they are lied to and deceived (we have enough examples of this from history, especially the communist examples since 1917).

Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.“ ** **

I think that a code of anthropotechnics must be formulated. This would retroactively also change the meaning of classical or idealistic humanism / new humanism - because with it it would be revealed and written down that humanitas does not only imply the friendship of human being with human being; it also always implies - and with increasing explicitness - that human being represents the higher power for human being.

Kathrina wrote:

„Obsvr wrote:

»Alf wrote:

›Is God there in any situation?

And to what extent is there a relationship between God and any situation at all?

Do you have any suggestions?‹ ** **

I accept the notion that God IS the situation itself. QED.« **

God is the situation itself? An interesting statement. But the situation is the present state in a room or space. So God is this present state in a room or space? Then he must be everything at this moment in this room or space - except me. Is that right?

QED.“ ** **

It's like this:

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Real God = The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = »The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is«.“ **

Isn't it?

And why is it not like that (**|**), as you (**) said?

You are not drunk again (**|**), are you?

I hope you can take a joke. Otherwise excuse me, please.

You (**) equate God with consciousness, and your soul is synonymous with a consciousness, as you say, so accordimg to that: God is your soul. Right?

Carleas, are you okay?

My posts have not been counted correctly. This seems to apply only to posts in certain subforums. Could you correct that, please?

If not, then change my name to „Carleas“ in light blue color, please.

By the way:

I am still wondering, how Mags can hear what Meno has written (**).

Please correct that too, Carleas.

If not, then change my name to „Carleas“ in light blue color, please.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Programming of children and naive university students - along with their overwhelming communistic ethics brainwashing.“ **

That's the point.

1434) Kultur, 06.03.2021, 00:47 (7980)

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»My username, my indication of my location, my avatar and my signature are supposed to point out that there is something which is becoming rarer and rarer, because it has become civilization, i.e. degenerated culture, but that should be striven for all the more as a non-degenerate form, if that is at all possible and not simply a fateful development, something which is hardly becoming, but has almost only become.« ** **

It's an indication of the power of social engineering and propaganda, in the post-war era. The victors »write the history books« - official narrative - and then may criminalize all alternate narratives that challenge it.

Kultur wrote:

»Cultures exist almost only as a degenerated or fossilized, frozen, senile forms. The English language bears witness to this. In English, when culture is spoken of, the word ›civilization‹ is usually used, thus admitted that culture has become a degenerated, fossilized, frozen, senile form.Yes, cultivating multiple interpretations and variants of it called ›civilizations‹.

Kultur wrote:

»The word ›Kultur‹ is meant to indicate this, and that is why it is not written in English, because among all occidental languages, English is the most degenerated language - no wonder, it has become the world's ›lingua franca‹.« ** **

Agreed.

And it is rooted in a interpretation of Latin which also bastardized the Hellenic original. Much is lost in translation, just as genius does not birth geniuses.

Kultur wrote:

»Whether one tries to explain for cultural degeneration with fate or certain memes, it remains pretty much the same. What we should be thinking about, in my opinion, concerns two questions:

1) How can we shape the cultural decline (degeneration) in such a way that we can bear it to some extent?« ** **

Yes, and I've given my own opinion in the form of a pop-cultural allegory in Zombie Apocalypse. I've already described how and why „zombification occurs“ and how it spreads and what it means, so the allegory is relevant.

How would you survive, dear friend, a zombie apocalypse, if it were real? In my contexts it is real, though it is not as it is artistically displayed in movies and television but it is displayed in everyday use of language, exposing a gradual dumbind-down and disconnection form empirical reality and the past. A linguistically transmittable dis-ease can only find a »vaccine« in linguistics. I've offered my opinion in this regard, as well, by indicating that the best medicine is not interventional but preventative, and that once disease has taken hold of an organism then time is of the essence.

The psychosomatic symptomology has been written years ago Nihilism: Signs & Symptoms along with the causes ... though some details have been revised. This is a falsifiable mental disorder, which is witnessed everyday in its extreme manifestations as gender dysphoria.

Kultur wrote:

»2) Will a new culture (according to Spengler, it would be the ninth) come?« ** **

Given what you've said thus far I cannot believe this would be in doubt.

Everything, including superorganism founded on memes - organism are founded on genes - go in cycles. Every variant is never absolutely the same as the previous - due to chaos, producing mutations/corruptions, and the determining effects of free-will. What is in doubt is if the Indo-Euroepan race will survive another near-extiction event, as it did at least twice before? - this is in question particularly for the European branch, and less so for the Indo branch, and the reasons is the effects of a parasitical meme that has infested European man. Does Europe still have the autoimmune virility to fight off this infestation and return to tis origins? This is in doubt. Here, the zombie narrative returns. What would people that have become immune to this parasitical disease that causes zombification do? How? I would think that the first thing a man finding himself in such a situation would think to do is find others who, like him, have evaded the disease that creates zombification. This forum is a - let's say - commune of the uninfected.“ **

A good comment. Thank you.

1435) Kultur, 07.03.2021, 00:19, 00:30, 00:34, 00:38, 01:37, 00:40; Alf, 07.03.2021, 02:55, 03:31; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 06.03.2021, 02:02, 23:57; Great Again, 06.03.2021, 23:30; Otto, 06.03.2021, 01:48, 02:19

I know Spengler's books so well that I sometimes think I would have written them myself. But the English version of Spengler's texts is a little different. Through the translation, some things are neglected or exaggerated, some things are even misrepresented. This can be due to the translation itself, to the translator, or to a translation problem in general.

The German word „Kultur“ should not have been translated into English in Spengler's case. The word „civilisation“ is often used in English when „culture“ or more properly „Kultur“ should be said. The words „civilisation“ and „Zivilisation“, the words „civilisation“ and „Kultur“ and the words „culture“ and „Kultur“ are not exactly congruent either. Unfortunately, the German linguistic practice after World War II, more precisely since „1968“, even more precisely since 1989/'90 (fall of the Berlin Wall) has adapted a bit to the English linguistic practice, so that the translation problem is not as important today as it was in Spengler's time. But nevertheless the difference is still there, as the following diagram shows:

I don't agree with every word Spengler wrote, but I would say that he is the philosopher I agree with the most. If one can also understand Goethe as a philosopher - and one can, as Spengler also thought -, then Goethe is the one I agree with the second most. He is followed by the philosophers Hegel, Heidegger, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, N. Hartmann, N. Luhmann (supposedly more of a „sociologist“) and last but not least Sloterdijk. Now you can classify me philosophically a little bit.

@ Satyr (the films you posted).

„Asimov's vision is absolutely horrific“, said the man with the Eastern European accent. I agree with that.

I have a few small things to correct on the 2nd film. However, they are not so important from a philosophical point of view.

Satyr wrote:

„How would you define the terms?

Capture the Spenglerean essence of it.“ **

Which Terms do you mean? The Terms „Kultur“, „culture“, „Zivilisation“, „civilisation“?

Hello, Kvasir.

I am now registered.

One can only feel very sorry for the children.

You have misquoted me, Mr. Meno (**).

It is not allowed to misquote someone. You have done it so even three times.

I never said what you put between my lines and made it look like a quote.

You have made yourself guilty by misquoting me, probably even intentionally.

You can now be legally prosecuted. Remember that anything additional you say from now on can also be used against you.

Mags J. wrote:

„Why should I not be able to hear (do you mean read?) what Meno has written?“ **

For purely physical reasons, it is not possible to hear that and what someone writes who is thousands of kilometers away.

Mags J. wrote:

„Where and why, is everyone coming back from?“ **

I took a break and posted elsewhere later, before I started posting here again.

Mags J. wrote:

„It’s been a steady stream of past members returning for some months now.“ **

Is that true?

In German, „Zivilisation“ is on the one hand the hyponym to the hyperonym „Kultur“, but on the other hand it is also congruent with „Kultur“, i.e. both can also be synonyms depending on the text and context.

In English, „civilization“ is on the one hand congruent with the German word „Zivilisation“, on the other hand partly congruent with the German word „Kultur“.

Moreover, „Kultur“ still has meanings in German that do not exist at all in the English „culture“, just because the civilization (Zivilisation) has already destroyed much more here.

https://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t2526p480-americanism#92499

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HfB64tzw74

1436)

1437)

1438)

1439)

1440)

==>