1451) Kultur, 01.04.2021, 06:20; Alf, 01.04.2021, 08:36, 08:45, 09:26; Kathrina, 01.04.2021, 10:21, 10:41, 10:58 (8148-8154)

Many philosophers - probably the overwhelming majority - have indeed remained childless. This is not exactly a sign of faithfulness to culture, to its future on the basis of origin. That would be comparable as if most of the „philosophical“ cells in an organism had forgotten the genetic code of this organism. One knows what this means!

But Martin Heidegger, for example, had children. He was completely normal as far as having children is concerned. He married Elfride Petri in 1917. He was 28 years old then - quite normal for that time. His first child, Jörg, was born in 1919, when Heidegger was 30 years old; the second child, Hermann, was born in 1920, when Heidegger was 31 years old. All pretty normal. For thorough philosophizing (thinking), Heidegger moved to solitude. His mountain hut was built in 1922, so it was ready for occupancy in 1922, five years before the publication of Heidegger's main work „Sein und Zeit“ („Being and Time“). Here in his hut in the mountains and forests near Todtnauberg in the Black Forest, Heidegger's main work was written: in a „Lichtung“ („glade“/„clearing“). „Lichtung“ („glade“/„clearing“) is an important term in Heidegger's philosophy.

Another example is Peter Sloterdijk. His only child was born when he was already in his mid-40s. By then, he had long since finished his first major work „Kritik der zynischen Vernuft“ („Critique of Cynical Reason“; published in 1983), with which he became known, much long before he became a father. And yet he wrote his best books when he was already a father: I only recall his trilogy „Sphären“ („Spheres“; published in 1998, 1999, 2004) when he was in his 50s, or „Zorn und Zeit“ („Rage and Time“; published in 2006), „Du mußt dein Leben ändern“ („You Must Change Your Life“; published in 2009), and especially „Die schecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit“ („The Terrible Children of Modern Times“; published in 2014).

You can also be a philosopher if you have children.

Are this two guys probably the same guy?

When 77 years old.                 When 61 years old.          

Copied post in another thread.

It's my uncle. Really!

The other one is either my uncle too or the musician Ian Anderson (Jethro Tull).

Look at them: They look confusingly similar, although one in the photo is 77 and the other in the other two photos is 61 years old.

Right?

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Kathrina wrote:

»Playing with the dog.

« ** **

Adorable puppy! Deserves more treats!“ **

This „puppy“ was 91 months and 5 days old when the photo was taken (on 10 October 2019). 91 months and 5 days correspond to 7 years and 7 months and 5 days.

This dog gets a lot of attention; it is played with a lot and also walked with very often. And yet every now and then we ask ourselves whether it is really enough. But it is enough. Guaranteed.

He (**) did not debunk anything, only used dirty words and other unobjective words. In any case, he has not used a single objective argument, but only words that reflect his subjective feelings.

Look again:
- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196847&p=2810527#p2810429
- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196847&p=2810527#p2810477
- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196847&p=2810527#p2810494
- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196847&p=2810527#p2810497
- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196847&p=2810527#p2810521
- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196847&p=2810527#p2810524
- https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=196847&p=2810527#p2810533

It is his right to say that he disagrees with something, yes, and I do not dispute that at all. He just has no single objective argument.
He said: „I’m done with this thread“ (**). That's okay. There are enough ILP threads: Total topics 48142 with total posts 1219687.

The Ancient Greeks and Romans themselves, because they had long since become nihilistic, became Christians.

1452) Great Again, 02.04.2021, 00:35, 00:41; Kultur, 01.04.2021, 00:46; Alf, 02.04.2021, 12:05, 12:57, 13:06 (8155-8159)

Meno wrote:

„Against all left-right politics, from the beginning of my residency here I subscribed to a middle of the road, sustaining neo-Kantianism as reactionarily relevant.

That daid, I do not subscribe to a necessary teleilogical political certainty, but do prescribe to a belated but forgotten pre-twentieth century prophetically inspired possibility.

The idea that a major political calamity may ferment with a new alliance against an axis that will be as formidable as the one in the last world war, may become credible.

As a religious tenet , such prophecy, consisting of an inception of conflict beginning in the Middle East, has shadows of past recollected vectors of dynamic conflict.

May the graces if man, who are currently in a hidden battle against the demonic forces, overcome and defeat the beast that tries to undermine Creation.

If You think about it, this recollected idea does not seem that far-fetched. May Mankind start to worship the soul of his hidden God, before everything becomes unhinged.“ **

Kant, Kantianism, Neo-Kantiansimus is always good, but if the majority has nothing more to say and only globalists against the rest of mankind or soon probably also against itself the most terrible wars lead, is also Kant not much use.

When evil is in power, it follows its own „reason“ and its own „categorical imperative“, namely without or/and against the rest of mankind. Or?

Concerning penis wars:

Ben wrote:

„This thread IS NOT:

1) A showcase for your endless penis wars.
2) The Detrop Fan Club/Hate Club thread.“ **

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»You can also be a philosopher if you have children.« ** **

Yes you can, because love of wisdom is what a philosopher is.
But not a prolific one ....
Some part will suffer, either you will be a better philosopher and a bad parent, or a good parent and a bad philosopher.

Depends on how much time you are permitted to allocate.

Fathers in the past were not expected to spend a lot of time with their children.
Didn't Heidegger have a retreat in the forest where he wrote his work?
I doubt he brought his children along.“ **

That's what I said in my last post (also with an addition of many pictures about Heidegger's hut / chalet / shieling / alpine hut):

Kultur wrote:

„Martin Heidegger, for example, had children. He was completely normal as far as having children is concerned. He married Elfride Petri in 1917. He was 28 years old then - quite normal for that time. His first child, Jörg, was born in 1919, when Heidegger was 30 years old; the second child, Hermann, was born in 1920, when Heidegger was 31 years old. All pretty normal. For thorough philosophizing (thinking), Heidegger moved to solitude. His mountain hut was built in 1922, so it was ready for occupancy in 1922, five years before the publication of Heidegger's main work „Sein und Zeit“ („Being and Time“). Here in his hut in the mountains and forests near Todtnauberg in the Black Forest, Heidegger's main work was written: in a „Lichtung“ („glade“/„clearing“). „Lichtung“ („glade“/„clearing“) is an important term in Heidegger's philosophy.

“ ** **

It was exactly my point in my last post: to say that Heidegger, because he had a retreat, namely „his hut in the mountains and forests near Todtnauberg in the Black Forest“ (**|**), and other philosophers are examples for being a fruitful, successful, prolific philosopher even with children. Maybe that Heidegger's children were sometimes at and in the hut (chalet, shieling, alpine hut - how would you call it?), but most likely not when Heidegger had to do his work.

Heidegger’s retreat in the Black Forest again:

Urwrong wrote:

„I guarantee all Americans (not many on this website though) that Russia-China-Iran are not arguing among themselves about whether cross-dressing faggots should play women's sports.

Instead they are masculinizing their boys, and readying for war, while America disintegrates from within.

In how many years before the enemy are at the gates?

Or that their agents have already not infiltrated the city?

While they invade, our faggot »men« will still be busy destroying America from within.“ **

Such a destruction usually comes from within, and this is because a destruction from without would not be possible if it were repelled from within at all times.

It is comparable to the immune system of an organism. Namely, the immune system of an organism is an internal defense system against attacks from the outside. If the immune system is weakened or is itself the attacker (as in the case of the current vaccine based on genetic engineering), then the attackers from the outside have an easy game, they have almost nothing to do, otherwise just be there, the rest is done by the immune system fighting against its own organism, thus the defense system inside.

Obsrvr wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Such a destruction usually comes from within, and this is because a destruction from without would not be possible if it were repelled from within at all times.

It is comparable to the immune system of an organism. Namely, the immune system of an organism is an internal defense system against attacks from the outside. If the immune system is weakened or is itself the attacker (as in the case of the current vaccine based on genetic engineering), then the attackers from the outside have an easy game, they have almost nothing to do, otherwise just be there, the rest is done by the immune system fighting against its own organism, thus the defense system inside.« ** **

And it certainly doesn't help the US to have a leader who removes that skin from the body and invites in any and all germs.

Certainly not.

It's like an US leader without an immune system volunteering to go to the bioweapons lab in Wuhan and then coming back to the US and throwing a party every day for everyone in the US.

A god is not always only good, he is also sometimes evil. Otherwise, he could not be a real God.

1453) Alf, 03.04.2021, 09:03, 09:32, 09:59; Kultur, 03.04.2021, 10:29, 10:47, 10:58, 11:24, 12:51, 20:07 (8161-8170)

Felix Dakat wrote:

„Clearly, Jaspers was a phenomenologist.“ **

Yes. Jaspers was a phenomenologist and existential philosopher. Heidegger too. It is said in Heidegger’s main work that ontology ... is only possible as phenomenology (cf. § 7, C, p. 35), that ontology and phenomenology are not two different disciplines beside others belonging to philosophy, that his investigations have only become possible on the ground laid by E. Husserl, with whose „Logische Untersuchungen“ (1900) phenomenology came to its breakthrough (cf. § 7, C, p. 38).

Today the globalists are making the revolution, the permanent one, and the people are being fought as if they were the globalists, the rulers of the world.

Felix Dakat wrote:

„Alf wrote:

»Is God there in any Situation?

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?« ** **

God is the ground of being out of which every situation appears. The logos is the structure of being out of which the light of consciousness shines thus making the situation intelligible. Christianity identifies Jesus as the incarnate logos who saves via the law of love.“ **

Is it right that you are in agreement with Obsrvr, who says God is the situation, and Ierrellus, who says almost the same, although with emphasis more on dynamics („becoming“) than on statics („is“)?

Satyr wrote:

„Children in their teens require constant supervision.
I know 'cause mine has been living with me full time for over a year and a half....and I can barely get free time, other than when he goes to school. Every time they close I weep.
But such is life. I made a choice.“ **

Is it really that bad?

In the evaluation of children and their education on the one hand and intellectual work (here: philosophy) on the other, we seem to be very different from each other. For me, raising and educating children has never been a duty, never a must, but always a bliss, a matter of the heart and of the spirit, a spiritual challenge.

Concerning the art it was with the Ancient Greeks mainly the sculpture (see e.g.: Phidias, Polyklet, Praxiteles), in the later Occident mainly the music (see e.g.: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven). Therefore it does not surprise me that I myself am also a very musical person.

Oh Fortunae

„Peter Sloterdijk - Projekte der Ungeduld.“ **

I like this film, because Sloterdijk says something right in it.

Here comes a film in which Sloterdijk answers questions about his book „Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit“ („The Terrible Children of Modern Times“) first published in 2014:

„Peter Sloterdijk - »Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit«“

According to Sloterdijk's and also my philosophy of culture and history, it is valid in the human „primitive culture“, which Sloterdijk, however, calls „early culture“, that who dares to question, to criticize the own community and origin, is punished with death. Sloterdijk calls the condition, in which these groups of people find themselves, an „obsession“. What he calls the „high culture“ „mediates“, so to speak, between the „early culture“ and the „late culture“, because in the „high culture“ the first „terrible children“ - those who rebel against community and origin - emerge and their peculiarity increasingly breaks through, but does not yet come to dominance, because their dominance already belongs to the „late culture“. Whereas in the „early culture“ copying errors are not allowed, in the „high culture“ they are allowed for the first time, but still under reservation, which then no longer exists in the „late culture“, because the unrest triggered by the terrible children is then already „chronic and with unflinching aggressiveness, not to speak of binding aggressiveness“, already a synonym for „modernity“ and „civilization“. In the „late culture“ the hostility towards everything communal, all origin, all tradition, all genealogy, all history, all past and the like prevails. The development from the „early to the late culture“ can be described according to Sloterdijk as a path from the absolute power of the conservative to the absolute powerlessness of the conservative, which will be reached with the end of the „late culture“, whenever that will be the case. According to my research, absolute powerlessness of the conservative can never be achieved in life.

Is it possible to develop without a conservative element? No. That is why I think that Sloterdijk's real message is the following:

Turn back, because your path is a bottomless dead end.

Sloterdijk knows that the terrible children of the modern age do not have much time left for the correction of their wrong development. It is a bottomless dead end.

For Sloterdijk, „the abolition of corruption“ is the „serious case of learning. He who is a learner does not merely accumulate information. He understands that real learning has something of a conversion. - If there were a counterpart in cultural theory to that which embodies the holy of holies in the Catholic altar structure, it could be nothing other than that most dilapidated term of the present day: „learning“. In the coming century, it should be guarded like a numinous presence in a revelatory tent. On rare days, it might be allowed to be unveiled for a few moments. Is not the suspicion well-founded that learning is the unknown God, of whom it was said at the time in a note of seer darkness that only such a one could still save us?“.

„Who seriously believes with the philosopher Neurath that ships can be rebuilt on the high seas? Yes, who still claims that there is a command bridge on our ship? - In short, in our day, no one can know what constitutes the factual content of sirenic words like „sustainability“ and „future viability.“ Anyone who would be able to distinguish between gait, drift and fall would have to be prophetically gifted. This is the condition to which Heidegger alluded when he made his remark that only a god could save us.“

If one relates Sloterdijk's three stages of „early, high, and late culture“ to the respective antecedents of past, present, and future, and subjects them to a strong spiritualization, the result is passéism, presentism, and futurism. But that passéism „is fixed today as the loser of evolution“, I doubt. I also doubt that „the dispute between the futurism of modernity and the presentism of postmodernity should not be decided for the time being“, because a postmodernity does not really exist yet.

If we connect on the one hand passéism and conservatism and on the other hand futurism and progressivism, one should immediately ask oneself how it should be possible without reference to the past - and that means just among other things: to the origin, to the tradition, to the genealogy, to the filiation, to the history - that the terrible children of the modern age „practice themselves in the unlearned art of enduring“. Such learning, which results from the practice in the art of endurance, can only go well „in the long run“ if the past is taken into account in the process. It is, after all, precisely the past of which we know with the greatest certainty that it has lasted, is lasting and will remain. Who forgets the past, has no future. Against forgetting, against forgetting we must fight. **

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»Is it possible to develop without a conservative element? No. That is why I think that Sloterdijk's real message is the following:

Turn back, because your path is a bottomless dead end.« ** **

Conservatism is the true rebellion against eternal change.
Those who profess to be rebels, advocating for change, are really supporting the status quo.
What they really protest is human hierarchies, desiring to change them, hoping that in the shift they will find themselves closer to the top.
So, called »progressives«are really cosmological conservatives, simply promoting what occurs whether we like it or not.
Conservatism, on the other hand, attempts to control or stop cosmological change, so as to preserve what he values and considers worthy of preserving.

Left = advocates chaos as a means of overturning and unleashing their own ambitions.
Right = attempts to control and guide change, so as to preserve human order as long as possible.

The »bottomless dead end« is near-absolute chaos.“ **

„Kultur wrote:

»I also doubt that ›the dispute between the futurism of modernity and the presentism of postmodernity should not be decided for the time being‹, because a postmodernity does not really exist yet. ** **

I don't think postmodernism will ever »exist« because its ideals are self-destructive and cannot compete with other ideologies - or ways of perceiving the world - just as communism and anarchy can never be realized, in their purest forms, because they cannot survive challenges - they can only survive in ideal circumstances, rather than real ones.“ **

I evaluate all of this in the same way, as I said before.

But the ideologies can delay the people. People wait and expect, but nothing really goes where it is allegedly supposed to go. In other words, people are being taken for fools. Most of them fall for the ideologies.

Satyr wrote:

„Kultur wrote:

»Concerning the art it was with the Ancient Greeks mainly the sculpture (see e.g.: Phidias, Praxiteles), in the later Occident mainly the music (see e.g.: Bach, Mozart, Beethoven). Therefore it does not surprise me that I myself am also a very musical person.« ** **

Do you play an instrument?
I don't.“ **

I learned to play the flute a bit at school, also the harmonica at home (my father taught me), later I also learned to play the guitar a bit in a self-taught way. But I have not done all this intensively enough, so I have remained at the beginner level. But my wife is good at playing the piano. It is beautiful, has a calming effect, makes one serene, like music in general. Music is for the soul.

My interest in music comes not so much from the active side (thus: playing an instrument), but all the more from the passive side (listening to music). Furthermore, I am interested in aesthetics, the philosophy of music and especially the cultural-historical context.

When I say I am a „musical person“, I mean first of all my strong interest in music and only lastly my own „compositions“.

1454) Alf, 04.04.2021, 00:00, 00:04; Kultur, 04.04.2021, 00:57, 01:36, 15:43, 15:50, 21:41, 21:43, 22:03, 22:03 (8171-8180)

Heidegger understands Dasein as the „being that we ever are ourselves“ (Being and Time, 1927, p. 7) as the „being of man“ (Being and Time, 1927, p. 25) and thus demarcates his philosophy against a philosophy of pure consciousness (cf. transcendentalism) and also against a merely material-empiricist conception of Dasein (cf. positivism).

Heidegger’s translator wrote:

„This being, which we ever are ourselves, and which has, among other things, the being-possibility of questioning, we grasp terminologically as Dasein.“ (P. 7).

Heidegger’s translator wrot:

„To be sure, Dasein is ontically not only close or even the next - we are it ever ourselves. Nevertheless, or precisely because of this, it is ontologically the most distant.“ (P. 15).

Heidegger’s translator wrote:

„Dasein, i.e. the being of man, is circumscribed in the vulgar as well as in the philosophical »definition« as zwon logon ekon , the living, whose being is essentially determined by being capable of speaking.“ (P. 25).

The existence of the human being is used by means of an analysis of existence to reveal the essence and meaning of being (present in the human being).

The basis for being and the doctrine - the basic doctrine of being - is offered by Heidegger's fundamental ontology, laid down in his main work „Being and Time“, and denotes the results of his investigations of (human) Dasein for the purpose of opening up being (as a being that is also present in Dasein, a being that understands itself) and the meaning of being. The fundamental ontology shows how that is manifested in Dasein (see: existentials); it wants to be the basis for all empirical sciences.

The existentials are the ways of human existence, the categories of human being, with Heidegger above all the angst (fear, anxiety), furthermore the being-in-the-world, the concern (worry, care, welfare, getting, providing, managing, anxiety), the understanding, the mood, the thrownness and many others.

I once tried to approach music through science. One can do that, too, but there always remains a rest that science cannot explain and will never be able to explain, because science does not think: „Science does not think“ (Martin Heidegger). One can also not explain physics with physical means. Such a thing can only be done by thinking (philosophy).

And it's the same with music. I have already said something in this thread about the things, phenomenons and situations and called all this „language“:

Kultur wrote:

„Language - from semiotics to mathematics inclusive - has a very high significance. Everything in it tells of itself to us, it speaks, and we are the ones who have to figure out how to properly retell what has been told ....“ ** **

What do you actually think of the thesis of Pythagoras that the moving celestial bodies sound in certain intervals (harmony of the spheres) and that this harmony can not be perceived by us only because it affects us continuously?

Satyr wrote:

„Here (**), Sloterdijk is describing degeneration, where immediate gratification is the rule.
American individualism has no 30-40 year horizon, it needs immediate returns because of human lifespans.

What was that saying that says - I'm paraphrasing - »when men stop planting trees they will never lie beneath a culture is dead«.
American individualism shrinks people's percpetual-event-horizons to that of a lifespan or worse, more immediate returns.
This is a dumbing-down - shrinking human consciousness, its field of interest - divide and conquer.
The ego becomes the centre of an individual's care. This is where nihilism emerges to protect the ego from emerging self-cosnciuosnes, threatening its sense of well-being, exposing it to new sources of anxiety.

I trace nihilism as a school of thought - an attitude - to this organic development; an ideological defence, reacting to organic self-awarness.
Jaynes traced the Olympian gods and heroes to this evolutionary development.

I suspect that Sloterdijk German ethnicity prevents him from saying more.“ **

That may be. Sloterdijk does not always say everything he knows. Sometimes he intentionally keeps a low profile, only to do the opposite at another time. But somehow these are also ups and downs that everyone knows about the own self. Nevertheless, sometimes it is exaggerated in Sloterdijk's case. Anyone who knows him well notices that.

Sloterdijk wants to assign the human being on the one hand like Spengler either only to one space, namely the nature (environment), or several different spaces, namely the cultures, on the other hand like Heidegger only to one space, namely the world, i.e. to understand it as an „being-in-the-world“ (**), and therefore to assign only one society to the world, what Luhmann has also done in the context of his theory of society. According to Luhmann, since the beginning of the modern age - by which only the occidental modern age can be meant, which, however, remains unmentioned by Luhmann as well as after him by Sloterdijk (!!!) - there is only one society: the „world society“ (**|**|**|**|**|**|**). According to Luhmann's system theory, before modernity there were societies with forms of differentiation by (a) segmentation (cf. descent, genealogy, filiation, tradition and the like), (b) center/periphery, (c) stratification, but since modernity there is only one society - the „world society“ - with the form of differentiation by (d) function (**). **

	• JSAK und HK •		• JSK und AHK •		• JSK und AK und HK •
	(1) Primitivkulturform. (2) Historienkulturform.		(1) Primitivkulturform. (2) Agri-Historienkulturform.		(1) Primitivkulturform. (2) Agrikulturform. (3) Historienkulturform.

Luhmann and Sloterdijk interpret our occidental modernity as something it is not, or at least not yet: a „human modernity“. This interpretation of Luhmann and Sloterdijk (if he does not simply follow Luhmann) and the concomitant alignment of „humanity modernity“ and „world society“ are to be understood as an eve-landing (westernization) of the world, an eve-landing of all people (**|**). The „modernity of mankind“ and the „world society“ are projections of occidental people on all people and the world, therefore they have nothing to do with reality, if one disregards certain institutions, which meanwhile spread their rules over the globe, although they are occidental institutions too, even if they are accepted by non occidental people. The subject is just only relatively valueable. As long as the science of history cannot prove the „modernity of mankind“ and the „world society“, these two occidental „constructs“, representing more wish than reality, are not yet counted among the historical facts. If in Sloterdijk's spherology the foam is the metaphor for the very complex society according to Luhmann's system theory and if according to Luhmann's system theory it is necessary to reduce complexity or to sink into the entropic (chaotic) complexity, then Sloterdijk's conclusion from his trilogy of spheres can only be that it is necessary to reduce the foam or to sink into the entropic (chaotic) foam (). **

But the point is that both Luhmann and Sloterdijk - Sloterdijk in particular - repeatedly let it be known that they also judge it in the same way as I do, so that my criticism would not even be necessary if there were not something like „political correctness“ at work here.

But please do not get me wrong: I understand that they do it this way, because if they did not, they would never have become known worldwide, and almost all of us had to miss their magnificent philosophy.

I have already said that that Sloterdijk is wrong by making the world and all human beings occidental (**|**[**|**]). In connection with „all humans“ and „occidentals“ Sloterdijk does not always use certain words semantically correctly: „antiquity“, „middle ages“, „modern ages“, „culture“, „civilization“, „modernity“ and others. I choose here as an example the use of the word „modernity“: Sloterdijk uses the word „modernity“ in the sense of a „modernity of mankind“, although he means and can only mean the modernity of the Occidentals. The Occidentals have indeed tried to bring their modernity closer to all others, namely to the Non-Occidentals, but they have only rarely succeeded in doing so, and their prosperity-enhancing technology alone has not been sufficient to successfully pass on their modernity, the basis of which is their culture with all its values and norms, to the Non-Occidentals. It is still the case today that the Non-Occidentals want to have the technology invented by the Occidentals, because it brings high prosperity, but they strictly reject everything else invented by the Occidentals. The Non-Occidentals want the prosperity of the „devil“ whom they hate. There is no mankind consisting only of occidental people, consequently there is also no modernity of a mankind consisting only of occidental people.

Satyr wrote:

„The absence of accessible frontiers places us in a behavioural sink situation.

Cultural uniformity is a by-products of cross-contaminaiton - cultures cannot remain separate and distinct because of the earth's containment and technologies shrinking spaces - boundaries can no longer prevent ideological contagions from spreading.“ **

„Cultures cannot remain separate and distinct“ only if (and because!) the history of the occidental culture - consistently thought to the end - is extended into the infinite space (because it should and must become according to the Ursymbol [see Spengler's concept of „Ursymbol“]). The globalists are westerners and want to dominate the globe and thus all people forever. Thus, all rhetoric is geared towards this. This does not mean, however, that this will actually remain so.

Moreover, one should not forget that Islam (part of the magical culture [see Spengler's concept of the „magical soul“]) and other civilizations (India, China) are still active and do not want to be westernized. Even Slavs and Hungarians do not or not really want to be westernized. Black Africans and others also do not want to be westernized. Well, they all have - as a people - not much to say, so that one can pass over them. But that still doesn't mean that globalism (which, as I said, is western!) will prevail forever.

When there will be no more money in or from the West for the non-westerners, it will become uncomfortable, very uncomfortable.

I also think that the attempt to mix the western peoples is counterproductive and will finally only ensure that the „Great Chaos“, which will inevitably come (in parts is already there!), can and will then be ascribed to false (!) „causes“. So this mixing of peoples is only good for the globalists. But I do not believe that they will have success with it forever.

With it we are back to the question of Spengler, whether there will still be a new culture in the future or not. - I don't know, but I doubt that globalism with its rhetoric (the „One World“ as the „One Civilizationã) will be able to hold its ground in the long run or even in the medium run. I say only: War!

Technology - even Western technology - can also be (made) forgotten.

If the globalists will fight among themselves, as the „Caesar(ist)s“ once did, then, following these wars, everything is possible again, but in a „wintry“ form. It is also possible that all humans will disappear - due to the „Great Chaos“.

What we are experiencing at the moment are really the last moves of history, giving it all once more, after which it will become quiet, very quiet. Whether this will happen in the sense of the „One World“, i.e. as the final stage (civilization) of the occidental culture, or rather even again quite primitively, I do not know exactly, but I know that it will be „wintry“.

Satyr wrote:

„Nihilism is an ideological contagion - a memetic virus. It's utility lies in tis detachment from reality - offering opportunity to construct whatever the mind can imagine. Their only criterion is cohesiveness - it must be self-consistent - and hedonism - it must be seductive, offering pleasing possibilities to alleviate existential anxiety.“ **

Yes. Nihilism is very successful, it works like an exponential function. At first, only a few are infected, but suddenly the infection rate increases exponentially. Nevertheless, there are also people who are immune to it. Most people come from a high culture (I call them „history cultures“ because they have a history based on writing, unlike primitive cultures), and that is why these are mostly affected by nihilism, even if the present nihilism is an occidental nihilism. Those who have the most immunity to any nihilism are the members of primitive cultures.

Let's go to the jungle!

Satyr wrote:

„Music like existence does not think....but man does.
Man tries to make sense of existence using binary semiotics.

I defer to Schopenhauer's description of existence as a cosmic symphony, and each particle a note.
I would include in this allegorical description the factor of chaos, as background white noise, experienced as silence.
The allegory works for me, as all art does - including music.
I feel its truth ... yet some, like I, want to know the source and the reasons, whereas those like you simply want to surrender to it.
It is true that finding the source may decrease the enjoyment ... like knowing why we dance and what it symbolizes inhibits the dancer from letting go ... and few want to lose the »magic« or the amazement, the mystery ....
Like I said ... a feminine disposition.
I can indulge, but I cannot surrender to this impulse ... even if it costs me its enjoyment.“ **

Basically, I am also the one who always asks for the sources and reasons. I just learned at some point that sometimes it is better to surrender to the music.

So basically, I am a pretty rational one, but I can also be different.

Satyr wrote:

„The »modernity« of the »western« - occidental - is infested by a messianic parasite which urges it to make its disease universal - global.
This is why I mention Messianism.
Founded on nihilistic binaries: good/bad, paradise/hell, utopia/dystopia, salvation/damnation.
Like selfish genes selfish memes hijack the organism's processes, for tis own purposes: self-maintenance and self-propagaiton.
To put it ideologically, the nihilistic ideology/dogma - meme - is programmed to be imposed on the world, otherwise it perishes - like capitalism must grow, constantly produce more wealth, otherwise it atrophies.
Nihilism cannot survive outside brains, because it is anti-rela, anti-nature. It needs a host - a proxy.
Nihilism is impotent beyond the minds it infects - dominates - because it is entirely abstract with no external referents. It's only avenue to power is via hearts and minds, so it must spread as much as possible - it must proselytize, or integrate the masses into tis principles; its »magical force« is entirely dependent on exploiting and manipulating psychology, so it needs organisms with sophisticated neurological systems to infect.
Nihilism is entirely semiotic ... and cannot exist without symbols/words - semiotics are its DNA.

See the conventional definition of nihilism.
It negates, or describes a world void of human abstractions that have never nor can ever exist outside human brains. For the infected psyche the world is »negative« because it lacks what the human brain fabricated and expects to exist.
One-God, universal morality, cosmic meaning, i.e., purpose, intent, motive...In fact if these did exist independently from human minds then experienced existence would cease and life would be improbable.“ **

I think I understand your meme theory pretty well, and admit that it was your writing that drew me to this web forum.

1455) Alf, 05.04.2021, 21:13, 21:18, 21:21, 21:23; Kultur, 05.04.2021, 22:02, 22:33 (8181-8186)

It looks like you have quoted Iambiguous, who keeps using the word „dasein“ but does not know what it means.

Iambiguous wrote:

„Dasein ..., note to others ..., more to the point ..., conflicting goods ..., we need a context ..., bring it down to earth ..., rooted in dasein.“

Total agreement, Felix Dakat (**|**|**|**|**|**).

Because I have just seen your signature: Kiergegaard's concept of „existence“ is closest to Heidegger's concept of „existence“.

***

„Only a God can still save us.“ - Martin Heidegger in conversation with Rudolf Augstein, 1966.

Heidegger is recognized worldwide. He also had almost nothing to do with the NSDAP, because he regarded it as an eco-party (something like the later party „Die Grünen“). One can sometimes get lost in a party. Many people were also once in a party and then realized that this party was not the right address for them. Heidegger was apolitical.

Heidegger's existential philosophy with its fundamental ontology (Daseinsanalyse, etc.) offers an alternative to positivism (realism/naturalism) and transcendental idealism. He came from the phenomenology of Husserl (a Jew who was allowed to stay in Germany until his death in 1939 - was he also in the NSDAP?), which is also recognized worldwide.

The way Heidegger understood „existence“ is perhaps closest to the concept Kierkegaard had of it. Otherwise, Heidegger's philosophy is unique, one of a kind. He did something philosophically that no one had ever done before. As I said, Heidegger's existential philosophy, with its fundamental ontology (Daseinsanalyse, etc.), offers an alternative to positivism (realism/naturalism) and transcendental idealism. He knew very well what problems there were with regard to cognition and that for the sciences and all other alternatives to it that had arisen until then, much had been presupposed but always remained hidden, which is even more the case today. It is always good to be able to fall back on alternatives. The fact that this does not always happen has to do with financing, i.e. with money and thus with power.

Heidegger was in the history of mankind the first philosophoic ecologist, the first ecosophist, as one could say, and the first chrirotopologist.

By the way: Who is Kvasir?

I was looking for philosophical web forums - I don't remember with which search word/s - and got a link to this forum, among others.

*

The search words were probably „genes“, „memes“, „genes versus memes“ or the like.

Is Abrahamism for you just another word for the so-called „magical“ („Arab“) culture?

1456) Alf, 06.04.2021, 00:45, 19:27 (8187-8188)

Does this (**) mean a Buddhistic God?

Actually, the Buddhists have no god (in the sense of monotheistic or pagan religions); so by „a Buddhistic God“ (**|**) I meant a god in the sense of a mix of Buddhism itself and a god or the God.

1457) Kultur, 07.04.2021, 01:09, 01:11; Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 07.04.2021, 13:52, 14:11, 15:14; Great Again, 07.04.2021, 20:34, 20:47, 20:58; Kultur, 07.04.2021, 22:49 (8189-8197)

Yes (**), it is about conservation. Conservation is more important, much more important than the countermovement, which can only lead to chaos (entropy), because this movement is without ground, without principles, without origin, without past, without family, without generations, without children, and irrationally also sees the future, the so-called „progress“ in it (like „the terrible children“ in Sloterdijks said book), as if progress needed nihilisim, destruction, death, if future needed no future.

The only tense to which we can refer reliably, because we can know it after all, is the past tense. We know the past, at least to a certain extent (some more, some less), but above all we know our own past; but we know almost nothing about the present (if we knew anything about it, it would already be past) and almost nothing about the future. But it always serves only very certain people when this reference is reversed and everyone and everything is supposed to be related only to the present and the future.

It is a pity that Sloetrdijk's book „Die schecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit“ has still not been published in English. I think you would like that book. The „terrible children“ described in the book are similar to those you call „Abrahamists“ or/and „Desperate Degenerates“. **

Heiner Mühlmann's book „Die Natur der Kulturen - Versuch einer kulturgenetischen Theorie“ („The Nature of Cultures - Attempt of a Theory of Cultural Genetics“), published in 1996, is also very worth reading. In it, the cultural decorum system is presented with the help of the natural science ranking model. At the center of „The Nature of Cultures“ is the „Maximum Stress Cooperation Thesis“. „MSC“ is the acronymic shortening of the term „maximal stress cooperation“. The MSC model was developed from the logic of decorum ranking systems and the physiology of stress behavior.The MSC theory has been adopted and further developed by other philosophers, for example just now by Peter Sloterdijk in his book „Theory of Post-War Times„ („Theory of Post-War Times“).The MSC theory was adopted and further developed by other philosophers, for example by Peter Sloterdijk in his book „Theorie der Nachkriegszeiten“ („Theory of Post-War Times“ - or is the book not available in English either?), published in 2008.

Wendy Darling wrote:

„Nietzsche foresaw transhumanism or made a case for it?“ **

Nietzsche called for and taught transhumanism, and did so very clearly.

Examples:

„I teach you the overman! Man is something that is to be overcome.“ (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 8 **).

„Look, I teach you the overman! The overman is the sense of the earth. Your will say: the overman be the sense of the earth!“ (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 8 **).

„Man is something that must be overcome ....“ (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 40 **).

Encode Decode wrote:

„Wendy Darling wrote:

»Nietzsche foresaw transhumanism or made a case for it?« **

Do people sometimes ask the wrong question? Or do they sometimes ask the wrong person? Or both? The answer is »yes« to both. There is a small chance that you will receive a useful answer in this case.“ **

And you are the only one who knows who asks whom and what in the right way, right?

She did not ask you. And if she did, she would indeed not „receive a useful answer in this case“, as you have said.

Encode Decode wrote:

„Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

»And you are the only one who knows who asks whom and what in the right way, right?« ** **

No, I am not.

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

»She did not ask you. And if she did, she would indeed not ›receive a useful answer in this case‹, as you have said.« ** **

Correct, she did not ask me. You don't actually know if she would have received a useful answer from me.

I indicated a chance for a useful answer, not a zero chance.“ **

I know it from your previous answers and especially from the fact that you yourself said that she will not „receive a useful answer“ from you. Look:

Encode Decode wrote:

„Wendy Darling wrote:

»Nietzsche foresaw transhumanism or made a case for it?« **

Do people sometimes ask the wrong question? Or do they sometimes ask the wrong person? Or both? The answer is »yes« to both. There is a small chance that you will receive a useful answer in this case.“ **

Strange that here (**) people who are themselves threatened by genocide see the genocide of foreign people, but not their own genocide.

Who would dare to be an ILP moderator?

By the way:

Han Chinese are about 92% of all Chinese.

The Han Chinese are one race, but culturally also not quite as uniform as is repeatedly claimed by the Chinese media, which is commanded by the Chinese government.

According to my theory or philosophy, there are two main realms, one is the realm of real things (the body, you could also say) and the other is the realm of signs (of language, you could also say). I call the directions in which they develop „genetics“ and „metagenetics“. This naming, although „only“ referring to the developments, has similarity with the naming of „genes“ and „memes“, to which I also refer.

Decisive, however, is according to my theory or philosophy that I call the sign realm „language“, independent of which signs it is about. Luhmann has chosen the word „communcation“ for it in his system theory. But this is, in spite of or - even more - because of all today's communication euphoria, more confusing than one would like to believe at first. I also use the word or the term „language“ because the earlier philosophers did it too and in my estimation they knew more about this topic than today's newspeak functionaries who are on the money drip.

1458) Alf, 08.04.2021, 18:44, 19:16 (8198-8199)

Otto wrote:

„Existence and Life. Instance: Home and Housing (Dwelling).

Under what conditions do you exist, live, especially where your home is, where you live?

What has your existence been like?
How and where do you live, reside, dwell?

How should your existence be like?
How and where do you want to live, reside, dwell?“ ** **

I come from the rural area, as you can perhaps see from my avatar. But I have also experienced urban and metropolitan life, but I must say that the rural life pleases me more.

The globalists have had time enough to plan transhumanism. They are not technicians themselves and are incapable in practical things. That is why they leave the implementation to others. But the globalists have the power, not any party, but pure private men, the richest of whom have more money than Italy and France in national income. They could easily buy Italy and France at any time - not to mention that they have already done so for the most part anyway.

1459) Herr Schütze, 09.04.2021, 01:01; Kultur, 09.04.2021, 23:33 (8200)

Ja (**), vor allem aber schreibt er (**) nicht oder kaum mit Haß auf seine eigenen Landsleute.

Die Menschenverachtung, insbesondere auch den Kindern gegenüber, ist überall schlimmer als bei uns. Man muß trennen zwischen denjenigen, die in der Familie Verantwortung tragen und auch gerne tragen, und demjenigen die genau das nicht tun und beispielsweise ihre Ehefrauen vor den Augen der Kinder schächten (das ist im arabischen/islamischen Kulturkreis „normal“!). Die Gewalt wird in Europa, in dem man seit der Aufklärung glaubt - jedenfalls dann, wenn man sich als „progressiv“ versteht -, immer besseren Zeiten entgegenzugehen, immer mehr unterstützt, weil die Europäer sowohl in Europa als auch in Amerika, Australien, Neuseeland und anderen Exkolonien der unmittelbaren Angst ausgesetzt sind, weil sie von keinem Mächtigen mehr ernsthaft vertreten werden, sondern als rassistische Projektionsfläche für alle, die ihren Rassismus ausleben wollen, zur Verfügung gestellt werden.

Alf und Kathrina, die hier auch schon kommentiert haben, raten jedem, der gerne im Internet kommentiert, in fremdsprachigen Internetforen zu lesen, um zu erfahren, wie unsäglich schlimmer es in anderen Teilen der Welt ist - in den USA zu leben z.B., ist mittlerweile ein großes Risiko.

Folgende Nachricht erhielt ich von Kathrina:

„Verehrter Herr Schütze, ich schreibe derzeit Kommentare in zwei verschiedenen englischsprachigen Internetforen. In den USA ist eine Hetze gegen Trump und alle weißen Amerikaner - gleichgültig, wo sie leben - im Gange, daß Ihnen schlecht wird, und jeder, der mit diesem antiweißen Rassismus nicht einverstanden ist, wird in bestimmten Threads, die in einem solchen Fall sofort eröffnet werden, angeprangert. Es wird immer schwieriger - jedenfalls in einem der beiden Foren -, dort Beiträge so zu schreiben, wie man gerne möchte. Die gesamte Menschheit scheint auf dem Weg zur Hölle zu sein.“

1460) Great Again, 10.04.2021, 01:12, 01:19, 01:59; Kathrina, 10.04.2021, 18:10; Alf, 10.04.2021, 20:00; Kathrina, 10.04.2021, 20:18; Herr Schütze, 10.04.2021, 20:22; Kathrina, 10.04.2021, 22:07; Alf, 10.04.2021, 22:12 (8201-8209)

Look, what you (**) have done:

*

But a really beautiful flower he has. Also a typical American house to blow away (okay). And the trees are already green (light green). What degree of latitude is the house on?

Imagine, Carleas (whoever he is or was) simply deletes, without publicly justifying this deletion, all those threads that violate his rules.

That (**) was the wind!

Why are the trees already green there (**)? Here is not much green in the trees yet.

....

Good luck!

Leyla wrote:

„LOL, look who's talking:

User avatar Sculptor (PhilosophyNow)

Have you ever considered making objective arguments instead of just attacking other posters personally?“ **

He is incapable of using objective arguments! Moreover, he is very stupid, just illiterate, because he has shown in several threads that he is not capable of reading the texts of other posters at all. He is also not capable of reading his own texts properly.

But for that, as if he wants to set both off against each other, he uses all the more personal attacks, ad hominems, ugly words and phrases of commustic ideology. And he stalks me. Why does he do all that? Probably because he is jealous of me or the person depicted in the avatar. His case is pathological. He is ill.

He must be a very frustrated person - probably because of his ugliness, as you said, Leyla, or of his illness, his cancer, perhaps because of his childhood or whatever.

One can only feel sorry for him, because he is first and foremost his own victim.

Yes, you are absolutely right, Kathrina.

Someone who wants to insult Kathrina can only be sick in the head. Such a „person“ is an imperson. I can only advise this imperson to post in another thread, for instance this one: „»Mental« Illness“ (**). Maybe (or maybe not!) that thread will help the imperson Sculptor.

Where has this Sculptor used a single argument even once? Nowhere!

And why is Sculptor always after Kathrina? Why is he stalking her?

This has only subjective reasons, that is, reasons that have to do with his self. He has too little self-awareness, too little self-confidence, too little trust in other people, and projects this lack onto other people, especially onto those who, in contrast to himself (again: subjective), have a healthy self-awareness, a healthy self-confidence and also trust in other people.

Why does Sculptor post at all? He's always just frustrated!

There are many of these frustrated people here at ILP. But please: Why don't they post somewhere else? Nobody forced these sick brains to post here!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

And by the way: Personal attacks, especially those involving a poster's avatar, are prohibited by ILP rules.

Those who start personal attacks, like Sculptor almost always does, must be banned!

Where is the ILP moderation?

It is a fact that trolls like Sculptor and his equals want to destroy every thread they don't like for purely subjective reasons.

These trolls never use arguments, they only destroy!

I hope that this thread, no matter what subjective „opinions“ others have about it, can continue, because it has substance: it connects climatic conditions that unquestionably exist with elements that also unquestionably exist (no matter how old their theory is), in order to find out in which environment someone belongs or thinks to belong.

Nur nebenbei gefragt:

Wie geht es Christoph Hörstel mit seiner Partei?

Christoph Hörstels Partei scheint auch kinderfreundlich zu sein.

Martin Heidegger was the greatest philosopher of the 20th century.

I agree.

The following is something I posted in the thread „Are Protestants more nihilistic than Catholics?“ (**|**), that is, in a different context:

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

==>