1521) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 21.06.2021, 21:18 (8469)

Freedom is a matter of relativity.

The personal pronoun „we“ in my opening post (**|**) should not hide this fact.

1522) Sleyor Wellhuxwell, 22.06.2021, 01:00, 01:34, 02:59 (8470-8472)

Obsrvr wrote:

„And Aristotle's »dialectics«- the use of consistent language - became known as »logic« ....“

„Became"! Yes. But before becaming „known as logic“, „logos“ meant something different.

We have several sources that prove what „logos“ meant in Ancient Greek before it became - slowly ! - changed.

I choose Heraclitus as an example (I could also choose Parmenides or other Presocratics):

Heraclitus (translated from Fragment 53) wrote:

„Controversy is to all (present) indeed producer (who lets arise), to all however (also) ruling preserver. It makes namely the one appear as gods, the other as men, it makes the one as servants, but the other as free.“

„Controversy“is here the translated word of the Ancient Greek word „polemos“.

The polemos is a dispute that prevails over all that is divine and human, not a war after human fashion. The fight conceived by Heraclitus lets the essence first of all come apart in the opposition, lets position and status and rank in the present first take place. In such a separation, gaps, distances, widths and joints open up. In the confrontation the world becomes. The confrontation neither separates nor destroys the unity. It forms this, is gathering (logos). Polemos and logos are the same.

From the one all-powerful divine primeval fire (logos) the multiplicity of the things emerges through discord and fight ("way down"); harmony and peace brings solidification, until the solidified returns again to the unity of the primeval fire („way up“). In this eternal „up and down“ „one“ becomes „all“ and „all“ becomes „one“. Everything flows, but in this flowing the logos rules as law, which only few recognize. Thus God is day and night, summer and winter, war and peace, satiety and hunger; good is bad, bad is good - in everything opposites are united and yet hidden harmony, and this invisible harmony is better than the visible opposites. War („polemos“ resp. „logos“ - see above) is the father of all things, and he proves some as gods, others as men, some as free, others as slaves.

The logos, which is to be equated with the polemos, means with Heraclitus the divine primeval fire as the pure reason, the world reason. But what does he mean by „world reason“? This world reason is identical with the impersonal lawfulness of the universe, the destiny, which is still enthroned above the gods.

Much later (in the Stoa) the logos was understood as a person, as God. In Philon, the Neoplatonists and Gnostics the Ancient Greek logos idea was merged with the Old Testament conception of God, the logos now appeared as the eternally dwelling reasoning power of God, the word and the eternal thought of God, who as logos created the world. He became the firstborn son of God, the other God, the mediator between God and man (logos mysticism). In Christianity, the logos becomes the word of God made flesh, the „son“ of God who came to earth as the historical Christ. - These three examples among several others are a completely different definition of the logos than the one of the Presocratics and which changed more and more since Plato, but especially since Aristotle and the Stoa.

The doctrine of the logos as the reasonable thinking and concluding, which should always lead from true premises to a true conclusion, was called „dialectic“ by Plato and „analytics“ by Aristotle.

Back to the original meaning of logos as gathering / collecting:

Logos, in what it originally meant, had no direct relation to language. Lego, legein, Latin legere, is the same word as the English , „to glean“, „to harvest“, „to pick“: „reading a book“ is only a variety of „gleaning“, „harvesting“, „picking“ in the proper sense. This means: to put the one to the other, to bring together into one, in short: to gather; at the same time the one is set off against the other. This is how the Ancient Greek mathematicians use the word. A coin collection is not a mere mixture somehow pushed together. In the expression „analogy“(correspondence) we even find both meanings together: the original one of „relation“, „relationship“ and the one of „language“, „speech“, whereby with the word „analogy“ we hardly think of „speaking“, „analogously“as conversely the Ancient Greeks did not think of „speech“ and „saying“ with the word „logos“ yet and not necessarily.

As an example of the original meaning of legein as „to gather / collect“, consider a passage from Homer, Odyssey, XXIV, 106. Here we have the encounter of the slain whoremongers with Agamemnon in the underworld; the latter recognizes them and thus addresses them: „Amphimedon, after what peril are you dived down into the darkness of the earth, all excellent and of the same age; and scarcely otherwise could one in search through a polis bring together (lexaito) such noble men“.

Aristotle (in: Physics, Q, I, 252, a 13) wrote:

„Taxis de pasa logos (but every order has the character of bringing together).“

We only recall here that the word logos, even when it has long meant speech and statement, has retained its original meaning, signifying the „relation of one to another“.

If we consider the basic meaning of logos - gathering / collecting -, then we have still gained little for the elucidation of the question: To what extent are being and logos originally one and the same for the Ancient Greeks, so that they can subsequently diverge and must do so according to certain reasons?

The reference to the basic meaning of logos can only give us a clue if we already understand what „being“ means to the Ancient Greeks: physis.

Logos is the constant collection, the in itself standing collectedness of the being, i.e. the being. Therefore in Frg. 1 kata ton logon means the same as kata physin. Physis and logos are the same. Logos characterizes being in a new and yet old respect: What is being, stands straight and distinct in itself, that is gathered in itself from itself and thus keeps itself in such gathering.

Because the being as logos is originally a collection, not a mixture, where everything is equally valid, the rank, the rulership belongs to the being. Heraclitus ...: The ranking is the stronger. Therefore the being, the logos, as the collected harmony, is not easily and in the same coin accessible for everybody, but hidden contrary to that harmony, which is in each case only compensation, annihilation of the tension, leveling: „the harmony not (immediately and without further ado) showing itself is more powerful than the (always) obvious one“ (Frg. 54).

Because the being is logos, armonia, aletheia, physis, phainesthai, therefore it just does not show itself arbitrarily. The true is not for everyone, but only for the strong.

So you (**) are admitting that you have not read my opening post:

Sleyor Wellhuxwell wrote:

„By »freedom« I mean first and foremost the freedom of thought and speech. And because every kind of communication is language, there is no other kind of freedom left. - So much for the definition.

If we have to wear masks, but don't want to wear masks at all, then we are restricted in our freedom. If we need to be vaccinated, but do not want to be vaccinated, then we are restricted in our freedom. If we are not allowed to say so, then we are restricted in our freedom. And if we are not allowed to think that either, then we are restricted in our freedom.

In other words, our freedom has been taken away from us. How can we get it back?

Or have we never been free?“ ** **

8472

Aventador wrote:

„I am a Catholic, I blame the sin, not the sinner.“ **

1523) Great Again, 23.06.2021, 21:59 (8473)

The middle class of the Occident (= Europe without Eastern Europe) is almost 1000 years older than that of the USA. What is called "middle class" goes back to the bourgeoisie, which had already developed in the Occident in the Middle Ages.The American, Australian, New Zealand and other middle classes all go back to this Occidental bourgeoisie, which first created the huge cathedrals - also the intellectual ones (universities), science is only Occidental science -, later the other impressive buildings as well as the most magnificent music the world has ever heard, and just the Industrial Revolution, which may also be called Technical Revolution.

Destroying this Occidental bourgeoisie means destroying the global bourgeoisie (see above), and from the logic of history, especially economic and financial history, it cannot be otherwise. If there is a bourgeoisie - a middle class - then all is well with the world. If a bourgeoisie - a middle class - no longer exists, then the culture to which it belonged is dead, so: nothing is in order then.

You just have to ask yourself who benefits enormously from this destruction of the middle class (bourgeoisie). This profit is probably the biggest in world history and therefore probably the last in this size.

1524) Herr Schütze, 24.06.2021, 01:54 (8474)

Nicht vergessen:

Der „totalitäre Geist der DDR“ war der „totalitäre Geist der Sowjetunion“. Die DDR war so wenig souverän wie die anderen Ostblockstaaten außer der Sowjetunion (UdSSR).

1525) Otto, 25.06.2021, 23:23 (8475)

Martin Heidegger im Gespräch mit Richard Wisser, 1969. According to the poster Ikarus K. K. „the best introduction to the thinking of Martin Heidegger“.

Martin Heidegger, „Der Satz der Identität“, 1957.

1526) Kultur, 26.06.2021, 01:01 (8476)

Caspar David Friedrich: Kreidefelsen auf Rügen, 1818.

1527) Kathrina, 27.06.2021, 23:27 (8477)

I am reading a really good book.

1528) Kathrina, 28.06.2021, 01:01; Kultur, 28.06.2021, 22:04 (8478-8479)

Alf wrote:

„Obsrvr wrote:

»Kathrina wrote:

›I am not a dyed-in-the-wool theologian, but in my opinion, many people are falsely convinced that God is only allowed to be good, as if they themselves determine how God has to be, namely in such a way that he pleases them, while they themselves, however, are allowed to be as they want.‹ ** **

I am also not a theologian but I think what they mean to be saying is that God defines what good is. Good is not above God and some standard to hold God to - but the other way around - if it is against God it is not good.

That is my own reasoning based merely on the idea that God is God and there is nothing anyone can ever do about it - so accept it as a fixed, immutable barrier to any effort made against it. Fighting that which cannot ever be changed is insanity and thus - not good.« **

Behind this insanity is usually the will to be like God.“ ** **

Godwannabes have always failed so far.

Caspar David Friedrich: Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer, ca. 1817.

Caspar David Friedrich: Felsenschlucht im Elbsandsteingebirge, 1822.

1529) Kultur, 29.06.2021, 21:13, 22:22 (8480-8481)

Caspar David Friedrich: Kreuz und Kathedrale im Gebirge, 1812.

Caspar David Friedrich: Klosterruine Eldena bei Greifswald, 1824.

Caspar David Friedrich: Abtei im Eichwald, 1809.

Caspar David Friedrich: Grab des Arminius, 1812.

1530) Otto, 30.06.2021, 01:57; Kultur, 30.06.2021, 02:59 (8482-8483)

Topic: Architecture, Paintings, Statues, Sculptures etc. (no Music).

Art, especially architecture, paintings, statues, sculptures and the like (no music, please, because there are already enough threads about music).

Yes, indeed (**). A good movie - like a moved and moving painting.

Thanks for that.

==>