451) Arminius, 07.05.2014, 00:43, 02:47, 03:32, 19:20, 22:39, 23:37 (1060-1065)

True is that we don't know wether oil comes exclusively from plants and animals or not.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The ›first truly perpetual energy source«?« ** **

That engine utilized the random motion of air molecules. Without any moving parts at all, it ordered their motion. Once ordered, their kinetic energy (due to simple air temperature) can be used in a variety of ways. One way is to simply direct the atoms straight downward thereby forcing the craft straight upward - no moving parts at all, no fuel required at all, no waste products at all. And all happening on a microscopic level. I named it my »Kinetic Diode«, KD.

More useful designs use the directed kinetic energy to build pressure for pressure applications, such as compression engines, turbine engines, electric generators,...

The limit to the amount of energy output is a simple issue of the temperature of the surrounding air, which the device freezes as it directs the thermal energy elsewhere. I figured that a 400 HP automobile engine could be made that very quickly froze the air immediately around it as it accelerated. When the automobile stops, all of the thermal energy is merely distributed differently than it had been. No energy is created or destroyed, merely shifted around by its own kinetics. Thus there is no industrial energy buildup. A highly industrialized nation would be at the same temperature as any other nation with the same number of people.

Also there were no fuels to spill or store, or even purchase (which is why it was all quickly buried).“ **

No moving parts at all? No fuel required at all? No waste products at all? That all must bel happening on a microscopic level.

No energy is created or destroyed? Merely shifted around by its own kinetics? No industrial energy buildup?

Sensational, James!

James S. Saint wrote:

„Amorphos wrote:

»Interesting, but I fail to see how air temperature ~ agitation of its atoms, would provide enough energy to power the vehicle and give enough lift for both it [being light] and a passenger/pilot.« **

Well, that was my first thought too. I was thinking that I would have to heat the air, which I had planned on doing. But after I calculated the amount of energy already in the air, I found it unnecessary to add anything. It could be 30 below and you would still have plenty of energy. You just can't get it so cold that the air itself freezes. For the internally closed systems, I proposed Argon gas, for a verity of reasons. I no longer remember what the figures were, but they were all very workable.

Amorphos wrote:

»What's stopping you from building such a device and becoming the richest man in the world?« **

Socialism.

Realize that flight 370 had all of the inventors of a specific air-defense micro-chip on board. When they went mysteriously missing, presumed dead, the owners of the company, the Rothchilds, gained billions of dollars from the patent rights.“ **

B.t.w.: Their name is Rothschild - they originally come from Frankfurt (Main) in Germany. Their name means „rot“ (old version: „roth“) = „red“, and „Schild“ = „Shield“. Thus: „Red Shield“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Yeah, I looked at that spelling twice, and still didn't catch that missing »s«.

And btw, »Roth« doesn't actually mean »red«. It means »Anger« or »Revenge« which is represented by red. The »Red Sea« in scriptures is referring to the sea of anger/revenge in the Egyptian populous. »Roth-Child« obviously means »A child of roth«, a »child of anger/revenge«.“ **

At least that is an acceptable interpretation (). But the traditional interpretation has to do with the absent house numbers in the street called „Judengasse“ in Frankfurt during the medieval times. At that time there were no house numbers in the „Judengasse“, but shields or signs of goods (products) in different colours. In this case it was a red shield.

1063

There is no problem with the orthodox Christians, as far as I know. But the border between the orthodox Christians and the catholic (incl. protestant) Christians has been existing as border between the Western culture and the Eastern culture since the 4th century. The following map shows this border:

Westliches Christentum = Western Christianity.
Östliches Christentum = Eastern Christianity (Ortthodoxe Kirche = Orthodox Church) and Islam.

I translate Samuel P. Huntingtons answers to the following question:

„What is Europe?

Europe's borders in the north, west and south are drawn by large bodies of water, of which separates the southern clearly distinguishable cultures. But where does Europe end in the East? Who should apply as Europeans and therefore as a potential member of the European Union, NATO and similar organizations? The most compelling and thorough answer to these questions provides the great historical dividing line that separates ... West-Christian Muslim and Orthodox peoples. This line goes back to the division of the Roman Empire in the 4th century and the establishment of the Holy Roman Empire in the 10th century (by the German Sachsen-Kaiser **). Its current course it takes ... in the north ... along the present border between Finland and Russia and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) and Russia, through western Belarus, through Ukraine, where it seperates the Uniate west form the Orthodox East (**), through Romania between Transylvania with its catholic Hungarian population and the rest of the country, and through the former Yugoslavia along the border that separates Slovenia and Croatia from the other republics. In the Balkans, the line falls naturally along with the historic border between the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman Empire. This line is the cultural border of Europe and in the world after the Cold War, it is also the political and economic border of Europe and the West. A cultural approach provides a clear and unambiguous answer to the question the West Europeans moved: Where does Europe end? It stops where Western Christianity ends and Orthodoxy and Islam begin. That's the answer you want to hear Western Europeans, the majority of them, albeit sotto voce confirm and the leading of various intellectuals and politicians is explicitly confirmed. As Michael Howard executes, it is essential to consider the blurred distinction in the Soviet years between Central Europe and the actual Eastern Europe. Central Europe includes »the countries that were once part of the Christian West; the ancient lands of the Habsburg Empire, Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia to Poland and the eastern borderlands (Grenzmarken) in Germany. The name ›Eastern Europe‹ should remain those regions subject to that developed under the auspices of the Orthodox Church: the Black Sea Communities Bulgaria and Romania, which were released only in the 19th century from the Ottoman rule, and the ›European‹ parts of the Soviet Union.« According to Howard the first task of Western Europe must be,»to integrate the nations of Central Europe back into our cultural and economic community to which they belong by rights ...«. Two years later Pierre Bahar (**) sees a »new fault line« arise, »an essentially cultural dividing line between a Europe that is dominated by Western Christianity (Roman Catholic or Protestant), on the one side, and a Europe of Eastern Christianity and Islamic traditions is marked, on the other side.« Similarly sees a prominent Finn (**) the crucial division in Europe ... in the »old cultural fault line between East and West«, which includes »the countries of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire as well as Poland and the Baltic States« in the Europe of the West and the other East European and Balkan countries excludes. This is, as a prominent Englishmen (**) agrees, »the great religious dividing line ... between the Eastern and the Western Church, roughly speaking, between the people who received their Christianity from Rome directly or through Celtic or Germanic mediator, and the peoples of the East and Southeast, which occurred about Constantinople (Konstantinopel, Byzanz) ....“ (Samuel P. Huntington, Clash of Civilizations, 1993-1996, pp. 250-254 **).

My notes are colored.

I have no English version of Huntington's book. Please excuse me, if my translation contains some mistakes.

Cultural, technical, economical, artistic developments always belong together. If people like to be not here, if they are always focussed elsewhere, preferable via digital media, then it seems that a development - for example a technical one - has led them to this behaviour, but this impression is merely partly true because the other developments (cultural, economical, artistic) are connected to this (technical) development. So I think there is no way out for them because their own develeopments depend on those very much connected developments. If you take one development (e.g. a technical) away, then the other developments (e.g. cultural, economical, artistic) bring it back - immediately.

At least it is very difficult to break out of this mainstream, to be a dropout in a really successful way. Apropos: What about the Amish, the Mennonites ...?

452) Arminius, 08.05.2014, 01:03, 02:21, 02:21, 03:09, 04:47, 19:46, 20:39, 21:28, 23:10, 23:57 (1066-1075)

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„My weakness in history isnt in knowing classical, medieval, or renaissance ..., but in knowing what is essentially prussian sociologists who wrote only in German, and played second fiddle to the bigger names in the Young Hegelians ...“ **

Who do you mean? The one I guess was not a Prussian. Generally, I noticed that you call some of the Non-Prussians „Prussians“.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Europe in that period was concerned about stupid shit that has nothing to do with reality, like justifying conquest via culture or language. Im American, it seems artificial and contrived, and doesn't do any apparent good.“ **

Europeans interpret this relation reversely.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„The line on your map reflects the Outcome of the schism of the holy sees, and the aftermath of the Ottoman empire, with Holy Sees seeking administrative rights on the christian populations.“ **

Not of the Ottoman Empire, but of the so called „Eastern Roman Empire“, thus Byzantium.

This line is the exact borderline between the Western culture with its catholic Christians and later also the protestant Christians on the one side and the Eastern culture with its orthodox Christians and later also its muslims. The Western Romans and the Eastern Romans (Byzantines) formed this border in the 4th century, and it has never been changing.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„The actual cultural distribution, as Cezar could testify to this ....“ **

Not this racist Cezar again ....

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„I can take a topological analysis for ethnographic distributions involving gothic, slavic, germanic, and Arab invasions throughout the ancient world per region ....“ **

Gothic is Germanic because it is a part of Germanic.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Europe has been weak and backwards for the last few generations ....“ **

Europe lost, the US and the SU (by accident? SU / US ) won the Second World War, but the SU has been eliminated since 1989 and the US is endangered, will probably lose much power, will perhaps also be eliminated, but (don't panic!) at the earliest in the middle of this century.

Cassie wrote:

„Machines will make human beings obsolete.“ **

There is indeed a high probability that machines will completely replace all human beings - I estimate: 80%.

Cassie wrote:

„Evolution does not always move upwards.“ **

That's right.

Cassie wrote:

„Projected ideals, because they are unknown, and have not been applied, can result in unforeseeable consequences.

Man in his desire to »correct« himself, healing himself from his past/nature, makes himself obsolete.
Machines, technologies/techniques, are already being used to enhance and to replace certain human processes.
If they ever begin to exceed the inherited to a degree where the »human« part is buried in technologies/techniques, we can no longer speak of human.“ **

That's right too.

@ Moreno and Obe

Should I put the name „Moreno“ into the column in which the name „Obe“ is and the name „Obe“ into the column in which the name „Moreno“ is? ** ** ** **

Moreno wrote:

„So that was me not granting that this obsolescence is real. I am not simply an engineering event. Not remotely. Someone may Think of me that way and may label me obsolete, but that is subjective.“ **

If not „someone“, but many people as a majority think of you that way and label you obsolete, what would you say then?

Obe wrote:

„Maybe the confusion surrounds the meaning of »obsolescence«. A person may not be obsolete as a machine would, his obsolescence may be a factor of being displaced, made irrelevant in a particular or general context.“ **

There is only a little step from being obsolete or being displaced to being replaced.

If humans want to replace themselves - for example by animals, by machines, adult humans by childish humans, male humans by female humans, ... and so on ..., and at last all humans by machines -, they want it partly, but at last they will probably want it wholy. In addition: We nust not forget that it is not clear, what humans really want because they have no free will, but only a relatively free will.

Copied post in another thread.

Phyllo wrote:

„There will be no more children who would be rejuvenating the culture. That might be the end of history.“ **

At least the demographic development is one of the most importanrt „historical existentials“.

If a culture does not have enough children to rejuvenate itself, then the history of this culture ends. And if this culture has already become the culture of all human beings, then the history of all human beings ends. Yet we do not exactly know, whether we have many cultures (and if yes: how many?) or merely one.

Anyway, the demographic development is one of the most importanrt „historical existentials“. Therefore I underlined the word „demographics“ in the following cited list.

Arminius wrote:

„According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following »historical existentials«:
•	Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
•	Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
•	Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
•	Classes;
•	State;
•	Great War;
•	City and country as contrast;
•	Education, especially in schools and universities;
•	Science;
•	Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
•	Historiography / awareness of history!

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):

»Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder ›Existenzialien‹ - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige ›Zwischenspiel‹ der ›eigentlichen Geschichte‹ bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines ›Schemas der historischen Existenz‹ ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.“
My translation:
»Thus, it is thought possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or ›existentials‹ - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting ›interlude‹ of the ›actual history‹ and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a ›scheme of historical existence‹is the main goal of this book.

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):

»Befinden wir Menschen ... uns bereits in der ›Nachgeschichte‹, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?«
My translation:
»Are we people ... already in the ›post-history‹ as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?«

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):

»Alle historischen Existenzialien ... haben ... grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der ›große Krieg‹, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.«
My translation:
»All historical existentialia ... have ... been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the ›Great War‹, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.«

That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: »Historische Existenz« (»Historical Existence«).“ ** **

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Moreno wrote:

›So that was me not granting that this obsolescence is real. I am not simply an engineering event. Not remotely. Someone may Think of me that way and may label me obsolete, but that is subjective.‹ **

If not ›someone‹, but many people as a majority think of you that way and label you obsolete, what would you say then?« **

To whom?
I mean, in a sense this is a problem. That doesn't mean I am obsolete. I mean a majority seems to think owning the right brand of _______________ makes them more intereting, cool, sexy, successful, important and even, amazingly, individual. That doesn't mean that it is true in any objective sense.

Anyone saying that we, homo sapians, are about to become obsolete, pretty much as to be a theist. I mean how would they know what is valuable ultimately. So I probed his post to see - is this person going to actually say there are objective values. My guess is this does not fit well with his system. If it does, however, then we have a theist or some other person with objective values, who thinks that Machines can replace all of value even in himself and his kids. That's a very odd theist.“ **

It was merely a question, Moreno.

Not the only one, but at least one of the main reasons why human beings become obsolete are e.g those human beings who are saying that human beings do not become obsolete. The other human beings are either a minority which wants human beings to become obsolte or a majority which do not wants human beings to become obsolete.

According to the German cultural philosopher Oswald A. G. Spengler we know 8 historical cultures, according to the English cultural philosopher Arnold J. Toynbee we know 19 historical cultures. I think Spenglers theory of 8 historical cultures is right. Currently we have 4 „dead“ historical cultures and 4 historical cultures which are still „alive“. Maybe there will come a new one (perhaps Russia, Spengler said), but we do not know, and we also do not know whether the one and only culture has really existed and whether the one and only culture will exist. Institutions like World Bank, IWF, United Nations, ... and so on ... do not mean one culture. The fact that only one culture - the Faustian culture (also called: Western culture) - was able to discover, conquer, capture the whole planet Earth and in addition other parts of the universe is also no proof for the existence of one culture, a so called „universal culture“.

An „universal culture“ is merely ideology, new-religion.

If there will be merely one culture of the human beings, then all historical cultures of the human beings will have to be eliminated. But today the 4 historical cultures of the human beings are still „alive“.

But if that „one culture“ as the „universal culture“ will come, then the history will probably be eliminated.

Hear what rulers and their politicians have been preaching since 1989: „One world, one civilisation (culture), one religion, one financial system of course, one economy, one language, one media, one science, one technology, one ecology, one art, one city (no country), one sex / gender, one state (or no state), one education, one rule (leadership); and no nobility, no class, no state (or one state), no great war, no country.“ (And now look at the list again!) That means: No history!

Arminius wrote:

„According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following »historical existentials«:
•	Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
•	Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
•	Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
•	Classes;
•	State;
•	Great War;
•	City and country as contrast;
•	Education, especially in schools and universities;
•	Science;
•	Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
•	Historiography / awareness of history!“ ** **

453) Arminius, 09.05.2014, 00:51, 02:09, 02:29, 03:50, 19:26, 19:40 (1076-1081)

Depopulation takes place in the area of the Western culture and in some other areas, but not in Africa, in Arabia and some other areas. So the number of the world population is currently still high, althoug it has been sinking. So the number of the world population will sooner or later also be as low as the number of the Western population. It is merely a question of time, when the world depopulation will be noticeable even for those who are curently unable to notice it.

Depopulation policy refers currently to the Western population, but will also refer to the world population as soon as possible.

So, James, you are right.

James S. Saint wrote:

„As long as the world is being designed and redesigned (**), people are inherently creating obsolescence of people (depopulation).“ **

The depopulation has been starting for so long, but the idiotic people have not been being able to notice it. And with the depopulation the stultification has been starting simultaneously.

Moreno wrote:

„The population in the West is still going up (**). It may be going up slower than it was, but it is still going up.“ **

The US population is not the whole Western population, Moreno. And do you know where those people are who let the current US population grow?

Those people are Latin American aboriginals. And do Latin American aboriginals really belong to the Western population?

Moreno wrote:

„And this is not about Communism vs. Capitalism, per se, but anything vs. mcworld.“ **

Capitalism as the thesis (cp. Hegel) and communism as the antithesis (cp. Hegel) are now integrated in the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). It is important to find the new antithesis (cp. Hegel) to the new thesis (cp. Hegel) which is set by the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). What could that new antithesis (cp. Hegel) be?

If there will be no new antithesis (cp. Hegel), then that new thesis (cp. Hegel) will probably be the „eternal thesis“ as the so called „universal culture / civilisation“ of the „Last Men“ and the end of history.

Sorry, but your texts are full of untruth, capegoat „theory“, bias, prejudice, revenge, payback, enviousness, jealousy ....

Moreno wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

»Moreno wrote:

›And this is not about Communism vs. Capitalism, per se, but anything vs. mcworld.‹ **

Capitalism as the thesis (cp. Hegel) and communism as the antithesis (cp. Hegel) are now integrated in the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). It is important to find the new antithesis (cp. Hegel) to the new thesis (cp. Hegel) which is set by the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). What could that new antithesis (cp. Hegel) be?

If there will be no new antithesis (cp. Hegel), then that new thesis (cp. Hegel) will probably be the ›eternal thesis‹ as the so called ›universal culture / civilisation‹ of the ›Last Men‹ and the end of history.« ** **

I would call it corporatism because I think this leaves open more possibilities for antithesis. Given that corporatism is also self destructive and resisted locally in a diverse set of ways, it may not need a total system as an antithesis.

Maybe, but isn't corporatism at least partly incorporated in their synthesis (cp. Hegel) too?

454) Arminius, 10.05.2014, 02:26, 03:04, 03:23, 08:17, 20:54, 21:12, 21:31, 22:38 (1082-1089)

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„1 out of 4 americans are descended from German Stock..... I think there is enough of good Germany here ....“ **

Okay. That's fine.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„And no, map is clearly Ottoman ....“ **

This map shows the border in the year 1500, but what was meant is that this border has been existing since the 4th century, when the Ottoman-Turkish people lived in Central Asia (so at that time they had nothing to do with this border) and the north(east)ern part - as it ist shown in this map - was unknown. Therefore Samuel P. Huntington could say: „This is, as a prominent Englishmen agrees, »the great religious dividing line ... between the Eastern and the Western Church, roughly speaking, between the people who received their Christianity from Rome directly or through Celtic or Germanic mediator, and the peoples of the East and Southeast, which occurred about Constantinople (Byzantium) ....“ (Samuel P. Huntington, Clash of Civilizations, 1993-1996, p. 254 **). This border has not been changing since the 4th century (the southern part) and since the proselytisation (the northern part) by the German missionaries (on the west side which later became Hungary, Slovakia, Poland and other slavish catholic countries) and the Greek missionaries (on the east side which later became Russia and other orthodox countries). That is what Huntington said. That is true.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Untruth..... no, everything I said was the truth.“ **

Then I have to disagree with you, „my God“.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„The 19th Century produced some of the worst backwards, prejudiced thinkers period.“ **

That is also not true.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„I hate 19th century Prussians and Nazis. Like I said elsewhere, being a Cosmopolitan requires me to study and explore the philosophies of all quarters of the world, not Necessarily accept them. Its a philosophy of select Eclecticism .... the 19th Century produced some of the worst backwards, prejudiced thinkers period. HENCE, I am prejudiced to them .... its a sick era. Frankly, I would of preferred Alexander the Great's policy of mixing of the races to of been a success, instead of this subtle »Culture« crap being around, which really just means we want just this Ethnic Group, or This Deadend Way of Thinking. If such things were worthwhile, we wouldnt need saving them. If the government told me how to write English, or the necessity of maintaining folk polka and banjo and fiddle operations, or what historic tile for the roof to use, I would tell them to go F themselves.“ **

Alexander the Great's political system had existed 13 years, Hitler’s political system had existed 12 years. When Alexander died, his political system broke to pieces immediately, and his followers - the so called „diadochies“ - began their wars. That is what you prefer? When Hitler died, his political system ended immediately, and there were no followers because only very less Germans had really been Nazis. So if you always compare Germans with Nazis or with Prussians, then you don't know very much about the German history. For example: the Austrians are more important than the Prussians when it comes to really understand the whole German history. The Austrians had been the most powerful part of Germany for about 300 or 400 years, but the Prussians had been the most powerful part of Germany for about 50 or 100 or - at the most - 200 years, and for about 150 years both the Austrian and Prussians were the most powerful part of Germany (this „double power“ is historically called: „Deutscher Dualismus“ - „German Dualism“). If you say the German history is mostly a Prussian history, then you are wrong, your statement is false. When it comes to understand the German history, it is required to know the Germans. And you (b.t.w.: as well as that racist Cezar) don't know the Germans.

You believe that Alexander the Great was a cosmopolitan? I disagree!

If you say you hate this or this nation, then you are a nationalist too, and a more nationalistic one than any nationalist. You always have to refer to national or nationalitsic issues, if you are an anti-nationalist. You can’t eliminate nations and nationalism by being an anti-nationalist. That doesn't work.

So I advise you to call yourself „A-Nietzsche(an)“ or „Non-Nietzsche(an)“, if you do not want to agree with the German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche. With an „Anti“ or a „Contra“ you merely affirm what you do not want to affirm, and you affirm it more than itself. Or I advise you to call yourself „A-Cezarboy“ or „Non-Cezarboy“.

Nobody has a solution of the problem around us. A fortiori the Cezarboy and other copycats have no solution because they are too stupid and especially too one-sided. Of course nationalism is not the solution, racisms is not the solution, sexism is not the solution, genderism is not the solution, cosmopolitanism is not the solution, internationalism is not the solution, and globalism (as a synthesis) is not the solution, libertarianism / liberalism is not the solution, egalitarianism is not the solution, fraternalism is not the solution because globalism (as a synthesis) is not the solution.

Do you have a solution? The policy of Alexander the Great? Or Machiavellism? Cynicism? Catholicism?

No, unfortunately they all are old „solutions“ because at last they failed.

Moreno wrote:

„Well, they were here first as far as the Americas. I also do not think you are correct either about it just being the US or that the only increase is latin americans coming into the US. Do you have some source for this?“ **

Yes, of course.

Moreno wrote:

„I don't give a fuck.“ **

Okay, but that was not my question.

Moreno wrote:

„Plastic people.“ **

Because you „just don't quite know what happens when nearly everyone is no longer quite present at any time“ (**) ?

Obe wrote:

„Incorporation is akin to inclusion into, versus a synthetic development. Inclusion implies enclosing an entity into a system, without changing it. In that way incorporation can retain it's identity, whereas synthesis is a new, changed form the dynamic combination of an element and its appearently contradictory system. Incorporation is begotten from the idea of a stable coexistenz of elements each retaining their identity, synthesis changes elements in the process. This feature enables a philosophical bypass into the very ontology of the process Hegel talks about. It is on basis of projection, that Heglelian results can be predicted, but not so with so called »free« enterprise, where game theory is best suited.

That is not to say that one type of analysis is preferable to the other, and in that, incorporation is weaker in terms of conclusiveness. However, It's strength does manifest, in the wait and see attitude of corrections of variables related to the approximations. It can incorporate elements of Hegelianism into it's dynamic, without changin either elements. My conclusion is that depending on the success or failure of globalism, one or the other analytic will prevail.“ **

That’s interesting.

And which one will prevail?

Moreno wrote:

„Communism and capitalism? I dont really think so. I think it is a kind of synthesis of capitalism and feudalism. Though I am not really Hegelian, so I don't assume these kinds of steps.“ **

The feudalism doesn't fit in the modern synthesis (cp. Hegel), but it could fit in a post-modern, the future synthesis (cp. Hegel), if there will be no „eternal thesis“ as the so called „universal culture / civilisation“ of the „Last Men“ and the end of history. ** **

Obe wrote:

„Going along with the idea that it is more likely that technology will replace human labor to a large part, incorporation of antithetical systems will be superseded by technocratic methods. This will arise, because the failure of a synthetic Capitalistic(democratic)-socialist(communist) model to prevent a new social democracy to emerge, as a viable system. These methods will become incorporated within a system of apologia, wherein it will necessarily to veil the actual patent lack of resolution. Corporate fascism, probably of the machines, is likely, if »they« don't watch out.“ **

There is a difference between the meaning of „corporation“ in English and the meaning of „Korporation“ in German. In the English language one can use the words „corporation“ and „company“ nearly synonymously. So, what do you exactly mean, when you speak about „corporation“? Do you mean the fascistic „corporation“?

Obe wrote:

„Arminius, similarity can be found between medieval-capital and company-corporation, in that both capital and corporate are fairly newly arrived entities. Whether there is overlap in meaning between old and new derivations, do not take away the significance of the meaningful dynamic based on their function. German philosophy is geared toward meaning of words, and no wonder the Vienna circles of the positivists originated in Austria, a German speaking country.“ **

That’s correct.

Obe wrote:

„The dynamic approach, of looking at systemic aspects of corporations, do not designate a specific entity,but look at incorporation as an ontological tool. Elements incorporated into a system, are not necessarily synthesized.“ **

That’s correct too.

Obe wrote:

„The modern corporate world is the literal unabashed dynamic, unhidden, since it is seen as an economic and not a political entity.“ **

But nevertheless: it is also a political entity, and it is a grown and furthermore growing political entity.

Phyllo wrote:

„He's programmed but he overcomes parts of it and his humanity reappears.“ **

Yes, but „his humanity reappears“ probably because „films, such as »I, Robot«, are psychologically designed to instill a love for androids“, as James said (**).

Phyllo wrote:

„He's not an android.“ **

He doesn't necessarily have to be an android in order to release a love for androids.

Phyllo wrote:

„Examples of promoting the love of machines, robots, androids? I don't think so. If anything, the movies are a warning about the misuse/abuse of technology.“ **

I haven't seen that film, I have merely concluded logically, first and foremost psychologically.

455) Arminius, 11.05.2014, 01:21, 02:27, 02:42, 03:15, 03:46, 05:03, 20:41, 20:42 (1090-1097)

Phyllo wrote:

„You watched the clip I posted?
Does it look like it promotes a love of robots?“ **

No, but it wasn't the end of the film, was it?

That clip doesn't prove or disprove anything, although the first impression may be that it promotes a hate of humans who create robots - it depends on the reception, the receiver, the recipients: younger ones may hate robots, older ones may hate humans after their impressions of that clip. After all that clip doesn't prove or disprove anything.

Moreno wrote:

„There are films that manipulate towards liking accepting robots, cyborgs, androids, but Robocop, the old one is not one. .... But Robocop was made incredibly stupidly if the intention was to make the introduction of cyborgs and robots seems like good things.“ **

So in the latter sentence you probably mean the new version of „Robocop“, right?

But:

Phyllo wrote:

„If anything, the movies are a warning about the misuse/abuse of technology.“ **

So in this sentence the old versions of „Robocop“ is meant, althoug there were merely one old version?

Is there any agreement? And does only the new version of „Robocop“ promote robots as „good things“?

I haven't seen any of this versions of „Robocop“. So my questions contain no rhetorical elements.

Moreno wrote:

„Well, we are in the postmodern era ....“ **

The post-modern era is merely a late-modern era. The postmodern era will come later, maybe even in this centrury or later. Why am I saying this? I think that the postmodern era will be very much similar to the era after the end of history, perhaps it's a prestage or even the same stage, and this era (postmodern and/or era after the end of history) will, if it really will come, be an „eternal era“ of the „Last Men“.

Moreno wrote:

„I know a lot of people who relate to both Corporations and representatives in government as if they were lords. Even those who detest feudalism find that it is often the only way to get justice or survive. And this is Feudalism without the commons. Imagine that. It is going to be feudalism where every damn thing is owned by the local Baron.“ **

That would also fit into that era. The late-modern era leads to the postmodern era, and in the late-modern era you can already notice the increasing of e.g. gang systems (cp. late-modern) which lead to feudal systems (postmodern).

Moreno wrote:

„Yes, the humans who want to replace humans with robots in the film do not come off well. And yes, you hate them. The pure robots are so personalitiless hating them would be like hating a toaster. Now I have hated toasters on occasion - Ok, it was really a vaccuum cleaner and a blender that got my ire up - but only in the moment.“ **

And what about the misuse/abuse of technology, Phyllo mentioned (**) ?

Moreno wrote:

„It's already that era, but most people haven't noticed.“ **

I don't think that it is already that era, but we can already notice (and unfortunately many people don't or can't do it) many of the „messengers“of that postmodern era. Why am I saying that? The postmodern era will not be that what artists, art historians, performers, some philosophers and others have been saying for so long. It will be a little bit different, compared with the current era (late-modern era). The postmodern era will be more „entropic“ than the current late-modern era.

Do you know which „messengers“ I mean?

Moreno wrote:

„I don't know what you mean by it.

I see the pure consumers around me a tacit postmodernists. They sure couldn't articulate it, but there they go mixing high and low Culture, rarely thinking about morals unless someone Cuts them off in traffic.

The neo cons are postmodernist, though they use rhetoric from religion, modernism, whatever, to push for their goals.

Science technology industry - postmodern and rapidly terraforming and humanoforming.“ **

In this text, you posted, you have already mentioned some of those „messengers“ because you mentioned: „low culture“, „rarely thinking about morals“, „terraforming“, „humanforming“. In almost the same manner you could have said: „subculture“, „gangs“, „global destruction“, „human destruction“. In the future „crime“ will be no crime anymore because it will be normality.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„But your charge that Alexander was NOT a Cosmopolitan is historically incorrect. He was, perhaps the premier one in history.“ **

So, according to you, the Europeans were „cosmopolitans“ because they conquered, captured - amongst others - the North-American continent and murdered 10 Millions of the „Indians“and also many of the „Blacks“. Why I am saying that is because of the fact that Alexander the Great was primarily a conqueror, but according to you he was merely a „cosmopolitan“.

And: If you were really a „cosmopolitan“, you would not exclude so much other people from being a part of your so called „cosmopolitan humanity“, you would not be in need of a double moral standard, you would not be in need of a scapegoat, ... and so on. Conclusion: You are NO cosmopolitan.

Your cynism is merely a part of nihilism, of a nihilistic system. Not more. (We will come back to it.)

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„I am very active on history forums, especially classical world history.“ **

Okay, but that proves nothing. I have already noticed, how much you know about history.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Overman.“ **

That means Nietzsche's „Übermensch“. So I am asking myself why you so often use Nietzsche's words or terms, although you call yourself „Contra-Nietzsche“. Is it because of that I told you in my next to last post (**|**) ?

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Mustaches.“ **

At that time nearly all European males had mustaches. Why don't you know such simple facts? It's history, man!

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Prussian or Nazis.“ **

You often put „Prussian“ and „Nazis“ together, but do you know that Hitler was an Austrian? Okay, I also don't care at last, anyway he was German, you would say now. Right? Okay, you are right. I don't care.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Hegel.“ **

Hegel was one of the greatest German idealists, and sometimes I think that you are a German idealist as well because of your cosmopolitism which is also an element in the philosophy of the German idealists. I don't have to mention the names - they are too many.

But don't tell that you are a German idealist because you would lose your scapegoat!

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„German Catholics ... my cousins.“ **

So you are German.

But don't tell that you are a German because you would lose your scapegoat!

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Not interested in Euro-Lunacy.“ **

Agreement.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Prussian thought.“ **

Which you mean?

But don't tell good things because you would lose your scapegoat!

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„My system, my greatest gift to people is my poverty. So very contrarian to the Nietzschean position, but it keeps me Green and true to philosophy in a era where so many others wither. I am that which is for my own merits. I exist not for ego gratification, but because the Cynic Philosopher is a recurring figure in history with a role to play.“ **

Agreement.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Wittgenstein.“ **

Not Prussian, but Austrian - like Hitler (see above). Anyway he was German, you would say now. Okay, you are right. I don't care (see above).

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Nazis, and ... Prussians.“ **

Again (see above).

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Your people are dying.“ **

YOUR people are dying! And Cezar's too! Don't you know anything about demographics?

The Europeans are dying out also means the Europeans in the US are dying out as well.

I have never been to the US, but when I remember the pictures of e.g. the 1960's and compare it with the pictures of today, then I ask myself, whether US is a part of Africa or a part of Latin America. But as you said: You have still your 25% Germans as your scapegoat.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Trying to constantly preserve the past ....“ **

You preserve the past, you preserve e.g. the 4th century B.C (Antisthenes, Diogenes, Alexander the Great a.s.o. - VERY MUCH PAST), the 1st century (Christianity - MUCH PAST), and the 16th century (Machiavelli, Cardano a.s.o. - PAST) because Contra-Nietzsche wrote: „No Exist.... Im am three things, 1) A Catholic 2) A Cynic 3) A Machiavellian.“ (**) That makes: –4 + 1 + 16 = 13 / 3 = 4.33' (average). So you preserve the 4th or early 5th century - bad time for you because you scapegoat is conquering Rome and its whole empire!

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Cezar supports your ideas ....“ **

Are you crazy? Are you „Cezar“?

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Its why your country is prone to cultic crazes, like Anarchism, then Socialism, then National Socialism, then the Green Movement.“ **

Anarchism? Also France!
Socialism? Also France!
National Socialism? There are many theories about the cause of the National Socialism, and I can guarantee you: Your „theory“ is false.
Green Movement? Okay, that's true.

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Nazis, and ... Prussians.“ **

Again (see above).

Contra-Nietzsche wrote:

„Cezar is that eager to follow you.“ **

See above!

Result again (cp. my next to last post [**|**]): scapegoat „theory“, prejustice, revenge, payback, enviousness, jealousy ....

Excuse me, but that is pretty much shit what you are writing.

If I had to find a title for an OP in the „Rant House“, I would prefer the following one:

I forgive you a little bit because you are still too young, relatively young of course, and because you are a catholic as I am.

My advice: Get you a room with Cezarboy and try to convince him, so that he converts as soon as possible. Good luck!

You have a chance because you are in some or even many cases similar to him. For example: you both are „warriors“, nihilistic „warriors“ of course, and you both don't want a philosophical discussion or conversation, but an order, a command in order to dictate your nihilistic ideology. Christianity is (if we believe in Nietzsche, but I don't believe in him so much) a part of nihilism (you are a Christian, a Catholic => 1), cynism is a part of nihilism (you are a Cynic => 2), Machiavellism is a part of a pre-stage to nihilism (you are a Machiavellian => 3). Cezarboy calls himself a „Nietzschean“, and Nietzscheans are also a part of nihilism. So have a nice time with Cezarboy in your nihilistic warrior room!

Take it easy.

Moreno wrote:

„What point in US history did not have what should be called crimed considered noble or righteous“ **

What do you mean exactly?

„Good“ will be „evil“, and „evil“ will be „good“. „Truth“ will be „lie“, and „lie“ will be „truth“. „War“ will be „peace“, and „peace“ will be „war“ .... And so on.

Partly it has already been realised, and it will be completely realised. That's not new, and it appears again and again.

456) Arminius, 12.05.2014, 00:31, 01:53, 03:34, 04:16, 04:46, 04:47, 19:55, 20:24 (1098-1105)

Bob wrote:

„It wasn't as bad as Northern Ireland, but people are glad that those days are past here.“ **

If you really want to compare the situation in Northern Ireland with the past (very long tima ago!) situation in Germany, it is merely possible by adding that on the one side (Northern Ireland) it took place ein the 20th century and still takes place in the 21st century and on the other side (Germany) it merely took (thus: not take) place in the 16th century, in the 17th century till 1648 (top: Thirty-Years-War), and after that very much less, mostly even no more, but quite the contrary (think of the Huguenots who were displaced by the French despots Louis XIV., XV., XVI. and found a new home country in Germany). One can say that in Germany the dualism of Catholics and Protestants had been no problem anymore since this catstrophe of the Thirty-Years-War, the graetest catastrophe in German history (the Thirty-one-Years-War - 1914-1945 - was merely the second greatest catastrophe in German history).

Bob wrote:

„However, Roman Catholics are often very conservative ....“ **

No. I am a Roman Catholic German and my wife is a Protestant (Lutheran) German. According to the confessions and their possible effects there is not a great difference between her, her parents, her grandparents on the one side, and me, my parents, my granparents on the other side - except some bagatelles.

By trend the Catholics are a little bit more „conservative“ than the Protestants (Lutherans) - that's right -, but this difference is merely very rarely diagnosable. So in former times it was more diagnosable, especially in the 16th and in the 17th century till 1648.

Bob wrote:

„Remembering that the Thirty-Years-War killed almost half the population ....“ **

Correction: not half, but third the population. Nevertheless: it is a high number.

Sauwelios wrote:

„3. The „end of history is not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher; the idea may be realised.“ **

Interesting, you add a third point, but I didn't say that the „end of history“ is merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, but this idealistic philosopher - Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - was the founder of this idea. And the idea may be realised.

Sauwelios wrote:

„»Nietzsche knew of Marx' writings, he questioned the communist vision more radically than anyone else. He identified the man of the communist world society as the last man, as man in his utmost degradation: without 'specialization,' without the harshness of limitation, human nobility and greatness are impossible. In accordance with this he denied that the future of the human race is predetermined.«“ **

I agree.

Sauwelios wrote:

„»The alternative to the last man is the over-man, a type of man surpassing and overcoming all previous human types in greatness and nobility; the over-men of the future will be ruled invisibly by the philosophers of the future.« (Strauss, »Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy«, paragraph 7).

Strauss suggests here that the over-man is the man who is ruled invisibly by the philosopher. But if being ruled invisibly by the philosopher is what makes man an over-man, then the invisibly ruling philosopher may also be called the over-man: he is then the quintessence of the over-man or the quintessential over-man. It is in this sense that I used the term in my »Note on the First Chapter of Leo Strauss's Final Work« (**).

»The philosopher, as distinguished from the scholar or scientist, is the complementary man in whom not only man but the rest of existence is justified (cf. aph. 207); he is the peak which does not permit and still less demand to be overcome. This characterization applies, however, strictly speaking only to the philosophers of the future compared with whom men of the rank of Kant and Hegel are only philosophic laborers, for the philosopher in the precise sense creates values. Nietzsche raised the question whether there ever were such philosophers (aph. 211 end). He seems to have answered that question in the affirmative by what he had said near the beginning of the sixth chapter on Heraclitus, Plato and Empedocles. Or does it remain true that we must overcome also the Greeks (The Gay Science aph. 125, 340)? The philosopher as philosopher belongs to the future and was therefore at all times in contradiction to his Today; the philosophers were always the bad conscience of their time.« (Strauss, »Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil«, paragraph 30. Cf. Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 91-92.)«“ **

The „Last Men“ represent the people after the end of history, and the „Overman“ represents the philosopher who is able, and only able, to prevent the end of history.

But does that prevention really „work“? And, if so, who will be such an „Overman“ in the face of the development which seems more to prevent him than he to prevent the end of history?

Obe wrote:

„There can not possibly be an after the end of history because, after the end there is no after.“ **

After the end can not be an after - that's right -, but I said: „after the end of history“ (**|**), and after the end of history there can be an after, namely an after without history. We are talking about history, especially about the end of history, and, if there will be an end of history, about the time after the end of history.

So, an „after the end of history“ means an „after without history“, thus: a time without history.

The time of history in the evolution of the human beings is very tiny; it is the exception of the rule: human beings without history. And why should there not be a time without history in the future evolution of the human beings? The question is, whether there will be such a time or not.

Obe wrote:

„But Arminius, history is recorded time. So if history ends, recorded time Ends.“ **

That's absolutely right, Obe.

Obe wrote:

„So how can we really know anything after, if there is no recording of it?“ **

We don't need that recording in order to know something about the time after the end of history. We know something about the human beings before the human history started. So we can also know something about the human beings after the human history will have ended.

We don't know, whether the human beings in the future will know something about themselves, but we know that - preconditioned the history will end - they will know nothing about history because the history will have ended then; but: we are able to know it now.

Moreno wrote:

„Crimes have alwasy been normal in US history. Manifest Destiny was a series of crimes. Relations with Latin America. Indentured servants, slaves. The robber barons. How WW1 was sold to americans by 'americans' and how it was sold. Whatever. Crimes have Always been tucked in plain sight in norms.“ **

In the 19th century, Manifest Destiny was the widely held belief in the United States that American settlers were destined to expand throughout the continent. Historians have for the most part agreed that there are three basic themes to Manifest Destiny:

1103

Obe wrote:

„That begs the question of whether such a machine could sustain itself without being tempted by fear.“ **

Therefore my other thread: Will machines completely replace all human beings? ** **

Sauwelios wrote:

„3. The »end of history is _not_ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher; the idea _may_ be realised.“ **

Your 3. point is included in the topic of my thread (**|**), included in my OP (**|**).

Sauwelios wrote:

„»Regardless of whether or not Nietzsche knew of Marx' writings, he questioned the communist vision more radically than anyone else. ....« (Strauss, »Note on the Plan of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil«, paragraph 30. Cf. Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 91-92.)“ **

Very interesting is that the name „Marx“ is not mentioned in Nietzsche's works.

Sauwelios wrote:

„I think the end of history will either happen or not.“ **

That is what I say.

Sauwelios wrote:

„My »may be« is the expression of my knowledge of my ignorance in this regard. All I know is that it has not (yet) come about.“ **

That is what I say.

Sauwelios wrote:

„I know this because I know I myself and others don't want it to come about, and as long as there is dissent it has not come about. I also know what philosophers are capable of. I understand why the end of history is theoretically possible - namely, due to the fact that nature has become a problem--, and I know the mechanism by which the problem is to be solved.“ **

Yes. But according to „the fact that nature has become a problem“ Contra-Nietzsche means that it is merely founded by the „Green Movement“, which is merely a German movement, and it is typical German to „find a grand solution“(**).

Sauwelios wrote:

„In fact, my current signature quote is all about this.“ **

Your current signature quote:

Sauwelios wrote:

„»The superman's Dionysian will to overpower would save the past from drowning in democracy's shallow waters by willing the eternal return of past inequalities.
The superman's willing of this eternal return is possible only if his will can emancipate itself from hatred of its past, a hatred responsible for modern egalitarian demands to be liberated from that past. [...] Modern thinkers culminating in Nietzsche made men aware that human creativity or technology was not limited by anything. Nietzsche feared that contemporary egalitarians would employ this unlimited power to create a world of universal peace and equality. He yearned for a superman whose will to overpower nihilism and egalitarianism would use modernity's immense power to create the eternal return of the past's inequality and wars. Then there would be no wars to end all wars.« (Harry Neumann, _Liberalism_, pp. 164-66.)“ **

Who is Harry Neumann (**) ?

Sauwelios wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The ›Last Men‹ represent the people after the end of history, and the ›Overman‹ represents the philosopher who is able, and only able, to prevent the end of history.

But does that prevention really ›work‹? And, if so, who will be such an ›Overman‹ in the face of the development which seems more to prevent him than he to prevent the end of history?« ** **

The philosopher is completely prevented when, and only when, the end of history has come about. Preventing it, however, does not mean postponing it--not even indefinitely. It means bringing about a new beginning of history. It means bringing about historical recurrence.“ **

Yes, but it can also fail, so my question is: it is very difficult and hard to bring the history back after the end of history has begun. So optimally
the philosopher has to do his work before the history ends.

Sauwelios wrote:

„N.B. Nietzsche did will the eternal recurrence, but found it boastful to say so: hence »Zarathustra«.“ **

Yes, of course. That's known. But we don't have always to concentrate on Nietzsche when it comes to talk about the end of history (cp. my OP [**|**].)

Obe wrote:

„Monad wrote:

»Obe wrote:

›Maybe the question should be put the other way, what does humanity set to loose? Perhaps we are pre planned machines, anyway, planned to evolve and function, then self replicate, at first as cyborgs, then as robots; either exclusively, or concurrently. As long as consciousness is retained in plenum , defined as 'soul' what matter is it, what the current form of incarnation is?‹ **

I view this metamorphosis more as a synthesis than some kind of hostile takeover. To some extent I do imagine it to be inevitable and the catalyst for that could possibly be the adaptation of future generations to space exploration for which our bodies are thoroughly unsuitable. What kind of psychic changes could be caused by both transformation and exploration can only be guessed at. Would we lose what is left of humanity or will it be embraced more holistically? Do we even need human bodies to be human?I think the era will be another dark age, like a big seep. We would not loose the sense of what it means to be human, because technology will retain that in a programmed memory.« **

I think the ability to access it would falter, but institutions dedicated to suspending it and reviving it would be delegated to a few keepers. My guess is, as far as human bodies is concerned, there may be options of multiplicity of forms to carry on. Cyborgs will only be afforded to those with enough wealth to purchase them, on promise of eternal life, however upon deaths of planets, these immortals will run out of steam due to increasing singling and diminishing of such creatures. Ultimately, the richest, wisest, and bravest man in the world will be truly eternal,and he may view himself as god, but sustain a pathos of eternal loneliness, hence privy to create another world. The socialist system will not afford such luxury, so capitalism seems to correspond best to such a scenario of survival of the fittest.“ **

Both capitalistic system and socialistic system are not able to afford what is needed for them. The capitalistic systsem has always to fear the socialistic system, and the socialistic system can not exist without the capitalistic system. It's Hegel's „Dialektik“. So this is merely possible with a „Synthesis“ of both capitalism as „Thesis“ and socialism as „Antithesis“. There is no other solution in order to „manage“ that - as long as history lasts (cp. my thread: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY [**|**]).

In extracts:

Arminius wrote:

„The first one who declared the end of history by implying it was Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He thought that the movement of the »Enlightenment« (»Aufklärung“) had done its work, had accomplished the history, thus had been the last age of history.

There have been many more, and I think that they all have been either Hegelians or Nietzscheans (incl. Spenglerians and Heideggerians).“ ** **

For example the two youngest on the list: Sloterdijk and Fukuyama:

Arminius wrote:

„According to Hegel’s »Dialektik« e.g. Fukuyama interprets the »extreme liberalism« as the »Thesis«, the »totalitarianism« as the »Antithesis«, the »liberal democracy« as the »Synthesis«. So for Fukuyama the »liberal democracy« is the final stage. According to Peter Scholl-Latour Fukuyama’s thesis has been absurd since its beginning; the global spread of parliamentary «democracy« and an uninhibited market economy would bring mankind a final state of wellfare / wellbeing and harmony; thus, the final line would be drawn under the obsolete antagonisms. In this way Fukuyama’s notion of the »End of History« can be resumed. (Cp. Peter Scholl-Latour, Koloß auf tönernen Füßen, 2005, S. 47). In addition, Peter Scholl-Latour found - to his surprise - that Peter Sloterdijk coined the phrase: »By ›nation building‹ you get at best democratically cladded dictatorships with market economy.« Scholl-Latour: »I would have added: ›Serving the market economy‹.« (Ibid., 2005, S. 50). Fukuyama’s bold thesis of the »end of history« of eternal fights, because the Western model (i.e.: Western culture) has triumphed globally, provides at least for Huntington no substantial analysis. Rather, Huntington sees in the clashes, frictions, conflicts between the great cultures on the basis of different religions and divergent world views, the main role of future disputes.

Fukuyama’s thesis is assessed by Norbert Bolz in this way: »In the initial diagnosis, there is a surprisingly large consensus among thinkers. The famous title of Francis Fukuyama’s book - The End of History and the Last Man - summarises quite simply together the positions of Hegel and Nietzsche.« (Norbert Bolz, Das Wissen der Religion, 2008, S. 53). This world has been defined as »housing of servitude« by Max Weber. The »Gestell« (something like »frame« / »framework« o.s.) by Martin Heidegger, the »managed world« by Theodor W. Adorno, and the »technical government« by Helmut Schelsky are only different names for the end product of a specifically modern process, which Arnold Gehlen has brought on the notion of »cultural crystallisation«.

Peter Sloterdijk sees Fukuyama’s work as »the recovery of an authentic political psychology on the basis of the restored Eros-Thymos polarity. It is obvious that this same political psychology (which has little to do with the so-called «mass psychology« and other applications of psychonalyse to political objects) has been moved to new theoretical orientations by the course of events at the center of the current demand. .... The time diagnostic lesson, that is hidden in ›The End of History‹, is not to be read from the title slogan, which, as noted, citing only a witty interpretation of Hegelian philosophy by Alexandre Kojève in the thirties of the 20th century (who for his part had dated the ›end of history‹ in the year of publication of Hegel’s Phänomenologie des Geistes [»Phenomenology of Spirit«], 1807). It consists in a careful observation of the prestige and jealousy fights between citizens of the free world, who just then come to the fore when the mobilization of civilian forces has ceased for fighting on external fronts. Successful liberal democracies, recognises the author, will always and because of their best performances be crossed by streams of free-floating discontent. This can not be otherwise, because people are sentenced to thymotic restlessness, and the ›last men‹ more than all the rest ....« (Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 65-67).

For Fukuyama »thymos« is nothing other than the psychological seat of the Hegelian desire for »Anerkennung« (appreciation, recognition, tribute). (Cp. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History, 1992, p. 233 ); this is the »real engine of human history« (ibid., p. 229). The main features of which Fukuyama is based and from which he derives his ideas are the Hegelian view of history and the Platonic-Hegelian conceptual constructions, especially that what is concerned with thymotic. Something near that is what Sloterdijk has done in his work »Zorn und Zeit« («Rage and Time«, 2006). Both Sloterdijk and Fukuyama are also influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche, Sloterdijk in addition by Heidegger.

But Sloterdijk's work mentiones also the Christian era referring to revenge and resentment:

»Vor allem muß heute, gegen Nietzsches ungestümes Resümee, bedacht werden, daß die christliche Ära, im ganzen genommen, gerade nicht das Zeitalter der ausgeübten Rache war. Sie stellte vielmehr eine Epoche dar, in der mit großem Ernst eine Ethik des Racheaufschubs durchgesetzt wurde. Der Grund hierfür muß nicht lange gesucht werden: Er ist gegeben durch den Glauben der Christen, die Gerechtigkeit Gottes werde dereinst, am Ende der Zeiten, für eine Richtigstellung der moralischen Bilanzen sorgen. Mit dem Ausblick auf ein Leben nach dem Tode war in der christlichen Ideensphäre immer die Erwartung eines überhistorischen Leidensausgleichs verbunden. Der Preis für diese Ethik des Verzichts auf Rache in der Gegenwart zugunsten einer im Jenseits nachzuholenden Vergeltung war hoch - hierüber hat Nietzsche klar geurteilt. Er bestand in der Generalisierung eines latenten Ressentiments, das den aufgehobenen Rachewunsch selbst und sein Gegenstück, die Verdammnisangst, ins Herzstück des Glaubens, die Lehre von den Letzten Dingen, projizierte. Auf diese Weise wurde die Bestrafung der Übermütigen in alle Ewigkeit zur Bedingung für das zweideutige Arrangement der Menschen guten Willens mit den schlimmen Verhältnissen. Die Nebenwirkung hiervon war, daß die demütigen Guten selbst vor dem zu zittern begannen, was sie den übermütigen Bösen zudachten.« - Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 4.
My translation:
»Especially must now against Nietzsche's impetuous résumé be considered that the Christian era, on the whole, just was not the age of the force exerted revenge. Rather, it represented a period in which very seriously the ethics of revenge deferral was enforced. The reason for this must be sought not for long: It is given by the faith of Christians, God's justice will one day, at the end of times, make the correction of the moral balance sheets. With the prospect of a life after death in the Christian sphere of idea the expectation was always connected of an hyper-historical suffering compensation. The price of this ethic of renunciation of revenge in the present in favour of a backdated retribution in the afterlife was highly - Nietzsche has clearly judged that. It consisted in the generalisation of a latent resentment that projected the repealed revenge desire itself and its counterpart, the damnation fear, into the heart of the faith, the doctrine of the Last Things. In this way, the punishment of the proud in all eternity became a condition for the ambiguous arrangement of people of good will with the dire conditions. The side effect of this was that the humble good ones (do-gooder) began to shake theirselves against what they intend for the wanton evil.«“ ** **

What do you think about the thoughts of Sloterdijk and Fukuyama relating to the end of history?

Obe wrote:

„Therefore the entropy will stop at Kant's synthetic-apriori , right? Otherwise, how can a politically motivated synthesis be achieved unless internally motivated, or else it will be incorporated into an ineffective policy.“

457) Arminius, 13.05.2014, 01:33, 01:56, 02:09, 02:56, 03:21, 06:27, 11:48, 20:17 (1106-1113)

Brave/e Slav/e Vladimir.

The boy with the weak brain,
and he he goes again:

„Brsgwdsvrpmxwic“
which is slavish, slavic.

He has no idea,
he is Vladimir.

He has a tributary toy,
his so called Cezarboy.

(Refrain)

Brav/e Slav/e Vladimir,
he has no idea,
but he has a creeping toy,
his tributary Cezarboy.

A.

Obe wrote:

„Sauwelios wrote:

»N.B. Nietzsche did will the eternal recurrence, but found it boastful to say so: hence ›Zarathustra‹. Only by the time of his last works did he consider the situation sufficiently dire to risk appearing boastful.« **

I was under the impression he liked the limelight?“ **

At least he had known his publicity for many years. Nevertheless: actually he was shy. Besides: Who doesn't like the limelight, especially after a time of acclimatisation?

Obe wrote:

„Therefore the entropy will stop at Kant's synthetic-apriori , right? Otherwise, how can a politically motivated synthesis be achieved unless internally motivated, or else it will be incorporated into an ineffective policy.“ **

The synthesis is already achieved, at least partly.

Obe wrote:

„The seeming failure of Obamacare is a good example, though the word is still out on that.“ **

That's more or less (I think more more) a national problem, the problem we are talking about and confronted with is a global one, although Obama is very much involved.

Moreno wrote:

„So English was cool and fit rock and pop.“ **

Great music, yeah. But unfortunately it will be only an episode because the foreign influences have been increasing since about 1990. How long will this episode of English music last? Is the end already getting closer? Will it take 50 years, 100 years, or even 200 years? What do you think about that?

James S. Saint wrote:

„The new world is a world of psychologically and medically programmed drones to serve the Socialist Emperor Queen - Bee Hive, Ant Colony design.“ **

The very huge companies can already be compared with a bee or ant colony. I call them „super organisms“ or „organisation systems“. They behave like bee colonies.

Sauwelios wrote:

„You may have said that in your thread, but you definitely do not say it in your OP, which is what I replied to.“ **

Yes, I didn't say it; therefore I said: „Your 3. point is included in the, included in my OP.“ Included. Not directly said, but indirectly. Anyway, it is quite important to say it directly. So thank you for writing it!

Sauwelios wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»But according to ›the fact that nature has become a problem‹ Contra-Nietzsche means that it is merely founded by the ›Green Movement‹, which is merely a German movement, and it is typical German to ›find a grand solution‹ (**).« ** **

That's not what I meant, though it does have some connection to it. As I wrote in early 2012:

I think the fundamental problem of our era, which was also Nietzsche's era, is the conquest of nature. The conquest of nature was »commanded and legislated« (cf. Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211) by Machiavelli, Bacon, and Descartes (among others) for the sake of philosophy, which was gravely threatened by Christianity back then. The scientific revolution instigated by those philosophers was what »killed« the Christian god, for which »killing« we should be most grateful. However, just as the religious revolution instigated by Socrates and Plato et al. was first beneficial but later became detrimental to philosophy, the revolution instigated by Machiavelli et al. has now itself led to a grave threat to philosophy. For »genuine philosophers« (again BGE 211) like the ones mentioned above belong to the formidable exceptions among men, and those exceptions are now in threat of becoming obsolete to the rule, the many, because of the technological advancements that in the West have made life easy for the many, who now no longer need such formidableness (which is indispensable in real crises).

The dire situation of many animals is just one of the consequences of what Heidegger called nature's reduction to a Bestand, a standing reserve, a resource. The real problem is paradoxically not that animal rights are not being respected, but the conceited notion of the existence of any rights at all! There's no such thing as natural rights; men are not naturally entitled to accommodate the rest of nature to their needs. But neither are they naturally forbidden to. Therefore, there's only one way to counteract the continuing exploitation of nature; and that consists precisely in the ideal of the eternal recurrence, in the wish that everything, including all the woes that befall animals - and of course men, too, are animals -, recur eternally .... For by wishing for the eternal recurrence of all things, one manifests oneself as the counterideal to the ideal of the man who wallows in »wretched contentment« (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue, 3) - as an Übermensch as opposed to a Last Man. And only this ideal, »the ideal of the most high-spirited, most alive, and most world-affirming man« (BGE, 56), can raise people out of their comfy animal-hide armchairs - if only by offending them!“ **

Okay, I merely refered to Contra-Nietzsche's argument in order to get perhaps a counter-argumnent from you. It's not important anymore.

Sauwelios wrote:

„Well, Nietzsche willed the eternal recurrence the same century Hegel published his Phenomenology. That publication may well mark the end of the beginning of the end of history, but it certainly does not mark the point at which history had completely ended. Yes, it would have been optimal to prevent it from even _starting_ to end, but then again, less than optimal conditions, to say the least, are precisely the optimal conditions of the philosopher!“ **

I agree.

Sauwelios wrote:

„The Christian idea of a heavenly afterlife was indeed preferable to that of a »Heaven on Earth«, i.e., the end of history. And as for eros and thymos: _most_ people are erotic rather than thymotic; but the rather thymotic do indeed tend to dominate history ....“ **

That's what I've meant, yes. So we have to focus on both thymos and eros as the two focuses (foci) of the ellipse of life, as I sometimes say.

Barbarianhorde wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»We know that machines are cheaper than human beings, and we know that machines replace human beings.

But will all human beings completely replaced by machines? All human beings? All? And completely replaced? Completely? By machines? Machines?« ** **

Yes.

Or actually I am in doubt. But I will say yes. Yes, all humans will be replaced. Some by other humans, some by other machines, some by human machines or machinlike humans but in the end no one will be not replaced and machines have great lastability.“ **

And then:

Barbarianhorde wrote:

„No!

I changed my vote to no. Can I?“ **

Nope.

Barbarianhorde wrote:

Machines do not love life. They will never flourish and thrive like plants. Mankind is a plantkind and machines are only the fruits of mankind. So ....“ **

So what?

Topic: Will heathendom (paganism) bring freedom back to us?

My name is Arminius. This name has a certain meaning, but it refers also and especially to a man who lived from about 17 B.C. to about 21, and this man stands especially for (1) freedom and (2) heathendom, pagandom. Arminius saved freedom and heathendom (pagandom); if he had not done this, Europe would have developed in a different way. We don't know, whether it would have been better or not, we merely know, that it would have been different.

(1) Arminius is a well choosed name for freedom because Arminius fighted slavery. He and many German tribes fighted the civilised barbarism, the Greek-Roman civilisation, at that time represented by the Roman Empire.

Caesar and Arminius lived nearly at the same time - Caesar died 1½ decades before Arminius was born -, Caesar was the embodiment of getting powerful by money, and Arminius was the embodiment of getting powerful by virtues (e.g. of his tribe). Arminius defeated the ancient Romans because the virtues defeated the money. Rome at this time was merely a decadent civilisation and ruled merely by money. If Caesar had not defeated the Gauls, he would have lost all his power and probably committed suicide. Today the Dollar Empire has very similar problems like the ancient Roman Empire had at Ceasar’s time.

In the year 9 Arminius defeated the ancient Romans by annihilating three legions of Augustus’ army - Augustus was the first „Ceasar“ after Ceasar (himself!) -, and Augustus despaired of that fact.

At that time the ancient Romans had reached their maximum of power, but had similar birthrates as we have today because they were just as decadent as we are today. They tried to replace the lack of children by slaves who were captured by war and brought into colonies. But at last the decadence had been stronger, so the Romans became less and less, the Germans became more and more in the Imperium Romanum, and at last the Germans conquered the Imperium Romanum also by military actions.

(2) Heathendom (pagandom) is what the civilised barbarians and the so called „barbarians“ have in common - so it was, so it is, and so it will be (except if all culture, history will end [**|**]).

A culture with civilisation produces very much more entropy than a culture without civilisation. In the meantime the whole globe and nearly all human beings are civilised. So the problems are so huge that we have to ask ourselves whether we really can continue this way of life; and if we don't really can continue this way of life, we should ask ourselves whether we are able to change this way of life and how we should do it; and if we are able to do it, it could be better to do it as heathens (pagans) again?

Should we become heathens (pagans) again? Or not? Or is it indifferent?
____________________________________________________________

(This OP is dedicated to Dan~, the new moderator of this subforum. Congratulations, Dan~!)

458) Arminius, 14.05.2014, 01:20, 09:55, 10:30, 21:30, 22:50 (1114-1118)

James S. Saint wrote:

„»He who reigns in darkness rules the world.« Does blindness bring more freedom or less?

But of course, he often must establish darkness first. People are made stupid so that they cannot mentally see very well, so that someone can reign in their darkness. If society became completely heathen - no organization, no clear understanding of what is going on anywhere (»dark age«), he who brought it about is most likely to be the one reigning in such darkness (having prepared for it). Would that king of darkness cause more freedom or less? He thrives on blindness (chaos), thus cannot abandon it. Does blindness bring more freedom or less?“ **

Less!

James S. Saint wrote:

„How do you really define »freedom« in such a case?“ **

As slavery!

Dan wrote:

„We live in an age of international capitalism. This has bad points, but it seems we have to choose either the poo or the crap, when it comes to empires and systems of government. Instead of the capitalists trying to conquer governments and enslave people overtly, they bribe governers and set up shops in each country. I think it would be better if we were small groups of farmers working for our self and owning some goods and land, and at that point it could kinda be like some of the barbarians style of life. But there is no mass drive in that direction.“ **

We live in an age of globalism which is a system of both capitalism and socialism. Please don't underestimate the socialism!

Arminius wrote:

„Both capitalistic system and socialistic system are not able to afford what is needed for them. The capitalistic systsem has always to fear the socialistic system, and the socialistic system can not exist without the capitalistic system. It's Hegel's »Dialektik«. So this is merely possible with a »Synthesis« of both capitalism as »Thesis« and socialism as »Antithesis«. There is no other solution in order to »manage« that - as long as history lasts (cp. my thread: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY [**|**]).“ ** **

Perhaps it would really be better if we were small groups of farmers working for our self and owning some goods and land, and perhaps it could really be like some of the barbarian’s style of life, but I am afraid that the civilised barbarians would not want us to do that because they want us to be consumers, social welfare beneficiaries, but no farmers or other freelancers, self-employed persons.

Maia wrote:

„I've already become a Heathen (Pagan). There really is no choice, if we are to reclaim the world from the foul evil of monotheism.“ **

Why is there »really no choice, if we are to reclaim the world from the foul evil of monotheism«? Would you mind going into detail, Maia?

Merely few Nietzscheans are Nietzscheans.

Many, many so called „Nietzscheans“ misuse Nietzsche for their interests, and they know that it is „cool“, so they feel themselves „cool“ and powerful, but in reality they are weak tomfools. Though the middle Nietzscheans use Nietzsche in a correct way because they think with and against him in order to philosophise, to get more information about philosophy, especially life philosophy, and the history of philosophy.

Among the members of this forum are also many, many so called „Nietzscheans“ (left misusers and right misusers) and merely few Nietzscheans. This few Nietzscheans are important, the many, many „Nietzscheans“ are unimportant, waste, ridiculous, and dangerous.

English for beginners:

If you say „x knows y means x believes y and x believes that x will believe y in the future“, then you mean „x knows that y means that x believes y and x believes that x will believe y in the future“, do you?

Only Humean wrote:

„Arminius, please keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand and not the personal character of other posters. Otherwise, warnings will follow. This holds for all posters in this thread.“ **

Haven't you read the „Cezarian comments“ which caused that what only you mean, Only Humean?
Haven't you noticed the „previous history“ of that what only you mean, Only Humean?

Why don't you throw out that stalker, that troublemaker, that most arrogant troll of this forum?
Why is he allowed to insult anybody and everybody? And why are other posters not allowed to criticise that bad personal character?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arrogant Troll = Anyone speaking anything other than »Good Philosophy«.“ **

Does a philosophy forum with the name „I Love Philosophy“ really want nothing else than bad „philosophy“?

James S. Saint wrote:

„History can always be created and/or rewritten. So the question is whether the incentive to do that will ever become insignificant. Androids will probably reach that stage. Humans probably won't.“ **

With the utmost probability, yes, but humans had had their very, very long time without any history, so it is also possible that in the future humans will again have no history, and therefor the androids will help them very much.

459) Arminius, 15.05.2014, 00:15, 01:46, 03:08, 03:50, 06:20, 09:52, 10:25, 11:51, 11:52, 21:44, 22:04, 22:32, 23:18 (1119-1131)

One example for a so called „Nietzschean“ who misuses Nietzsche whenever and wherever it is possible is the most arrogant troll of this forum: the Non-historyboy, also known as Cezarboy.

Cezarboy insults whomever whenever and with whatever he wants. And after thousand times of insulting, stalking, and trolling by Cezarboy the other members of this forum are are punished instead of him and although Cezarboy has provoked them. They are punished by Cezarboy's „motherators“(„moderators“?), for example in this way:

Only Humean wrote:

„Arminius, please keep your comments relevant to the discussion at hand and not the personal character of other posters. Otherwise, warnings will follow. This holds for all posters in this thread.“ **

Four times (**) !

Should I list Cezarboy's thousand insults here? I think, that is not necessary because they are well known. They are knwon by all members, but not by all moderators because some of them are Cezarboy's „mother(ator)s“.

We will not decide to become machines, merely some of us, if they really can. In this case or other similar political decisions we should not use pronouns, not speak of „us“, not say „we“ because not we, but merely few powerful people decide, if they really can.

Skakos wrote:

„We ... and ... the evil guys ....“ **

Relating to the countries or nations there was no „we“ and no „they“, as you suggest, but there were a „we“ of powerless people (99%) and a „they“ of powerful people (1%) who won the war, became more rich and more powerful by the war.

The people didn't want war, the governments wanted war - sooner or later and more or less - because they had to want war at last.

	Wernher von Braun, in: „Time“.

Germany's enemies did not primarily fight the Nazis, they primarily fighted Germany. And that was not merely an allied goal, but as well or probably more a nationalistic goal because fighting Germany was a chance to become rich, thus more powerful, namely to become the world power. Until 1945 Germany had been the one and only rival of the USA, in the matter of world power which the British Emipre had already lost during the World War I. Besides: the USSR at that time was de facto still a part of the Third World.

If the USA had not got e.g. the German technician and rocket engineer Wernher von Braun and his crew, there would never have been any landing on the moon (except a German one). Wernher von Braun was a Nazi - have you forgotten that? -, and after the World War II he was blackmailed: „either you help the USA or you will be put in prison“! His crew were also blackmailed. They all preferred to help the USA because they did not want to be jailed.

Other German scientists, technicians, engineers etc. were treated similarly - not only in the USA, but also e.g. in the USSR.

In the Second World War the powerful 1% fighted against the powerless 99%, and the powerfull 1% won - as always.

Globalism is nationalism in global dimensions. So on the one (quantitative) hand we currently have more nationalism, and on the other (qualitative) hand we currently have a different nationalism, namely a global one.

So in your thesis („Why the Nazis actually won ...“) is much truth, if you don't separate globalism from nationalism / national-socialism because globalism is nationalism / national-socialism in global dimensions.

If the majority of the human beings is not heathen - and currently the majority of the human beings is not heathen -, then it would be a disadvantage to be heathen, wouldn't it?dimensions.

Death to taxation? Okay. And who guarantees that it really works and does not lead to chaos and after that to very much more and higher taxes?

The „end of history“ is not a very much fixed term.

The „historical existentials“ are merely points of reference in order to find out, whether history has ended or not.

Maia wrote:

„Since most of the population of India, and a pretty high proportion of the population of China, plus Japan, other parts of Asia, large areas of Africa etc. are Pagans of one sort or another (e.g. Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, Animists and so on), I think it's probably fair to say that the majority of humans are Pagans.“ **

I don't think that the question, whether there is a majority of humans or not, doesn't depend on fairness, but on knowledge. However, it is probably difficult to say because of the lack of certain knowledge in this case. The non-heathen religions are known in the whole world, and so the heathen religions are influenced by them. Nevertheless, I would say that the heathendom is coming back, but I don't know whether it represents a majority again.

Maia, do you remember what I firstly asked you?

„Arminius wrote:

»Maia wrote:

›I've already become a Heathen (Pagan). There really is no choice, if we are to reclaim the world from the foul evil of monotheism.‹

Why is there »really no choice, if we are to reclaim the world from the foul evil of monotheism«? Would you mind going into detail, Maia?“ ** **

I would appreciate a response.

„The superman's Dionysian will to overpower would save the past from drowning in democracy's shallow waters by willing the eternal return of past inequalities. The superman's willing of this eternal return is possible only if his will can emancipate itself from hatred of its past, a hatred responsible for modern egalitarian demands to be liberated from that past. [...] Modern thinkers culminating in Nietzsche made men aware that human creativity or technology was not limited by anything. Nietzsche feared that contemporary egalitarians would employ this unlimited power to create a world of universal peace and equality. He yearned for a superman whose will to overpower nihilism and egalitarianism would use modernity's immense power to create the eternal return of the past's inequality and wars. Then there would be no wars to end all wars.“ (Harry Neumann, _Liberalism_, pp. 164-66.)

Nietzsche's doctrine includes 3 large teaching pieces:

1127

I give you three examples of the Übermensch:

If we take this examples seriously for a moment, then we notice that the first Übermensch failed, that the second Übermensch failed, and that the third Übermensch is 5 years old. So we ask: Who and where is the third Übermensch? This reminds us of the time when Jesus was born and Herodes killed all the little children in his country in order to prevent a coming competitor, a coming rival.

Is there anybody who believes in that?

According to Christianity there are three roles of the Übermensch possible:

The Katechon is the antagonist of the Antichrist. Any other role may also mean the synthetic role of the Antichrist and the Katechon.

With reference to the three examples (**|**) of the Übermensch one can say that the third Übermensch - we may call him „SONAH“ (Synthesis of Napoleon and Hitler) - will as fail as the first and the second Übermensch. But which role he acts is as unknown as his identity.

Obe wrote:

„The Ubermench can not be avoided.“ **

Why can the Übermensch not be avoided, Obe?

James S. Saint wrote:

„So obviously the Katechon is Captain America.“ **

It's an old concept.

Wikipedia wrote:

„The katechon (...) is a biblical concept which has subsequently developed into a notion of political philosophy.

The term is found in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 in an eschatological context: Christians must not behave as if the Day of the Lord would happen tomorrow, since the Son of Perdition (the Antichrist of 1 and 2 John) must be revealed before. Paul then adds that the revelation of the Antichrist is conditional upon the removal of »something/someone that restrains him« and prevents him being fully manifested. ....

The interpretation of this passage has raised many problems, since Paul does not speak clearly.“ **

Since then many Christian theologians and philsophers have been thinking and writing about the Katechon.

Wikipedia wrote:

„In Nomos of the Earth, the German political thinker Carl Schmitt suggests the historical importance within traditional Christianity of the idea of the katechontic »restrainer« that allows for a Rome-centered Christianity, and that »meant the historical power to restrain the appearance of the Antichrist and the end of the present eon.« The katechon represents, for Schmitt, the intellectualization of the ancient Christianum Imperium, with all its police and military powers to enforce orthodox ethics (see Carl Schmitt, The Nomos of the Earth in the International Law of the Jus Publicum Europaeum, G.L. Ulmen, trs., [New York: Telos, 2003], pp. 59–60.) In his posthumously published diary the entry from December 19, 1947 reads: »I believe in the katechon: it is for me the only possible way to understand Christian history and to find it meaningful« (Glossarium, p. 63). And Schmitt adds: »One must be able to name the katechon for every epoch of the last 1,948 years. The place has never been empty, or else we would no longer exist.«

Carl Schmitt lived from 1888 until 1985.

460) Arminius, 16.05.2014, 00:34, 01:42, 01:58, 10:38, 11:05, 20:56, 21:29, 21:43 (1132-1139)

But are nowadays pagans really still pagans? I mean: they are so much influenced by non-pagan issues, so that they are no more able to behave, to speak, to think, and especially to believe like pagans, aren't they?

Has philosophy changed how I live my life?

Actually no, but it depends on when philosophy started.

It is difficult to say, but I tend to NO!

Counter-question: Has language changed how you live your life?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Obama signed the executive order that allows any experimentation on the population as long as it is justified by »National Security« (which of course is anything and everything).“ **

Any experimentation on the population! That's unsurpassable dictatorship!

What do you want to tell new? What is your actual intention, your aim, your goal?

James S. Saint wrote:

„To me, it depends on what you really mean by »Übermensch«. If you are talking about the public figure, the lacky puppet (Bush, Obama, Hitler, that sort), then there will certainly be such a person held up for public view. But if you mean a person who on his own managed to bring the world into the order he chose, the »Real Übermensch«, that isn't going to happen.“ **

Mainly I was referring to this post:

Sauwelios wrote:

„Being a hard determinist, I think the end of history will either happen or not. My "may be" is the expression of my knowledge of my ignorance in this regard. All I know is that it has not (yet) come about. I know this because I know I myself and others don't want it to come about, and as long as there is dissent it has not come about. I also know what philosophers are capable of. I understand why the end of history is theoretically possible--namely, due to the fact that nature has become a problem--, and I know the mechanism by which the problem is to be solved. In fact, my current signature quote is all about this.“ **

Sauwelios' current signature:

„»The superman's Dionysian will to overpower would save the past from drowning in democracy's shallow waters by willing the eternal return of past inequalities.
The superman's willing of this eternal return is possible only if his will can emancipate itself from hatred of its past, a hatred responsible for modern egalitarian demands to be liberated from that past. [...] Modern thinkers culminating in Nietzsche made men aware that human creativity or technology was not limited by anything. Nietzsche feared that contemporary egalitarians would employ this unlimited power to create a world of universal peace and equality. He yearned for a superman whose will to overpower nihilism and egalitarianism would use modernity's immense power to create the eternal return of the past's inequality and wars. Then there would be no wars to end all wars.« (Harry Neumann, _Liberalism_, pp. 164-66.)“ **

The Übermensch should overpower the nihilism, especially the egalitarianism, and create the past's inequality, especially wars. The themes „nihisms“ and „end of history“ were not new at that time because they started already about the end of the 18th century, like I said (**|**).

And I was asking whether we can or should take Nietzsche always seriously (cp.: „If we take this examples seriously for a moment .... Is there anybody who believes in that?“ [**|**]).

Obe wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Obe wrote:

›The Ubermench can not be avoided.‹ **

Why can the Übermensch not be avoided, Obe?« ** **

For pretty much the same reason as the mechanization of man is by Your own admission a matter of an 80% certainty.“ **

Interesting.

Barbarianhorde wrote:

„Arniminus, lol, you bastarrrdo. U machine hatah. Why you hatin son you machine hatin on a machine .... Lol. Nope!“ **

Barbarianhorde, do you still want to change your vote to „no“?

Obe wrote:

„The fact is, society is almost at the lowest ebb of integrating both concepts: democracy and capital.“ **

Actually capitalists don't want competition, rivalry and so on. So it leads to more corruption and to socialism. Socialism needs capital in order to exist. So it leads to more corruption .... Simultaneously democracy changes in its abnormal form ochlocracy and leads at last to anarchy (chaos). So the all-time winner (**|**) gets his monarchy.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»James S. Saint wrote:

›Obama signed the executive order that allows any experimentation on the population as long as it is justified by 'National Security' (which of course is anything and everything).‹ “ **

Any experimentation on the population! That's unsurpassable dictatorship!« ** **

Well he has done truly unbelievable things that no one in their right mind would stand for. He even tried to illegally move nuclear weapons into central USA (apparently in preparation for another false flag attempt. Muslims aren't very good at such guile). When the military commanders in charge of such things simply said, 'no', they were fired. But the list of atrocities he has participated in is endless.“ **

He has never been beloved, has he?

==>