01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 |
121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 134 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 167 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 |
<= [661][662][663][664][665][666][667][668][669][670] => |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2692 |
|
2693 |
Arminius,
In Can Someone Interpret my Dream on February 28th this is also what you wrote to me ....:
. .... »Oh, such a coincidence: I was writing those last sentences, when I suddenly looked under your avatar and saw that you pretend to be e a consciousness seeker. So, please, take the simple advice I wrote in the last sentences - because that simple advice is the very first step when it comes to show you that way. You wanted me to show you that way, and I firstly do it by saying that you have to start with the very first step (see above).« ** **So, you do see that you at least implied that I was not a consciousness seeker...and then you proceeded in a pompous tone. That in itself did not so much bother me. Big deal. You said that you didn't say that. I may not be that squared away insofar as ad homs are, but that would ALSO certainly appear to be one.
I'm still waiting for all of those texts that you said you have to show how insulting I am to you. **
Arcturus Descending wrote:
»I have no idea what Mags J. deleted or didn't delete ....« **
All off-topic posts... you took the thread off-topic, so I put it back on-topic - it would have been best to message him rather than take the thread off-topic, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that Arc. Am I just repeating myself here. **
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, Arminius. You will have to copy and paste said »nonsense« over to me. Then, I will read it and decide as to whether or not I can see it and then others can do the same thing. **
I never called you a stalker. This is violence and outright lies. It is gossip.
Leave me alone Arc and stop spreading your violent and hurtful gossip! **
I do not need any man to rescue me. **
I can stand on my own two feet and do that for myself. **
I was a target of your words. **
Arcturus Descending wrote:
»I have no idea what Mags J. deleted or didn't delete ....« **
All off-topic posts... you took the thread off-topic, so I put it back on-topic - it would have been best to message him rather than take the thread off-topic, but you don't seem to want to acknowledge that Arc. Am I just repeating myself here. **
This is ILG. **
2694 |
History did not prove him right .... **
Nietzsche took advantage of this flaw,and if Kant would have been greater, he SHOULD have forseen this as one casual possibility.
Referring to the topic of this thread - Kant vs. Nietzsche - I say that Kant belongs to the pre-nihilistic period and in his latest stage also to the nihilistic period whereas Nietzsche belongs merely to the nihilistic period.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche:
1) What did he say about the philosophy of technique / technology / engineering?
- Nothing at all.
2) What did he say about the philosophy of physics / kosmology / astronomy?
- Nearly nothing.
3) What did he say about the philosophy of economy / economics?
- Nearly nothing.
4) What did he say about the philosophy of sociology?
- Not much (his statements about the fact that he was really terrified of socialism have not much to do with sociology).
5) What did he say about the philosophy of law / right?
- Not much (his statements about ethics and moral have not much to do with law / right - but much with his concept "will to power").
6) What did he say about epistemology?
- Not much.
.... ** **
|
2695 |
2696 |
2697 |
2698 |
Belief deals with dreaming and Imagination .... **
2699 |
It's Spring here... Spring bulbs, sunny days, and warm nights are already upon us. **
|
2700 |
Kant apparently didn't use his understanding of the world to better decide his actions... he ended up with the categorical imperative.
I mean, if that is the actual goal of philosophy, it seems that he failed as a philosopher. **
What do you mean »both works and not derivable for the Categorical imperative«? **
If it has to work, it better not be deduced from the CI ..., because that sure doesn't work. **
And no, i'm not going to show you my moral, this thread is not about me. **
Philosophy isn't about building a system ..., it's about finding your way out of the system. **
Sokates originally questioned the Greek Gods and the arbitrary imposed morals that came with it. That's what it is about, about questioning the societal imposed norms you happen to find yourself confronted with, reëvaluating them and replacing them with your own view on how to live. **
It's first and foremost a personal endeavour. **
Building universally applicable morals and metaphysical systems to found those, is something for party ideologues, priests, politicans and other people in power ... who need to device ways to crowd control. **
2701 |
2702 |
So your argument is that there is something like social criticism, and it's nihilistic .... **
And therefor philosophy cannot be that. **
You argue like Kant from definition. **
You know, the root of Nihilism, is not some criticism on the societal system, but the allready present lack of belief in the societal promoted values ..., because the values end up being hollow. God is dead because people killed him. **
The philosopher, or societal critic if you really will, merely reports that God is in fact dead. He's the doctor diagnosing society. To find a cure, it doesn't suffice to desparately try to stitch together the deceased corpse and hope that it will magically come back to live, like Kant does. **
You need to dispose of it alltogether, to create space for something new .... **
The human rights don't really work, there is contradiction abound .... **
2703 |
Look, you are leaving out the reevaluation part .... **
I never said a philosopher should only criticize, but it will be an important part of it. **
There is the sceptic deflationary part and also the constructive positing of his own values. **
You (the philosopher, not you specifically!) cannot build on unsolid ground to good result. The philosopher is the doctor diagnosing ... and looking for a cure. **
The god is dead reference is of course a reference to Nietzsche... and i don't see the problem as he didn't say he died at that exact moment, he was allready dead (for a while), people just hadn't got the memo yet. **
2704 |
I don't agree with your characterisation of non-philosophy and philosophy. **
Criticism is intrinsically tied into philosophy, it's not non-philosophy. **
I don't think you can get good philosophy without it. If it were that simple you could just build whatever arbitrary thing and call it philosophy. **
Influence isn't the only, or even the most important, criterium for a good philosopher. A good philosopher has both aspects, he reëvaluates which implies a certain scepsis and a creative act. **
And some got the memo, but most didn't. **
Kant for example didn't really get the memo, nor did the whole tradition that followed him. **
And if they did get the memo, they certainly didn't fully realise all the ramification of it. **
Nietzsche was the first to do that... to do philosophy without metaphysics. **
|
2705 |
Arminius wrote:
»Did I say that a philosopher has nothing to do with reevaluation or skepsis? No. I did not.
Be honest: you do not want Kant to be the greatest philosopher.« ** **
Yes and no. **
Yes, that goes for all of us: I want Nietzsche to be the greatest philosopher, and you want Kant to be the greatest philosopher. **
But because Nietzsche would, in sharp contrast with Kant, actually affirm this, he is the greatest philosopher. **
![]() |
|
Who ....?
|
2706 |
History shows the greatness of philosophers.
The current world institutions like UNO, WTO, World Bank, and many other global institutions have their origin in Kant's philosophy. Compare for example Kant's »Ewigen Frieden« (1795) - »Perpetual Peace« (1795). How to value it is one point, but the historical fact of the influence is another point. Another example: Platon was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher, but would you live according to his philosophy, especially his ideas, today, just because he was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher? To value philosophies are meaningful in another sense but not in the sense of greatness. « ** **
Referring to the topic of this thread - Kant vs. Nietzsche - I say that Kant belongs to the pre-nihilistic period and in his latest stage also to the nihilistic period whereas Nietzsche belongs merely to the nihilistic period.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche:
1) What did he say about the philosophy of technique / technology / engineering?
- Nothing at all.
2) What did he say about the philosophy of physics / kosmology / astronomy?
- Nearly nothing.
3) What did he say about the philosophy of economy / economics?
- Nearly nothing.
4) What did he say about the philosophy of sociology?
- Not much (his statements about the fact that he was really terrified of socialism have not much to do with sociology).
5) What did he say about the philosophy of law / right?
- Not much (his statements about ethics and moral have not much to do with law / right - but much with his concept »will to power«).
6) What did he say about epistemology?
- Not much.
.... ** **
Ornello wrote:
Nietzsche isn't really a philosopher, just a social critic. **
Are you saying that Nietzsche was not even a little bit a philosopher?
Fact is that most ILP members are not interested in philosophy but in social criticism.
Is that funny? .... No.
is that an accident? .... No.Nietzsche was a nihilist respectively - because he was at least »a little bit« a philosopher - a nihilstic philosopher.
If Nietzsche had been an ILP member, in which subforum would he have posted the most?
Fact is that Kant had an entire philosophical systsem and that Hegel was the last philosopher who had an entire philosophical system. Since then there has never been a an entiere philosophical system and all entire philosophical systems have systematically or not systematically been deconstructed or destroyed - by nihilists respectively nihilistic philosophers.
Philosophy was »born« in the Ancient Greece and means »love to wisdom« (»to« - not »of«). So we have to interpret and measure philosophy and philosophers mainly according to the Ancient Greek interpretation. So Nietzsche's question »Were there already such philosophers?« (in: Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211, my translation) is more rhetoric than a serious question, because Nietzsche wanted the philosophers to be »commanders and lawgivers« (ibid) and the philosophy to be a »hammer« (ibid.). According to the the Ancient Greek definition of »philosophy« and »philosophers« philosophers are primarily not »commanders and lawgivers«; and when philosophy comes in like a »hammer«, then it is not a real philosophy but a nihilistic philosophy .
If Nietzsche is a member of the »third league of philosophy«, then Kant is the »champion« of the »first league of philosophy«. ** **
Criticism, scepticism, and (as the extreme form) nihilism are historically justified as well but lack of solutions - that's tautological, because they are what they are: criticism, scepticism, nihilism. The solutions come from history itself. The »next Kant« will come in about 2000 years or will not come (because humans will be too stupid or not live anymore). ** **
And by the way: The ILP Nietzschean(ist)s are more than the ILP Kantian(ist)s. The majority is always right? No! ** **
In modern times critique is very fashionable and popular, but it makes a philosopher not necessarily, not automatically better or even greater. In the first place critique is only critique; in the second place it may lead to a philosophical system, and it did in Kant's case, but it did not in all cases after Hegel, thus it also did not in the cases Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
Erik asked: »Who is the better philosopher?« He did not ask: »Who is the better sympathiser?«.
Persoanlly I can say (for example): »I am not a Kantian, I am not a Hegelian, I am not a Schopenhauerian / Nietzschean / Sloterdijkian« or the reverse; but as an Occidental human I have to say: »I am a Kantian, and I am a Hegelian«, because Kant and Hegel have influenced the Occidental culture vehemently but Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Sloterdijk merely a little bit.
When the German chancellor Helmut Schmidt met the Chinese communistic leader Mao Tsetung (Zedong) in the middle 1970's, Mao Tsetung said to him: »You are a Kantian«; and Helmut Schmidt responded: »Yes, and you are a Konfuzian (Confucian)«. Kant is typical Occidental, Konfuzius (Confucius) is typical Chinese - each of both influenced his culture more than anyone else of his culture. And by the way: Mao Tsetung, although he was a communist (thus an ideologist of an Occidental ideology), did not contradict Helmut Schmidt.
Now, please replace Kantian by Nietzschean and Konfuzian by Hanfeizian ...! Do you even know the last one? ** **
_______
Note: Kant's Categorical Imperative is expandable. ** **
(1) »Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.«
(2) »Be revolutionary.«
(3) »Trust in the absolute spirit and the dialectic processes.«
(4) »Relinquish.«
(5) »Be yourself.«
(6) »Persevere.«
(7) »Be autarkic as much as you can.«
(8) »Take care of you, your relatives and dependants, your surrounding and ecolgical environment.«
(9) »Participate in the discourse.«
(10) »Take care of your foam, because you live in it.«
.... ** **
2707 |
»Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws.« **
2708 |
Belief hardly ever deals with facts. It is imagination. Thinking without knowing. You know, an idea?
Facts are indisputable and do not ever change. Belief changes all the time. **
|
2709 |
Religion stories always change. **
How do you think we have 1,000's of different versions with similarities. **
Belief is buying into something without having to know. It's the acceptance of something, regardless of evidence or knowing.
Faith is trust. Belief needs faith, otherwise you will always be second guessing what you believe in. **
2710 |
![]() |
|
F. W. Nietzsche on his Mount Everest
|
.... Nietzsche .... **
2711 |
Christianity as a religion copied ideas and traditions from other religions, just a different story. There are tons of different gods and religions.
Belief and faith are nearly the same thing. Both usually blind too.
Christmas? Easter? ring a bell? **
2712 |
2713 |
Then what about future history? **
Nietzsche has only very gradually begun to be understood -- just as he predicted, by the way. **
»The founder of a religion can be insignificant--a match, no more!« (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 184, Kaufmann translation.) **
The founder Nietzsche is thinking of in saying this is of course Jesus of Nazareth. And did not this Jesus have quite some historical influence? As for Marx, well .... **
|
2714 |
Arminius, even if there is such a thing as a historical »fact« .... **
History is not a factum, not »done«. **
The present and the near future will be the past of the more distant future--this is what I meant by »future history«. **
Kant has had a century more to influence than Nietzsche. When both are finally forgotten, Nietzsche may have had a greater influence than Kant. **
So it does matter how often Nietzsche is quoted by »Nietzschean(ist)s«, just as it has mattered how often Kant was quoted by »Kantian(ist)s«. **
When you say, like on the very top of this page, »history shows the greatness of philosophers«, you are merely ranting. **
Jr Wells wrote:
»This is ILG.« **
2715 |
Geez ..., you guys are still trying to compare the apple to the banana?
Kant vs. Nietzsche is like logic vs. emotion, order vs. chaos, or construction vs. destruction. **
Erik wrote:
»Bad historian?
So, you disagree that many people consider Kant to be the greatest philosopher ever?« **
No, look, I was calling Arminius a bad historian .... **
Erik wrote
»Who is the better philosopher, in your opinion? I know many consider Kant to be the greatest ever, but what do you think?« **
Such a bad historian even regarding such recent history. **
2716 |
Nietzsche totally negated it. Therefore Nietzsche is far better. **
2717 |
It is not certain that there is an absolute exclusivity between a negator and a philosopher, although there may be. **
He even negates the negation by his affirmation. **
2718 |
The question was, who was the better philosopher, Nietzsche or Kant. Hegel was not considered, in exclusive terms. That he was an influence, is of no doubt, however, that would be a different topic, and Hegel may very well be better than Kant, or even Leibniz. **
2719 |
2720 |
You want Kant to be the greatest philosopher because you want to believe in »facts«. **
History shows the greatness of philosophers.
The current world institutions like UNO, WTO, World Bank, and many other global institutions have their origin in Kant's philosophy. Compare for example Kant's »Ewigen Frieden« (1795) - »Perpetual Peace« (1795). How to value it is one point, but the historical fact of the influence is another point. Another example: Platon was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher, but would you live according to his philosophy, especially his ideas, today, just because he was probably the greatest Ancient philosopher? To value philosophies are meaningful in another sense but not in the sense of greatness. « ** **
Referring to the topic of this thread - Kant vs. Nietzsche - I say that Kant belongs to the pre-nihilistic period and in his latest stage also to the nihilistic period whereas Nietzsche belongs merely to the nihilistic period.
Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche:
1) What did he say about the philosophy of technique / technology / engineering?
- Nothing at all.
2) What did he say about the philosophy of physics / kosmology / astronomy?
- Nearly nothing.
3) What did he say about the philosophy of economy / economics?
- Nearly nothing.
4) What did he say about the philosophy of sociology?
- Not much (his statements about the fact that he was really terrified of socialism have not much to do with sociology).
5) What did he say about the philosophy of law / right?
- Not much (his statements about ethics and moral have not much to do with law / right - but much with his concept »will to power«).
6) What did he say about epistemology?
- Not much.
.... ** **
Ornello wrote:
Nietzsche isn't really a philosopher, just a social critic. **
Are you saying that Nietzsche was not even a little bit a philosopher?
Fact is that most ILP members are not interested in philosophy but in social criticism.
Is that funny? .... No.
is that an accident? .... No.Nietzsche was a nihilist respectively - because he was at least »a little bit« a philosopher - a nihilstic philosopher.
If Nietzsche had been an ILP member, in which subforum would he have posted the most?
Fact is that Kant had an entire philosophical systsem and that Hegel was the last philosopher who had an entire philosophical system. Since then there has never been a an entiere philosophical system and all entire philosophical systems have systematically or not systematically been deconstructed or destroyed - by nihilists respectively nihilistic philosophers.
Philosophy was »born« in the Ancient Greece and means »love to wisdom« (»to« - not »of«). So we have to interpret and measure philosophy and philosophers mainly according to the Ancient Greek interpretation. So Nietzsche's question »Were there already such philosophers?« (in: Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211, my translation) is more rhetoric than a serious question, because Nietzsche wanted the philosophers to be »commanders and lawgivers« (ibid) and the philosophy to be a »hammer« (ibid.). According to the the Ancient Greek definition of »philosophy« and »philosophers« philosophers are primarily not »commanders and lawgivers«; and when philosophy comes in like a »hammer«, then it is not a real philosophy but a nihilistic philosophy .
If Nietzsche is a member of the »third league of philosophy«, then Kant is the »champion« of the »first league of philosophy«. ** **
Criticism, scepticism, and (as the extreme form) nihilism are historically justified as well but lack of solutions - that's tautological, because they are what they are: criticism, scepticism, nihilism. The solutions come from history itself. The »next Kant« will come in about 2000 years or will not come (because humans will be too stupid or not live anymore). ** **
And by the way: The ILP Nietzschean(ist)s are more than the ILP Kantian(ist)s. The majority is always right? No! ** **
In modern times critique is very fashionable and popular, but it makes a philosopher not necessarily, not automatically better or even greater. In the first place critique is only critique; in the second place it may lead to a philosophical system, and it did in Kant's case, but it did not in all cases after Hegel, thus it also did not in the cases Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
Erik asked: »Who is the better philosopher?« He did not ask: »Who is the better sympathiser?«.
Persoanlly I can say (for example): »I am not a Kantian, I am not a Hegelian, I am not a Schopenhauerian / Nietzschean / Sloterdijkian« or the reverse; but as an Occidental human I have to say: »I am a Kantian, and I am a Hegelian«, because Kant and Hegel have influenced the Occidental culture vehemently but Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, and Sloterdijk merely a little bit.
When the German chancellor Helmut Schmidt met the Chinese communistic leader Mao Tsetung (Zedong) in the middle 1970's, Mao Tsetung said to him: »You are a Kantian«; and Helmut Schmidt responded: »Yes, and you are a Konfuzian (Confucian)«. Kant is typical Occidental, Konfuzius (Confucius) is typical Chinese - each of both influenced his culture more than anyone else of his culture. And by the way: Mao Tsetung, although he was a communist (thus an ideologist of an Occidental ideology), did not contradict Helmut Schmidt.
Now, please replace Kantian by Nietzschean and Konfuzian by Hanfeizian ...! Do you even know the last one? ** **
Nietzscheans use and Nietzscheanists misuse Nietzsche in the same way as (for example) Marxians use and Marxists misuse Marx. There is no difference at all when it comes to use or misuse idols, false gods. And because of this religious behavior, their religious delirium, they make mountains out of molehills. ** **
Nihilistic philosophy has merely a litte bit to do with philosophy. The greater or better philosopher can never be a nihilistic philosopher. A partly destroyed house can never be the greater or better house. ** **
2721
|
2722 |
Ich denke, dass diese MR nichts anderes ist, als das Pendant zu den Feministinnen. Der Unterschied ist der Erfolg. Feministinnen haben abgeräumt und räumen weiter ab.
Überzeugt davon bin ich, dass die MR nicht den Umbruch herbeiführen wird, sondern die Mitte der Gesellschaft, also die Wertkonservativen! Die werden zu einem Nivellieren der feministischen Auswüchse aufstehen. Derzeit beobachten wir, dass auch die Pegida sich gegen den Gender-Irrsinn auflehnen. Ein gutes Zeichen.
Der Druck, der auf die Bevölkerung in all diesen Dingen aufgebaut wurde, wird sich bald entladen. Damit dieser nicht die politische Klasse trifft, schickt man Ersatzopfer. Was meine ich mit »Ersatzopfer«? Das sind die Zuwanderer, denen man hier Unterkünfte in Schlössern, kostenlose Puffbesuche und mindestens ein Jahr freie Kost & Logis anbietet. Die Schnittstellen zwischen denen und den Deutschen laufen langsam heiß. (MNK **).
|
2723 |
Was Hegel right? **
Everything that exists has a germ of its own destruction in its very birth (Eastern wisdom).
|
2724 |
Geez.. you guys are still trying to compare the apple to the banana? **
Heidegger, .... Hitler, .... Neumann. **
The point is, just because a philosopher is 'better' in some respect, does not meet the substantial aspects of the corollary that a belief in him must follow. **
2725 |
What about intellectual/epistemic duties or virtues? Many would argue there's a moral field to how we examine our beliefs and so on. Doesn't hedonism lead to the conclusion that we should just believe whatever gives us the most pleasure to believe? **
Why are people so vigorously trying to make other people hedonistically stupid?
Mayhaps to bring their demise? **
2726 |
==>
|