661) Herr Schütze, 09.03.2015, 03:02 (2692)

An der Tatsache, daß hier alle „unangenehmen“ Kommentare gelöscht werden, läßt sich erkennen, wie verlogen es hier zugeht.

662) Arminius, 10.03.2015, 01:25, 12:10 (2693-2694)

Arcturus Descending, my little girl, your texts in this kindergarten „thread“ are the ugliest, most lying, and most calumnious texts I have read so far. 80% or even 90% of that what you are saying about me are lies. That's really terrifying.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„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.“ **

Are you megalomaniac?

I used the verb „pretend“ as a translation for the German verb „vorgeben“, and „vorgeben“ has no negative but a neutral connotation. As far as I know the Englich verb „pretend“ is the right translation for the German verb „vorgeben“ (also „angeben“ which has not only a neutral connotation). So I used the right word. And it is - again - terribly ugly of you to ascribe evil intentions to me.

I invite you to only respond to me in my first language. Any and every word has to be correct. Then I will decide whether you wrote correctly and also what person you exactly are (just in the same way you do it: uglily). That's not my but your ugly behavior.

I can show how insulting you are. You started with an ugly ad hom, and that was - by the way - the reason why that post with your ugly ad hom was the first one of the deleted posts. I don't want to talk much about this. Why can you not leave people alone? Your bahvior is so ugly ....

Mags J. wrote:

„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.“ **

You took the thread off-topic. You!

If you really do not know that Mags deleted the posts because you took the thread off-topic, then you really have no consciousness, and therefore you have to be a „consciousness seeker“.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„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.“ **

Again a lie. You absolutely know (unless you have no consciousness - see above) what I am talking about. You want copies? And then? Then you will say: „This copies are fakes“. Leave me alone with your kindergarten „rhetoric“.

I do not want to talk about your ugly themes. But you do not care about anything what other people want. You can not leave people allone. How would you call that behavior?

Jr Wells wrote:

„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 also did not call you a „stalker“, but I used the word „stalking“ in a very similar sense and in a very similar situation Jr Wells used it before (therefore the link), because he was right to use it. We asked you many times that you should leave us alone with your childish nonsense, but you did not leave us alone. I asked you even six times, but you did not leave me alone! How would you call such a behavior?

Too many laughing emoticons hide often unhappy, depressive persons. Beautiful images hide often ugly persons.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

To the little „brave“ boys who are defending or advocating A. Descending too quickly:

You really know nothing about the incident of Descending and me, but you had nothing better to do than defending or advocating her too quickly, without any thought about the facts, because you do not know anything about the incident, thus you also do not know anything about the facts of it. You should have asked you (for example): „What happened?“ „What are the facts?“ „Do I know any fact?“ „Is this a nonsense thread of a liar?“ .... Instaed of that you quickly defended or advocated her. That is foolish and silly „(10)^50“ (Fuse).

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„I do not need any man to rescue me.“ **

You need those rescuing men very much. But you even do not know that you need them. Your ugly texts in this thread also show it: You are crying „rescue me, I am the victim“, and the „brave“ men immediately rescue you by defending or advocating you (of course: too quickly and too stupidly, too sillily „(10)^50“ - Fuse) without any knowledge about any fact of the incident.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„I can stand on my own two feet and do that for myself.“ **

No. Obviously not. You behave as long as the victim as you can profit from it. In reality you are the perpetrator, the offender, the abuser. Your texts show it.

Arcturus Descending wrote:

„I was a target of your words.“ **

Lies over lies (= lol - your trademark). You are lying as much as you can. Truth is that you were the perpetrator, the offender, the abuser, and I was a target of your words. And you took the said thread off-topic with your ad homs.

Mags J. wrote:

„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.“ **

You took the thread off-topic. You!

If you really do not know that Mags deleted the posts because you took the thread off-topic, then you really have no consciousness, and therefore you have to be a „consciousness seeker“.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Jr Wells wrote:

„This is ILG.“ **

Yes, at least partly. I suggest to reform ILP and to call it „IL“ with the following eight subforums:

1) ILF („I Love Fun“),
2) ILG („I Love Gossip“),
3) ILL („I Love Lies“),
4) ILN 1 („I love Nietzsche“),
5) ILN 2 („I love Nonsense“),
6) ILN 3 („I Love Nothing“),
7) ILP („I Love Philosophy“) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% (1/8) are really interested in philosophy),
8) ILSC („I Love Social Criticism“).

ILF, ILG, especially ILL, and ILN 2 are the IL subforums where you can find A. Descending, behaving like a Black Hole Ascending.

You will never grow up, thus you will remain a little girl, A. Descending.

Orb wrote:

„History did not prove him right ....“ **

That has not much to do with the question „who is the greatest philosopher?“. It is the influence of a philosopher what counts. „Did history prove him or others right or not?“ is also a complicated question becauss history has not ended yet (**|**). Did history prove (for example) Platon right or not? Who decides this? History decides. And history has not ended yet.

Was it right to invernt enginess, especially steam engines? What does history prove in that case? Huh?

- „Will machines completely replace all human beings?“ ** **
- „Is it possible that machines completely replace all humans?“ ** **

Orb wrote:

„Nietzsche took advantage of this flaw,and if Kant would have been greater, he SHOULD have forseen this as one casual possibility.

That has also not much to do with the question „who is the greatest philosopher?“ It is the influence of a philosopher what counts. Foreseeing is important, yes, but not most important. In addition: Nietzsche had no philosophical system. Kant had a philosophical system, and Hegel was the last philosopher with a philosophical system. It is always easy to follow criticism, especially social criticism, but criticism is no philosophical system, often even not or merely a little bit philosophy.

You are comparing trucks with bicycles.

Again:

Arminius wrote:

„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.
....“ ** **

663) Arminius, 11.03.2015, 01:43, 03:45, 10:55, 12:31, 14:13 (2695-2699)

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?

Knowing and believing are not the same but similar - because of their common source. Science and religion are not the same but similar - because of their common source.

Please show me your moral, if it both works and is not deducible / derivable from Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Note: Kant's Categorical Imperative is expandable.

Artimas wrote:

„Belief deals with dreaming and Imagination ....“ **

No.

Do you mean „belief“ in the sense of „faith“ or even of „opinion“? And do you mean „dreaming“ in the sense of „fantasising“?

Mags J. wrote:

„It's Spring here... Spring bulbs, sunny days, and warm nights are already upon us.“ **

Here too. It's beautiful, and today my aunt celebrates her birthday.

664) Arminius, 12.03.2015, 02:33, 03:22, 12:23, 13:56, 18:10 (2700-2704)

Diekon wrote:

„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.“ **

No. Not Kant as a philosopher but, if at all, the philosophy as a philosophy failed, or, in other words, Kant was the first philosopher who showed that also the philosophy can come to an end. After having its climax the philosophy became more and more redundant and at last something like a „pensioner“. It was not a coincidence that Kant was a contemporary of Mozart, Hegel a contemporary of Beethoven, and Nietzsche a contemporary of Brahms - and by the way: Sloterdijk is a contemporary of Zappa, and Ecmandu a contemporary of Eminem.

Diekon wrote:

„What do you mean »both works and not derivable for the Categorical imperative«?“ **

I mean that you should show me any moral which both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical imperative.

Diekon wrote:

„If it has to work, it better not be deduced from the CI ..., because that sure doesn't work.“ **

And therefore you should show me a (for example: your) moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical imperative.

Diekon wrote:

„And no, i'm not going to show you my moral, this thread is not about me.“ **

Yes, Diekon, this thread is not about you. I meant that you should show me a (for example: your) moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical imperative.

Diekon wrote:

„Philosophy isn't about building a system ..., it's about finding your way out of the system.“ **

No, that's merely nihilistic philosophy, thus nihilism, and of that sort we have already enough. There is no way out of nihlism, if nihlism is already entered.

Diekon wrote:

„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.“ **

No, that's again social critcism, thus again nihilism, merely nihlistic philosophy. You have the wrong idea about philosophy.

If we all would think and act in the sense you are prefering, then in the end (consequently) there will be no philosophy anymore. Everything and anything would be sociology, nothing would be philosophy anymore. We are already on this „trip“.

Diekon wrote:

„It's first and foremost a personal endeavour.“ **

No, because then most people would say (like you): „This thread is not about me“.

They would say „I want to have every and any right because I am the victim“. Look at the so-called „human rights“. They all begin with the word „one“ or the word „everyone“. Do they work? Does individualism (extreme egoism) really work? And are they not derivable from Kant's Categorical imperative?

Diekon wrote:

„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.“ **

„Party ideologues, priests, politicians, and other people in power“? Like I said: social criticism and sociology, thus nihilism. I say: primarily philosophers should do it., and they should not be allowed to get money for it.

From another thread (**|**):

Here are some examples of modern Occidental imperatives like Kant's Categorical Imperative and other's imperatives:
(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.“
....

Modern imperatives of ILP members (**|**):
(I) „Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.“
(II) „Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them.“
(II) „The important thing is KINDNESS.“

What do you thin abaout that?

Diekon wrote:

„So your argument is that there is something like social criticism, and it's nihilistic ....“ **

It is not my „argument“, it is an historical fact.

Diekon wrote:

„And therefor philosophy cannot be that.“ **

No. Therfore nihilistic philosophy can not be an entire philosophy and has to remain something like criticism, skepticism .... and so on. I am not complainin about this much but referring to the topic of this thread and saying that philosophy is the better means than criticism, skepticism .... and so on, but if we do not have any other possibility, then we have to accept it.

Diekon wrote:

„You argue like Kant from definition.“ **

Really?

Diekon wrote:

„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.“ **

I hope you are not referring to Nietzsche, because: long before Nietzsche was born there was already nihilism. Nihilism began in the end of the 18th century or the beginning of the 19th century, thus, let's say, nihilism began about 1800.

Diekon wrote:

„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.“ **

Who is „the doctor diagnosing society“? I think, you are again referring to social criticism, aren't you? A social critic or a nihilist nihilistic philosopher is not the better philosopher (and this is the question of this thread) but merely the better cocial critic or nihilistic philosopher. It's simple. You only have to refer to the topic of this thread.

Diekon wrote:

„You need to dispose of it alltogether, to create space for something new ....“ **

No. I do not need to, but I can „dispose of it alltogether, to create space for something new“. If all current humans would „create space for something new“, then there were perhaps already no humans anymore.

Diekon wrote:

„The human rights don't really work, there is contradiction abound ....“ **

So, in that point, you agree with me. That's fine.

Diekon wrote:

„Look, you are leaving out the reevaluation part ....“ **

No. I am not „leaving out the reevaluation part“. Please read ort reread my posts.

Diekon wrote:

„I never said a philosopher should only criticize, but it will be an important part of it.“ **

Yes, unfortunately, because it is too much criticism. The more criticicsm or nihilism the less philosophy you have. You have to accept the historical facts. You can not have both non-philosophy and philosophy.

Diekon wrote:

„There is the sceptic deflationary part and also the constructive positing of his own values.“ **

No one of those skepticists has ever achieved and will never achieve such a huge influence that Kant has achieved. And that belongs to the answer of the question in the topic of this thread. I remind you again: please refer to the topic. This little philosophers you mean are dwarfs in comparison to Kant.

Diekon wrote:

„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.“ **

Nietzsche said that - and I like it very much -, but that does not mean that it is always (ad infinitum, ad infinitum) right. It depends on the time and space humans live in.

Diekon wrote:

„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.“ **

They had got the memo. An example: In the 1790's Johann Gottlieb Fichte was accused of atheism. And because of this Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi used also the word „Nihilismus“ („nihilism“) in his „Sendschreiben an Fichte“ (1799). I know for a fact that at least since then the God-is-dead-philosophem has been knowing and keeping in mind. Later, Nietzsche just repeated it, but he did it with much language violence, because he was powerfully eloquent.

Diekon wrote:

„I don't agree with your characterisation of non-philosophy and philosophy.“ **

That was not a „characterisation“ but a statement that you can not have both non-philosophy and philosophy. That is logical, even tautolgical: A non-philosophy can not also be a philosophy. That is impossible. Either „it rains“ or „it does not rain“ - both is not possible.

Philosophy contains logic, Diekon. Is ILP a philosophy forum or not?

Diekon wrote:

„Criticism is intrinsically tied into philosophy, it's not non-philosophy.“ **

I did not say that criticism has nothing to do with philosophy, but I said: if criticism is merely nihilism or turns its fury on philosophy, then it is not a part of philosophy anymore.

Have you really read my posts?

Diekon wrote:

„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.“ **

Again: I did not say that criticism has nothing to do with philosophy, but I said: if criticism is merely nihilism or turns its fury on philosophy, then it is not a part of philosophy anymore. Modern criticisms are often advertised as philosophy, although most of them are obviously not philosophy. That is the problem. We do not have too much philosophy - we have too little philosophy. That's why I joined ILP, b.t.w..

Diekon wrote:

„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.“ **

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. Not your or anybody else's „opinion“ but the history itself decides about the greatness of a philosopher. You do not accept historical facts. That's all.

Diekon wrote:

„And some got the memo, but most didn't.“ **

Some are enough. There have always been merely some with an interest in getting a memo. Most have always been not interested in philosophy. So why should they have got the memo? It's just irrelevant.

Diekon wrote:

„Kant for example didn't really get the memo, nor did the whole tradition that followed him.“ **

That is not true.

Diekon wrote:

„And if they did get the memo, they certainly didn't fully realise all the ramification of it.“ **

That is also not true. I think you do not know much about Kant and Kantians, Neo-Kantians, Neo-Neo-Kantians.

Diekon wrote:

„Nietzsche was the first to do that... to do philosophy without metaphysics.“ **

And already about 20 years after his death metaphysics returned (was it because of the eternal recurrence? ).

665) Arminius, 13.03.2015, 11:55, 13:49, 15:20, 17:53 (2705-2708)

Sauwelios wrote:

„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.“ **

No, only no.

Sauwelios wrote:

„Yes, that goes for all of us: I want Nietzsche to be the greatest philosopher, and you want Kant to be the greatest philosopher.“ **

No. I do not want Kant to be the greatest philosopher, but history has proved that Kant is the greatest philosopher. I only repeat what history has decided.

Sauwelios wrote:

„But because Nietzsche would, in sharp contrast with Kant, actually affirm this, he is the greatest philosopher.“ **

That's no argument.

	„Who ....?“

Like I said: you and all the other Nietzschean(ist)s want Nietzsche (the little mouse) to be the greatest philosopher (the greatest elephant), and that is also a good joke.

When I joned ILP, my sympathy with Nietzsche was about 70%; now it is about 40%. That's the merit of the ILP Nietzscheanists (extreme Nietzscheans). Thank you very much!

Are you a Nietzschean(ist)?

(1) Yes, I am a Nietzschean.
(2) Yes, I am even a Nietzscheanist (extreme Nietzschean).
(3) No.
(4) No, and I hate Nietzscheanists.
(5) No, and I hate both Nietzscheanists and Nietzscheans.
(6) No, and I hate Nietzscheanists, Nietzscheans, and Nietzsche.
(7) I do not know.
(8) I do even not know who Nietzsche is.

You, Sauwelios, are a Nietzschean (=> 1) or even a Nietzscheanist (=> 2).

It's your funeral! But the question in the op of this thread is not „Who is the greater sympathiser?“ but „Who is the greatest philosopher?“. I am not a Kantian; I am an historian, in this case: an historian of philosophy.

So you are prejudiced, biased.

I am not a Kantian, and I am not a Nietzschean (because of the Nietzscheanists - again: thank you very much).

Arminius wrote:

„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.“ « ** **

Arminius wrote:

„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.
....“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

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«.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„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).“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„And by the way: The ILP Nietzschean(ist)s are more than the ILP Kantian(ist)s. The majority is always right? No!“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„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?“ ** **
_______

Moral:

Please show me one moral, if it both works and is not derivable from Kant's Categorical Imperative.

Arminius wrote:

„Note: Kant's Categorical Imperative is expandable.“ ** **

Modern Occidental imperatives:

Here are some examples of modern Occidental imperatives (the first one is Kant's Categorical Imperative):

Arminius wrote:

(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.«
....“ ** **

Modern Occidental imperatives of ILP members:

Arminius wrote:

(I) »Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.«
(II) »Do unto yourself and others as you'd do unto yourself if you were them.«
(III) »The important thing is KINDNESS.«
....“ ** **

Artimas wrote:

„»Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws.«“ **

The German banker Mayer Amschel (Bauer) Rothschild, the founder of the Rothschild banking dynasty, said that.

Artimas wrote:

„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.“ **

How do you call then the rleigious „belief“? „Faith“? Or both „belief“ and „faith“?

The religious or scientific „belief“ („faith“) does not change so often.

Plaease explain the difference between „belief“ and „faith“ and especially their duration aspect to somebody whose first language is not English.

666) Arminius, 14.03.2015, 02:33, 08:45, 12:21, 13:11, 23:16 (2709-2714)

Artimas wrote:

„Religion stories always change.“ **

Which religions do you mean? You use the word „always“ pretty generously, don't you?

Christianity as a religion has been existing for about 2000 years.

Artimas wrote:

„How do you think we have 1,000's of different versions with similarities.“ **

Which different versions do you mean? Christianity (for example) has been existing for about 2000 years.

Artimas wrote:

„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.“ **

So, according to your statement, belief is the deeper faith.

	F. W. Nietzsche on his „Mount Everest“

Sauwelios wrote:

„.... Nietzsche ....“ **

As usual.

You do not accept historians.

That's one of your problems here.

You have an excuse for everything. And your main excuse is Nietzsche himself respectively his texts.

By the way: Can you write a „comment“ without quoating Nietzsche?

History has judged, clearly decided on Nietzsche's philosophy, regardless whether some ILP members do not accept it, regardless how often Nietzsche is quoted by Nietzschean(ist)s. You may quote him as often as you want. It is useless.

Nobody of you Nietzschean(ist)s has answered any of the many questions in this thread which are asked even for many times. That's typical. You have an excuse for everything.

Without Nietzsche, the littlle mouse of philosophy, all Nietzschean(ist)s would be philosophical cockroaches, but even thousand times smaller.

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“.

Artimas wrote:

„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?“ **

Everyone knows, yes, but that is no answer to my question. I did not ask for the origins and the copies, but for the duration of a religion, regardless whether this religion made some compromises with the heathendom or not, regardless whether this religion got several denominations, regardless whether „belief“ and „faith“ are blind or not. Christianity, let's say since its early days when it merged with many aspects of the German religion, has been being a pretty much consistent, coherent, uniform religion, although a bit a mixed, a syncretistic one - but that does not matter.

I just wanted you to explain the difference between „belief“ and „faith“ to somebody whose first language is not English and which „different versions with similarities“ you could mean on the evidence of e.g. Christianity as a an old and consistent, coherent, uniform religion.

A very selfish perspective and self defeating.

It is just because of the fact that he is not able to accept historical facts. His last excuse is then: „future history“ ():

Sauwelios wrote:

„Then what about future history?“ **

Or this one:

Sauwelios wrote:

„Nietzsche has only very gradually begun to be understood -- just as he predicted, by the way.“ **

We know what Nietzsche „predicted“. But his prediction is absolutely not relevant here. When exactly will he be understood? And who knows whether he will be understood then, if at all? When will those who „know“ that Nietzsche will be understood „in the future“ be understood?

Perhaps in the year 2525.

- Http:/www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7VqsONNvIs
(Denny Zager / Rick Evansl, In the Year 2525, 1969).

I hope you have a bit humor.

Sauwelios wrote:

„»The founder of a religion can be insignificant--a match, no more!« (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 184, Kaufmann translation.)“ **

No comment without a Nietzsche quotation - like I said.

Sauwelios wrote:

„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 ....“ **

Please accept the historical facts. For example: Nietzsche has had no or merely little influence; that is an example of an historical fact. Please accept it!

We merely expect that you accept historical facts. You are presuming and speculating - or predicting Nietzsche's „comeback“. That is a „fine“ excuse and has nothing to do with this thread.

667) Arminius, 15.03.2015, 14:24, 15:24, 16:21, 16:42, 17:04, 20:54, 21:29, 22:24 (2714-2721)

Sauwelios wrote:

„Arminius, even if there is such a thing as a historical »fact« ....“ **

So you are denying historical facts.

Like I said: You are not able to accept historical facts. Is it because the Dutch football team never won the world championship?

According to your stupid statements the Roman Empire is no historical fact, the discovery of America is no historical fact, the colonialism is no historical fact, Kant's writing is no historical fact, the so-called „French revolution“ is no historical fact, Nietzsche's writing is no historical fact, the World Wars are no hsitorical facts, the Vietnam War is no historical fact, the fall of the Berlin Wall is no historical fact, ILP is no historical fact, the so-called „9/11“ is no historical fact, the Euro is no historical fact .... Such a stupidness is more than ridiculous.

Sauwelios wrote:

„History is not a factum, not »done«.“ **

Like I said: You have an excuse for everything. There are history facts, regardless whether you agree or disagree.

Again: According to your stupid statements the Roman Empire is no historical fact, the discovery of America is no historical fact, the colonialism is no historical fact, Kant's writing is no historical fact, the so-called „French revolution“ is no historical fact, Nietzsche's writing is no historical fact, the World Wars are no hsitorical facts, the Vietnam War is no historical fact, the fall of the Berlin Wall is no historical fact, ILP is no historical fact, the so-called „9/11“ is no historical fact, the Euro is no historical fact .... Such a stupidness is more than ridiculous.

Sauwelios wrote:

„The present and the near future will be the past of the more distant future--this is what I meant by »future history«.“ **

We know what you meant. But you don't know what will happen in the „future history“, child. Probably Kant will even be greater than ever before.

You are not able to accept the historical facts. That's all. You are prseuming and speculating and predicting the resurgence of your false god. that has nothing to do with this thread. You are derailing this thread.

Sauwelios wrote:

„Kant has had a century more to influence than Nietzsche. When both are finally forgotten, Nietzsche may have had a greater influence than Kant.“ **

And the Earth may have changed its position with the position of its moon.

Sauwelios wrote:

„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«.“ **

Nobody said that the quotations matter much. I said that history matters, the historical facts matter. But you are not able to accept history and its facts.

Sauwelios wrote:

„When you say, like on the very top of this page, »history shows the greatness of philosophers«, you are merely ranting.“ **

No. Again: You are prseuming and speculating and predictively threateningly the resurgence of your false god. And that has nothing to do with this thread. Stop derailing!

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Arminius wrote:

„Jr Wells wrote:

»This is ILG.« **

Yes, at least partly. I suggest to reform ILP and to call it „IL“ with the following eight subforums:

1) ILF (›I Love Fun‹),
2) ILG (›I Love Gossip‹),
3) ILL (›I Love Lies‹),
4) ILN 1 (›I love Nietzsche‹),
5) ILN 2 (›I love Nonsense‹),
6) ILN 3 (›I Love Nothing‹),
7) ILP (›I Love Philosophy‹) (that means: averagely merely 12.5% (1/8) are really interested in philosophy),
8) ILSC (›I Love Social Criticism‹).“ ** **

Nietzschean(Ist)s post always on ILN 1 (=> 4).

James S. Saint wrote:

„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.“ **

Yes, or like non-nihilistic or pre-nihilistic philosophy verus nihilistic philosophy - as I said before.

Leibniz' philosophy contains all things philosophy needs, thus also mathematics. After Leibniz mathematics vanished from philosophy. Kant's philosophy contains all things philosophy needs except mathematics, thus Kant's philosophy contains also physics / cosmology / astronomy. After the middle (not the late) Kant physics / cosmology / astronomy vanished from philosophy. So the base of metaphysics vanished - which necessarily means: nihilism. A philosophy without any metaphysics is not a complete philosophy anymnore. Since then the nihilistic philosophy has been triumphing over the non-nihilistic philosophy as the very much more real philosophy, the destruction has been triumphing over the construction, the chaos has been triumphing over the order, the emotion has been triumphing over the logic, ..., and so on.

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.

Sauwelios wrote:

„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 ....“ **

That's again a bad excuse.

Sauwelios wrote:

„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.“ **

Orb wrote:

„Nietzsche totally negated it. Therefore Nietzsche is far better.“ **

But not the better philosopher! He was the better negator, the better nihilist ... (see above).

Orb wrote:

„It is not certain that there is an absolute exclusivity between a negator and a philosopher, although there may be.“ **

As I said before: A nihilistic philosophy has not nothing, but merely a little bit to do with philosophy.

Orb wrote:

„He even negates the negation by his affirmation.“ **

Long before Nietzsche, Hegel did it in a better way. So Nietzsche was not the only, not the best, and even not the frist one who did that.

Orb wrote:

„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.“ **

I mentioned Hegel merely because of the fact that Nietzsche was not the only, not the best, and even not the frist one who negated the negation by affirmation. If i had not mentioned Hegel, you would probably have asked: „Who was it before Nietzsche?“.

The question was, who was the better philosopher, Kant or Nietzsche. The others that you are mentioning here (**) were not considered ....

Sauwelios wrote:

„You want Kant to be the greatest philosopher because you want to believe in »facts«.“ **

No. You want Nietzsche to be your greatest false god, because you are not able to accept facts.

Arminius wrote:

„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.“ « ** **

Arminius wrote:

„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.
....“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

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«.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„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).“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„And by the way: The ILP Nietzschean(ist)s are more than the ILP Kantian(ist)s. The majority is always right? No!“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„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?“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„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“.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„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

You are a Nietzscheanist, I am an historian. So you are the fanatic. And you are even an extreme fanatic. All your posts show that very clearly.

And you are ranting and derailing, presuming and speculating, and of course predictively threatening the „resurgence“ of your false god. That's so ridiculous. Maybe your false god will resurrect on Christmas in the middle of your kindergarten. „Great“! But you can believe me: In reality your false god will never resurrect.

I am not against Nietzsche -like (for example) Contra-Nietzsche is -, but you are against Kant. You hate Kant. So you are not able to contribute to any part of this thread. You are too much biased, too much prejudiced.

668) Herr Schütze, 16.03.2015, 00:09 (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 **).

Ja, aber was bedeutet das in der Schlußfolgerung? Worauf läuft das hinaus?

669) Arminius, 17.03.2015, 01:20, 01:20 (2723)

RHARDBC wrote:

„Was Hegel right?“ **

Yes. Hegel was right. Hegel is right. Hegel will be right.

RHARDBC wrote:

„Everything that exists has a germ of its own destruction in its very birth (Eastern wisdom).

That is - of course - also right.

The question was, who was the better philosopher Nietzsche or Kant. Heidegger, Hitler, and Neumann were not considered ....

670) Arminius, 18.03.2015, 14:50, 15:24, 16:16, 15:24 (2724-2726)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Geez.. you guys are still trying to compare the apple to the banana?“ **

Or a mouse with an elephant, or a molehill with an huge mountain like the Mount Everest.

Trying to compare a nihilistic philosopher with a non-nhilistic philosopher is difficult but not impossible.

There is realitiy, and so there is objectivity. There should be science, thus there should be history too. Thers is still science, thus there is still history too. We have logic, empirical evidence, and history in order to know that a nihilistic philosopher can never be the greater or better philosopher. Nihilistic philosophy has merely a litte bit to do with philosophy.

....

Sauwelios wrote:

„Heidegger, .... Hitler, .... Neumann.“ **

The question was, who was the better philosopher Nietzsche or Kant. Heidegger, Hitler, and Neumann were not considered ....

....

Orb wrote:

„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.“ **

And what about the reverse? A belief in a philosopher „does not meet the substantial aspects of the corollary that“ this philosopher is „better“.
Nihilistic philosophers may be more sympathic - and in nihlistic times they mostly are, at least for other nihilists -, but they can never be the greater or better philosophers.
It is the definition itself that makes it impossible to really have a little philosophy as the greatest or better philosophy.

Uccisore wrote:

„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?“ **

You are right. Hedonism leads i.a. to the conclusion that we should just believe whatever gives us the most pleasure to believe.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Why are people so vigorously trying to make other people hedonistically stupid?
Mayhaps to bring their demise?“ **

Yep.

The dialectic process as Hegel's method is pretty fundamental. One can not deny it. It is true. it is true in the sense that Hegel meant.

==>