741) Arminius, 13.06.2015, 01:18, 02:02, 10:26, 23:36, 23:55 (3180-3184)

Zinnat wrote:

„Arminius,

He is well aware or each and every word that he is saying.

Do not underestimate or consider him ignorant.“ **

Many people overestimate him.

Zinnat wrote:

„He just plays ignorant as a cover when finds it difficult to answer. That is his modus operandi. He is some sort of philosophical con, if you want to put a level at him.

There are two ways to tackle him. Either to ignore completely, or refute hardly but patiently as long as he does not lose the patience. And, we have only the later option left now.

That is why I did the other thread of tweaking the definitions. He knows very well that the thread is targeted to him, yet he chose not to participate as it has nothing to do with him. That is exactly how he use to play ignorant.

He will keep repeating his con, and we have to keep exposing him, without getting irritated. It is not about logic or winning an argument anymore, but just a testing of patience of both sides. And, whichever will display more, would win the battle at last. The loser will get some kind of whip from the mods because of faulty language, sooner or later. Some internet discussions tend to end that way.

So, you need not to do anything extraordinary but just keep repeating your old arguments, That is enough.“ **

Is it not a little bit boring?

What Mutcer does in his threads has nothing to do with philosophy, nothing to do with logic, nothing to do with science, nothing to do with reality, nothing to do with ... (put in whatever you want) .... So it has not even anything to do with atheism, although he is always talking about it. If ILP had not merely „ad hominem“ rules but also and beyond them logical rules, then it would not be possible for him to misuse ILP (remember that ILP means „I Love Philosophy“), and there are many ILP members who misuse ILP in a similar way.

----------------------------------

Tweaking the definitions:

An example of a definition is the word „theism“. In order to be a theist one has to be capable of (A) believing, (Aa) believing in a god or more gods (this makes you a believer in god or gods), and (B) processing this in an intellectual / professional way (this makes you a theist). If you are a theist, then you can become an antitheist, and an atheist, if you fulfill some further preconditions. This was - b.t.w. - what I meant when I said Mutcer was „implicitly saying that the effect is before the cause“ (**|**). The theological cause is always the belief, and the succession of this theological development is always: => (1) belief => (2) godbelief => (3) theological knowledge, for eaxmple as => (3a) theism => (3b) antitheism => (3c) syntheism (synthesis of theism and antitheism) or (3d) atheism.

So it is not possible for one to be a godbeliever, if this one is not capable of believing. And it is also not possible for one to have theological knowledge, if this one is not capable of a god(s)belief. Furthermore it is not possible for one to be a theist, if this one is not capable of the required theological knowledge. In addition it is also not possible for one to be an anthitheist, if this one has not been a theist before. And it is also not possible for one to be an atheist, if this one has not been an antitheist and a theist before. If you want to deny „something“, you have to know this „something“. If you want to form a synthesis out of theism and antitheism, you have to know what „theism“ and „antitheism“ mean and be capable of forming a synthesis out of theism and antitheism. But if you want to be released from theism, antitheism, and syntheism, know what they mean, and are sure you can ignore them, then (and only then) you can honestly call yourself an „atheist“. So in reality there are merely few or even no atheists.

James S. Saint wrote:

„It is called »trolling« ..., and even in the actual, real definition of trolling, not merely the online connotation (although that included).

Mutcer is proselytizing, having no interest at all in philosophy.“ **

This is my strong conviction too.

Yes. His „arguments“ are very irrational, full of false definitions, false pemises, false conclusions, contradictions, fallacies, and other falsities.

„Here“ (**)?
Where?
In the U.K.?
In Vietnam?
Are you from the U.K. or from Vietnam?

Iambiguous wrote:

„In other words, is this thread only for serious philosophers? Or, perhaps, serious objectivists?“ **

A serious philosopher knows the objecitivistic facts; and a seroius objectivist should know philosophical facts. So may I ask you what your point is?

742) Arminius, 14.06.2015, 01:12, 01:44, 02:37, 03:15, 04:18, 04:39, 12:48, 13:02, 13:15, 13:15, 13:15, 13:15, 13:15 (3185-3197)

Europeans averagely see guns all 70 or 80 years - when the rulers bring their war to Europe.

I was told - many years ago - that two cities in the US with almost the same number of inhabitants had very different criminal statistics because they had different gun laws: one city had a very high crime rate and a very strict / tight gun law, while the other city had a low crime rate and a lax / slack gun law. I have never been to the U.S., so I please the US ILP members to tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country.

I do not feel that „this sort of exchange is not appropriate for this thread“ (**); I just asked you what your point is, because I did not exactly know why you mentioned the difference between serious philosophers and serious objectivists.

Peripheral wrote:

„Firstly, you shouldn't pretend to be an un-biased neutral, and then provide a biased hypothetical favoring one side of the argument. There are plenty of cities and states where stricter gun laws correspond to lower crime rates.“ **

At this point of your text a respond to my request would have been good.

Peripheral wrote:

„Secondly, it's not primarily about crime rates per se. It's about minimizing all gun deaths, including domestic and accidental ones.“ **

According to my request it is primarily about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country:

Arminius wrote:

„I please the US ILP members to tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country.“ ** **

Perhaps you did not read this last sentence of my last post in this thread. First of all I want to know some facts about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country. Afterwards it is easier to say what can be done and what should not be done. Please take into account that the most people in Europe have no experiences with guns, except in the time of war, as I already said.

Peripheral wrote:

„The topic of discussion was gun laws and deaths caused by guns ....“ **

The topic of this thread is „10 US States with the MOST Gun Violence“.

I am referring to the topic of this thread and especially talking about gun laws and crimnal rates in the US and in several states and cities of the US; in addition: crimal rates include gun violence and also your „deaths caused by guns“. So what is your problem?

Peripheral wrote:

„Perhaps you didn't read my response well.“ **

I read your „response“ very well.

Peripheral wrote:

„If you want to know some facts about crime rates, which weren't the topic of discussion, google them.“ **

I pleased the US ILP members, not Google, the false god of many ILP members. So again:

Arminius wrote:

„I please the US ILP members to tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country.“ ** **

Is there any US ILP member who can sreiously tell me something about the relationship between the crime rate and the gun law in different U.S. regions and in the whole U.S. country?

Peripheral wrote:

„You non-Americans can do that can't you? Please take into account, some of us Americans don't automatically shift the conversation at the demand of petulant non-Americans.“ **

Why are you so petulant then? Are you a „non-American“?

Peripheral wrote:

„So, go google those facts you want. And after you can do, you can politely and relevantly enter the conversation that was already happening. And, no, you do not have to know crime rates to know what has to be done about gun laws to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill and violent. We also don't need to know crime rates to know we need mandatory safety classes for first time buyers. Crime rates have no bearing on that.“ **

That is more disinformation than information. .... Thank you!

Okay, you are again merely interested in trolling and ad hominems. So try to read this and this.

It is funny that you are so much interested in driving all other ILP members against yourself. Is this already typical for English professors in your country? It is unbelievable that you claim to be an English professor. Or did you not mean „English professor“ but „Englsih pupil“?

How many ILP members are on your ignore list? 90% or even 99%? However. 100% must be your goal, pupil.

OFF TOPIC.

I am not interested in your ad hominems and your trolling.

Good bye.

According to my experience with so-called „atheists“ there are merely a few or even no atheists, because this so-called „atheists“ turn out to be antitheists: they are against theism, against god, against Christianity, against religion insofar as it is Christian, against ..., against ..., against .... The Ancient Greek word for „against“ is „anti“. So this so-called „atheists“ are antitheists.

Another phenomenon is that this so-called „atheists“ create their own god or gods, a false god or false gods. This so-called „atheists“ are syntheists insofar as they have overcome their antitheism as the opponent of theism and come to a synthesis of theism and antitheism, namely syntheism (later: the new theism). But they have not come to atheism. I do not any atheist.

God is perhaps an atheist. That would at least mean that the so-called „atheists“ are merely godwannabes.

Einstein did not use the word „infinite“, because he did not believe in an infinte universe. There is no other meaning behind it than a religious, theological, metaphysical meaning.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Ecmandu wrote:

»You do know the paradox matrix don't you? T/T = existence, T/F = contradiction (false), F/T = contradiction (false), F/F = paradox

The point I make is if false is false, it is actually true.

I am a liar.

Supposedly if it's true it's false and if it's false it's true.« **

You left out the third option (people love doing that);
1) True
2) False
3) Neither, Not applicable“ **

Yes. People love letting out that third option.
Compare Mutcer who seems to know merely two categories:
1) „theists“,
2) „atheists“.
That there are also people who are neither theists nor atheists is not imaginable - not to mention thinkable - to him.

People love two opponents, especially then, if they can prefer one of them. All other options seem to be too elaborated, too complicated for them.

Peripheral started to use the word „petulant“. I never even knew it before he posted it at me:

„You non-Americans can do that can't you? Please take into account, some of us Americans don't automatically shift the conversation at the demand of petulant non-Americans.“ **

That was an ad hominem, at least a rude behavior.

Then - and because I was not „petulant“ - I asked myself whether he had just described himself. Therefore I posted:

„Why are you so petulant then? Are you a »non-American«? “ ** **

That was no ad hominem. I just asked two questions in response to his ad hominem, at least to his rude behavior..

In addition:

I was referring to the topic of this thread and also to the discussion Peripheral mentioned:

„Peripheral wrote:

»The topic of discussion was gun laws and deaths caused by guns ....« **

The topic of this thread is »10 US States with the MOST Gun Violence«.

I am referring to the topic of this thread and especially talking about gun laws and crimnal rates in the US and in several states and cities of the US; in addition: crimal rates include gun violence and also your „deaths caused by guns«“ ** **

Peripheral should accept and heed the friendly advice to stop his rude behavior. It is a friendly advice, although I am not interested in his posts anymore.

For me the matter is settled.

743) Herr Schütze, 15.06.2015, 18:45, 20:42, 22:18 (3195-3197)

„»Höher« und »niedriger« in Bezug auf Evolution und Kulturentwicklung könnte missverständlich sein. Wahrscheinlich ist es richtiger zu sagen komplexer und weniger komplex.“ - Ingo Bading. **

Nein. Die im Komparartiv benutzten Adjektive „höher“ und „niedriger“ sind schon genau die richtigen Wörter. Außerdem kann sich fast jeder darunter etwas ganz Konkretes vorstellen. Dagegen sind die Wörter „komplexer“ und „weniger komplex“ mißverständlich, weil zu allgemein und zu ungenau. Außerdem ist der Ausdruck „weniger komplex“ für den Komparativ, um den es geht, nicht gut genung geeignet.

„Und es ist ebenso unübersehbar geworden, dass noch niemals der Mensch selbst so viel Verantwortung für die weitere Entwicklung selbst trägt als heute.“ - Ingo Bading. **

Der Mensch? Welcher? Es ist doch so, daß überhaupt kein Mensch Verantwortung übernehmen will, also auch keine übernimmt und von daher de facto keine trägt. Zwar ist Verantwortung de jure gefordert - also: auf dem Papier (!) -, aber de facto schert sich kein Mensch darum.

„Insofern dürfte die Geniedichte Griechenlands bei weitem die der Europäer und Europäischstämmigen seit der Frühen Neuzeit übersteigen.“ - Ingo Bading. **

„Geniedichte“ ist eine viel zu sehr verwissenschaftlichte Komposition, als daß man sagen könnte, was beide Wortteile im wissenschaftlichen Sinne genau bedeuten. Der eine spricht von „Genie“ und meinet einen „Bekloppten“, der andere spricht von einem „Genie“ und meint einen „Gottmenschen“, wieder ein anderer kann mit dem Wort gar nichts anfangen. Das verwissenschaftlichte Wort „Dichte“ verweist zunächst auf die Physik, wo das Wort „Dichte“ seine Wissenschaftsgeburt hatte. Wie will man aber exakt bestimmen, was „Geniedichte“ bedeutet, wenn man sich noch nicht einmal einig darüber ist, was ein „Genie“ überhaupt ist? Sollen wir über die „Autistendichte“ oder lieber über die „Gottmenschendichte“ sprechen? Sollen wir den Begriff im Sinne des Deutschen Idealismus und speziell im Sinne der Deutschen Romantik verwenden? Die Komposition „Geniedichte“ ist viel zu komplex (siehe oben), als daß man wirklich wissenschaftlich Brauchbares mit ihr gewinnen könnte. Mein Einwand in meinem letzten Beitrag bezog sich insbesondere auf Ihre Aussage, daß in den klassischen Zeiten des antiken Griechenlands „fast jedes Dorf, jede Stadt ein Genie hervorbrachte“ (**|**). Ich finde nach wie vor, daß es übertrieben ist zu sagen, jedes Dorf des antiken Griechenlands habe zu klassischen Zeiten ein Genie hervorgebracht.

Heute werden Genies weggesperrt, mit der chemischen Keule behandelt, zu Opfern der pharmazeutischen Industrie gemacht und ansonsten völlig ausgemerzt. Das politische Programm der negativen Eugenik, der Dysgenik also, läuft auf Hochtouren. Wer wagt es da noch, eine möglichst hohe Geniedichte anzupeilen?

Ich beschreibe nur, und das hat mit Pessimismus und Optimismus erst einmal gar nichts zu tun.

Kennen Sie das neue Buch „Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit“ von Peter Sloterdijk und einige Rezensionen dazu? Viele Rezensenten glauben in dem Buch einen „pessimistischen“ Peter Sloterdijk gesehen zu haben. „Pessimismus“ wird viel zu oft als ein Totschlagargument benutzt. Da auch Sie dieses benutzt haben, werden Sie es mir sicherlich nicht verübeln, wenn auch ich es jetzt benutze: Ihre Texte beinhalten viel Pessimismus, besonders im Sinne einer Prämisse. Aber mich stört es nicht, weil es darauf gar nicht ankommt. Möchten Sie lieber ein Optimist sein? Optimismus wurde und wird ja auch stets in Diktaturen verordnet, ja befohlen.

Mir geht es um die Wirklichkeit, um die gewordene, um die werdende und um die werdend werdende Wirklichkeit.

„Von »Gottmenschen« übrigens weiß ich nichts. Solche Ausdrücke lassen mich hindurchspüren, dass Sie von anderem Boden aus argumentieren, als ich und die genannten Autoren.“ - Ingo Bading. **

Sie scheinen ja eine sehr lockere Interpretation zu bevorzugen. Ich habe lediglich von Beispielen gesprochen und zuvor bei der Auswahl darauf geachtet, daß sie möglichst unähnlich sind. Ihre willkürlichen Interpretationen lassen mich bestimmte Schlüsse ziehen und hindurchspüren, daß Sie von einem anderen Boden als dem der Wissenschaft aus „argumentieren“.

744) Niegeboren Niegestorben, 16.06.2015, 22:07 (3198)

„Angela Merkel steht doch nur für viele.“ - Ingo Bading. **

Besonders steht Angela Merkel beispielsweise für Ingo Bading.

Angela Merkel wuchs als Kommunistin auf und wurde kommunistische Jugendführerin. Im Kommunismus war und ist das Christentum verboten!

745) Arminius, 17.06.2015, 01:00, 01:53, 02:18, 02:40, 03:38, 03:57, 16:23, 17:01, 17:35, 18:12, 18:42, 19:55, 20:49, 20:51, 21:14 (3199-3213)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Mutcer wrote:

»Example - a man rapes a child. If God can do anything, then he could stop the rapist from raping the child without impacting his free will. Perhaps he causes his car to break down while on his way to rape the child.« **

That would definitely be impacting his free will.“ **

If a man (or a woman!) wants to rape a child and to make the rape of children „legally“, then the easiest way is that he (or she!) tells again and again the lie that „children are atheists“, because the probability that this will become a law is not low, if the situation allows it. This was the case in the so-called „comministic“ countries (especially in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia), because all people of this societies had to be „atheists“. If all people are „believed“ (!) and have to be „atheistic“, then it is very easy for the rulers and their functionaries to capture all children by removing them from their allegedly „theistic“ parents and all other allegedly „theistic“ members of their families in order to legally rape this children. The definition of „theist“ is arbitrarily dictated by the dictators, and that means everyone and anyone who does not conform to this dictatorship can be called a „theist“ and be punished by death because of „being a theist“. So the rapists of children can - and do (!) - become more and more.

This tendency exists, and it exists more than ever before.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The so-called „free will“:

The so-called „free will“ is merely a relatively free will. The whole history of philosophy is full of that topic. According to it there have always been philosophers of determinism, philosophers of indeterminism, philosophers of a mixture of both determinism and indeterminism, and all of them have always taken turns.

What is nonsense?

Do you have any argument?

Topic: What is your attitude towards theism ...?

What is your attitude towards theism ...? What are you according to your attitude towards theism?

Topic: A free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Do human beings have a free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?

Excuse me, Phyllo, but obviously you have no idea what happened in the history of the so-called „communistic“ countries, especially in the Soviet Union, in China, and in Cambodia.

If anybody had a cow, then this one was called a „bourgeois“ and then killed. This happened, for example, in Ukraine (at that time a part of the Soviet empire) many times, because the Ukranians were not as poor as the other Soviet subjects yet (in other words: they were not „equalised“ yet). And if anybody was suspected (merely suspected!) to be religious or theistic (and the dictator dictated the meaning and interpretation of these words), then this one was also punished and then killed.

Those who do not know or have forgotten what happened in the so-called „communistic“ dictatorships do not change anything of the historical facts. It is this ignorance that opens the floodgates to the demands of all dictatorships.

By definition there are merely three possiibilities for the will: (1) to be free, (2) to be relatively free, (3) to be unfree. Most humans know that there is a will, and even those who do not know it but know the word „will“ ask themselves or others whether the will is free, relatively free, or unfree.

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Phyllo wrote:

„I was born in a communist country and lived there for several years. My parents lived under communism for 20 years and my grandmothers and uncle for 40 years.
But yeah, it could be that I know nothing about it.

BTW, I was baptized and I survived.. as did my parents, grandparents and the priest who performed the ceremony.“ **

Which „communistic“ country was it where you was born, Phyllo? Did you, your parents, or your grandparents live during the dictatorship of Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot or during the dictatorship of other „communistic“ dictators? If one was conformed (not striking, not conspicuous), then this one could have luck, because whether one was punished or not depended on the the other people around this one as well, on the situation, on the fact whether they wanted this one to be punished, ... and so on, thus not only but mainly on the dictators and their functionaries.

How I know this? Not by experience but by science: I have studied history - among other academic disciplines - at the university.

James S. Saint wrote:

„It depends on which kind of »free« you are talking about. Free from what? Free from oppression? Free to make life choices? Free from social manipulation? Free from causality?“ **

Free from all, so that you can say: „one is free, because one can do what one will“.

But you can also do what Kant did: divide the world into two parts, one for the senses and one for intelligibility. According to the first part humans have an unfree will, thus no free will, because they are slaves of the causality; but according to the second part humans have a free will.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Nothing is free from causality (else you are stuck with the »something from nothing« theory).“ **

Copied part of a post.

So Kant also said that nothing is free from causality, thus also human beings are not free from causality; but he said humans have an intelligible freedom, thus they have a free will according to their intelligibility. In other words: Kant was both a determinist and an indeterminist, because he said humans have an unfree will because of the causality, but they have a free will because of their intelligibility. Therefore he demanded: „You shall because you can!“ (loosely translated).

Phyllo wrote:

„Czechoslovakia.“ **

The CSSR became communistic in 1945.

Phyllo wrote:

„Being a theist didn't get you killed.“ **

In the countries I mentioned it did: Soviet Union, China, Cambodia. In Cambodia it was not even allowed to wear glasses because that was interpreted as „being intellectual“, and being intellectual was punished by death. Have you never heard of the killing fields?

Phyllo wrote:

„History is not science, science is not history.“ **

History is science, a science discipline. Of course. And science is also history, because science has its own history. Of course. Studying science history was one of my favorites.

Phyllo wrote:

„It became a communist state in 1948.“ **

The Soviets came into that country in 1945, so it became communistic in 1945. It does not matter whether the communistic dictators were Soviets, Czechs, or Slovaks. What matters is the historical fact that the Czechoslovakia (later called the CSSR) became communistic in 1945 when the Soviets occupied it. And in my last post I correctly said that it „became communistic in 1945“; so I was not talking about a state.

Phyllo wrote:

„Simply being a theist did not get you killed in either the SSSR or China. Not sure about Cambodia. You heard about reeducation?“ **

„SSSR“? ??? A state called „SSSR“ has never existed!

Did you mean the „Swiss Society for the Study of Religions“ (SSSR)?

And China had Mao's terror regime and „cultural revolution“: 100 000 000 people in China were killed, many of them because of theism.

Phyllo wrote:

„It doesn't meet the criteria of a science. It deals with one-off events - no repeatability, no testing of hypothesis, limited predictability at best.“ **

How would you call history then? „Art“? No, history is a science discipline. It is not like physics or chemistry. But that does not matter in order to be a science discipline.

B.t.w.: I also studied economics and linguistics.
Do you not accept that this are science disciplines?
If so, then you are again wrong.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»So Kant also said that nothing is free from causality, thus also human beings are not free from causality; but he said humans have an intelligible freedom, thus they have a free will according to their intelligibility.« ** **

What he seems to be calling »intelligible freedom« can only refer to a greater degree of freedom to decide on life choices (intelligence and available opportunities), freedom from oppression (legalistic traps), or freedom from social manipulations (disinformation, limited information, hypnosis, chemicals/medications, radiology, ...).“ **

Yes, and according to Kant this is because of the second part of the human world, the „intelligible world“ of the humans.

James S. Saint wrote:

„What many people seem to believe is that the human will is free from causality. That is entirely irrational.“ **

Yes, and that is what Kant said as well.

James S. Saint wrote:

„So;
A) there is never freedom from causality
B) other types of freedoms are circumstantial.“ **

Let's say that they are embedded in causality, but beings like the human beings tend to power, thus they want to dominate the nature with its causality as well. The accent here is on the word „tend“, because they never can be free from causality. But according to their thoughts (=> intelligibility) they are capable of doing anything what they will, although they are not capable of doing anything what they will when it comes to causality.

Therefore the conclusion must be that humans have a relatively free will.

James S. Saint wrote:

„SAM provides the greatest degree of stable social freedom.“ **

Okay, but providing and holding a promise are not the same.

Orbie wrote:

„At seems Kant lost the battle, Arminius ....“ **

No. Kant did not lose the battle.

Orbie wrote:

„... Facts speak louder then words.“ **

The facts speak in the sense of Kant, at least more than in the sense of the representatives of the total nihilism.

It is a fact that all human beings are not free from causality, and it is also a fact that humans are spiritually or intellctually free from everything they can think and imagine, because thoughts and imaginations are also facts. We have two parts of the world, at least for humans, and the first part is one of the unfree will because of the causality, whereas the second part is one of the free will because of the intelligibility. Because of the fact that the first part dominates it is impossible that humans have a free will; because of the fact that humans can partly control causality it is possible that humans have at least a relatively free will (you may also call it relatively unfree will). So the position of determinism that includes an indeterminism is correct. This means: The human will is determined, and this can never be changed, and indetermined, and this can be changed.

Keeping.

If the greatest degree of stable social freedom is promised, then this promise should also be kept / held.

James S. Saint wrote:

„»Providing« means establishing the means or method. If the means are not established, then they were not provided. There is no promising involved.

When you fully understand SAM, there is no need for promises.“ **

But what about the most humans? Please do not forget that most humans want promises.

746) Arminius, 18.06.2015, 03:18, 03:31, 03:51, 05:19, 17:03, 17:49, 19:34, 20:12, 21:01, 22:04, 19:34, 19:34 (3214-3226)

Zinnat wrote:

„I not only believe in the gods but know that they exists for sure. To me, it is not an assumption but a hard reality.

Having said that, I am not sure that much about the supreme authority( the God). I have some assumptions about it but they are mere assumptions.

Yet, my knowledge and certainty about lesser gods forces me believe that there must be a highest form of the gods too.“ **

So you are even a so-called „gnostic theist“, because you are saying that you know that gods exist. Would you mind explaining this a little bit?

Obe / Orb / Orbie (I wonder what you next username will be: Orbi? Urbi? ... URBI ET ORBI ...).

Please tell me what your point is.

What caused the universe?
What caused the time?

Uh-huh.

Thanks for your response, Obe / Orb / Orbie.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The universe was never »caused«, as in coming from a prior nothingness. It was never »started«. The cause/reason of the universe is the logic of the situation (referred to as »God«).

I knew that you would answer this.

And what caused the time?

Schopenhauer's Wille (will) is Kant's Ding an sich (thing in itself / thing as such).

The German existentialism as Heidegger's Existenzphilosophie (existential philosophy) was the basis for the French; when Sartre started his philosophical career he was a Heideggerian, thus a scholar of the German existentialism as Heidegger's Existenzphilosophie (existential philosophy); and when the WW2 was over (!) Sartre became more and more communistic, because it was opportune (!) at that time. Sartre failed at last.

Orbie wrote:

„I see nothing but pure determination, which is not of the self. Self determination has become a myth.“ **

There is no reason for being so pessimistic, Orbie. And by the way: relatively free will means both detmerminism and indeterminism. So the human life is not as much determined as you think. It is determined by causality - of course (!) - but not by spirituality (thinking etc.). The indetermination is an island in the infinte ocean of the determination.

It is not true that the will can no longer be a representation, and the lobby of the deconstructivists is not capable of changing this fact. The deconstructivism is just another expression of the nihilism.

There is fate (destiny), of course, but there is chance (opportunity) too. There is determination, of course, but there is indetermination too.

Orbie wrote:

„Meaning has lost its associative bearings ....“ **

No.

Orbie wrote:

„And the reader is asked to work with the writer ....“ **

The reader may kick or kiss the writer ... but should never work with the writer.

Orbie wrote:

„Literature is becoming less literal, as a result of the effects of entropy, on all forms of art.“ **

Yes. One could also say: „as a result of the nihilism“, because it has to do with culture, especially with the civilisation of a culture.

Orbie wrote:

„Anti psychiatry could as well be as will be a rallying cry of the new disassembled world of meaningful communication.“ **

Please explain that sentence, because I don't konw why you used the term „anti psychiatry“ in it.

Orbie wrote:

„Where does this duality take us?“ **

What duality do you mean?

Orbie wrote:

„Into the darkness of bedlam, or the lightness of new art forms, reacting to the seemingly bottomless re-entry into Plato's cave, of literal forms?“ **

Probably not - at least not as fast as it is wished-for - into „the lightness of new art forms“. What do you think?

Orbie wrote:

„Psycho analysis is seen as a failed endeavor, in part).“ **

With good reason.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Time has the same »cause/reason«.
Time is merely the measure of relative changing. The physical universe IS the changing of which time is the relative measure. There can't be one without the other.“ **

I guess you know which question will be the next one: What caused the affectance? According to RM:AO „existence is that which has affect“ (**), so I could also ask: What caused the existence? And I guess that your answer will be: „The affectance (existence) was never »caused«; it was never »started«; the cause/reason of the affectance (existence) is the logic of the situation (referred to as »God«).“

Zinnant wrote:

„In a nutshell, till my late twentieths, like most of the modern youngsters, I was firmly of the opinion that scriptures are fairy tales and created by religions to keep folks under morality. And, science and morality are enough to lead an ideal life.

But, fortunately or unfortunately, circumstances pushed me into completely untapped territory, where I came across and learned a lot of new things, both mentally and physically too. Those experiences compelled me to change my opinion about R&S.“ **

Thanks for your response. So you just explained a little bit that you changed your opinion about religion and sprituality. But you did not explain why you know that gods exist and that there must be a highest form of the gods too. It would be very kind of you, if you explained that too.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Good OP.“ **

Yes, although a little bit exaggerated, but no problem. Experience is very important but not the only component when it comes to philosophy. If a young human is capable of loving wisdom, of logical thinking as well as strong and deep thinking, thus of studying philosophy, and of knowing that a young human has not much life experience, empirical knowledge, and to respect the philosophers with much life experience, empirical knowledge, then there is no problem for this young human to successfully study philosophy.

747) Arminius, 19.06.2015, 22:42 (3224)

Topic: Can economics explain more than sociology or/and psychology?

Please vote!

748) Arminius, 20.06.2015, 02:07, 02:47, 03:24, 03:44, 04:59, 17:20, 18:27, 18:46, 20:02, 20:53, 21:57, 22:28, 22:51 (3225-3236)

Ierrellus wrote:

„What is the distinction between spirit and soul?“ **

The spirit is very much more connected with the processing of the informations in the brain, whereas the soul (originally it was the correct English translation for the Ancient Greek word „psyche“) is more connected with the Platonic, the Platonico-Christian realm (heaven as the Christian example).

Ierrellus wrote:

„If one follows Plato, the soul is that part of the psyche that is imprisoned in the body.“ **

Yes. (See also above: the English translation for the Ancient Greek word „psyche“ was the original and the correct one.)

Ierrellus wrote:

„What do we mean when we say someone has spirit? Soul?“ **

No. (See also above: distinction between spirit and soul.)

Ierrellus wrote:

„Is there an entity that fits these terms or are they simply aspects of the human psyche?“ **

They are not simply aspects of the human psyche. Additionally the „modern“ meaning of the word „psyche“ is different from the meaning of the Ancient Greek word „psyche“. (See also above: „soul“ as the English translation for the Ancient Greek word „psyche“ was the original and the correct one. And see also my thread: „Suggestions to the question: »What is ›psyche‹?«.“ [**|**])

Amorphos wrote:

„Humanity as something different to nature?“ **

Culture is a bit different to nature. And the human culture is like an „island“ in a huge „ocean“ (nature).

Let's have a first interim result for the question: „What is your attitude towards theism?“:

I am a theist: 3 => 33%.
I am an antitheist: 1 => 11%.
I am a syntheist (synthesis of a theist and an antitheist): 1 => 11%.
I am an atheist: 2 => 22%.
I am no theist, no antitheist, no syntheist, and no atheist: 1 => 11%.
I do not know: 1 => 11%.

Please vote!

Let's have a first interim result for the question: „Do human beings have a free will, a relatively free will, or an unfree will?“:

Free will: 1=> 17%.
Relatively free wil: 4 => 67%.
Unfree will: 1 => 17%.

Please vote!

In this thread it is necessary to use the most comprehensive and strongest meaning of the word „free“. The reason is just the biggest possible avoidance of the use of the word „free“ in ordinary speech - in order to get a philosophical result, if it is possible, and I think that it is possible.

Ierrellus wrote:

Arm (er meint „Arminius“; HB),
Thanks for the clarifications. Do you believe we have souls?

I guess that you mean me, Ierrellus. I do not like shortened names.

I believe and I do not believe in souls, because I am a doubter when it comes to believe in souls. Also I want and I do not want to believe that we have souls. So my answer to your question contains a „yes“ and a „no“.

I guess that you certainly believe we have souls. Is that right, Ierrellus? And, if so, do merely we - the human beings - have souls or other living beings as well?

That is an impertinent prejudice / bias - and an ad hominem too. I know many German, French, Spanish, and other European humans, and I can absloluetly not agree with your false statements. They are based on an impertinent prejudice / bias.

German, French, Spanish, and many other European humans have not much differences compared to other humans. And, for example, the Germans are often more „French“ than the Frenchmen, and the Frenchmen are often more „German“ than the Germans, ... and so on. And please do not forget that the most US people are Germans. Are you an US citizen?

Zoot Allures wrote:

„May I have an example?“ **

Yes, you may.

Imagine you have the will to be free from causality. To be free from causality is impossible. Imagine a child in the phase that Freud called the „Trotzphase“ („defiant phase“), thus a child between two and four years old; many adults are of the opinion that such a child would do anything what the strong will of this child wants to do, if the parents allowed it; but the truth is that, if the parents allowed everything, the will of this child would at last fail because of the causality (perhaps this child would fall into a fountain, hit by a car, straving to death, ... and os on). Or imagine those adult humans who are destroying our planet. One can have the impression that they do what they want / what they will. But they are going to be stopped by nature itself, by causality.

The most comprehensive and strongest meaning of the word „free“ and the most comprehensive and strongest meaning of the word „unfree“ give us the sure hint that the will can merely be a relatively free will.

The complete freedom is impossible, and I used the example of the causality to make that clear. No living being, thus also no human being, is free from causality. If humans were free from causality, then they would live as they want (=> will) to live, or, for example, remain young, never be ill, never die, ... and so on, thus they would live in a so-called „paradise“ with no causality or a causality that depends on huamn beings.

Humans are relatively free when they make choices. Some choices show (them often afterwards) that humans are unfree, many choices show (them often afterwards) that humans are relatively unfree / relatively free, and some choices show (them often afterwards) that hmans are free. A free will is not possible; an unfree will can be disproved by living beings, especially - and in a relatively high degree - by human beings; so the conclusion for human beings can merely be that they have a relatively free will.

Again for those who do not understand that the meaningful result I posted was an interim result:

Copied post.

Also again: **

There are more grounds than you can imagine. I remind you of your friend Mutcer who is ridiculously saying that there are merely two „categories“: (1) theists, (2) atheists. Where is your „middle ground“ in Mutcers „categories“? My poll contains six categories: (1) one for theists; (2) one for the opposite, thus antitheists; (3) one for the synthesis of both; (4) one for atheists; (5) one for those who have absolutely nothing to do with any other category; (6) one for those who do not know which category they belong to). The former three (1-3) have to do with theism, the latter three (4-6) have nothing to do with theism. That is an equal, uniform, and fair distribution of the six categories. And nobody is forced to vote. So there is no problem at all. If you really did not like this thread, then you would not post here. You believe that you are an „atheist“, and that is the reason why you are so dissatisfied with this meaningful result (merely 22% for the „atheists“ [**|**]), interim or not, and that (result) makes me happy.

Nobody forces you to vote and to post here. So if you do not like this thread, then please search for another thread. The current number of the total ILP topics is 40679. That is enough.

And I remind you of the following post again: **

Amorphos wrote:

„Yes ^^ but it’s been disconnecting.“ **

And why?

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Arminius, you are aware that the exact same image is in both your signature box and your avatar space, right?

I think that's a bit extraneous and repetitious and I would like to ask on behalf of ILP that you remove the image from one or the other spaces.

It's like wearing a grey shirt while also wearing grey sweat pants..“ **

Similar to this (?): **

Zoot Allures wrote:

„You just don't do that. You wear a blue or green or white shirt.“ **

How do you know that?.

However.

Maybe I should ask Artimas whether he allows me to use his images: **

I like them.

749) Arminius, 21.06.2015, 01:30, 17:29, 23:59 (3237-3239)

The tonal aspect of a language is important but not as important as some people think. The Germans are the people of poets and thinkers, scientists and philosophers, technicians and engineers, musicians and inventors, also of sports and work, okay, and, for example and not to forget, of the real Faust as well as the concept „Faust“. No surprise that the German language sounds more abstract, distant, accurate, and perfect. German is a language for science and philosophy and other abstract aspects. French, for example, expresses more emotions, if one compares it with Germanic languages (German, English, Duch, Flemish, Danish, Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, ... etc.). .... But why should we value this like we value money, cars, books, or music (for example music from Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, or Zappa)? If one shows emotions while speaking and has not the suitable language for emotions, then this one is at risk of being falsely classified, because „it is said“ that this one is not allowed to show emotions because of this one's language. If one has the suitable language for emotions and does not show emotions while speaking, then this one is at risk of being falsely classified, because „it is said“ that this one must show emotions because of this one's language.

And one more point:

Europe has a miserable demography, and the people from other continents, especially people of afroasiatic languages invade and intrude Western, Northern, and Central Europe. So maybe that the Europeans will experience something that the Indians experienced a very long time ago. And the economic development in Europe will probably become disastrous and end in a tragedy with Europe as a Third World continent. We should value this in the first place.

Ierrellus wrote:

„Sorry for the short response, Arminius. I don't know if other animals have souls; but, since I believe in evolution, which could include the property we call soul, I suspect other mammals have something similar. Humans appear to be the only animal that can project the soul to something outside itself. , i.e., to an entrapped entity that eventually survives the prison body.“ **

Ierrellus wrote:

„I believe the human psyche is composed of mind, body and soul. We are a trinity of MBS.“ **

I believe the psyche is not much more than the soul. Mind is much more than psychology (**|**). Both mind and body have not much to do with psyche and psychology. But soul has much to do with psyche and psychology. Like I said:

I wrote:

„The spirit is very much more connected with the processing of the informations in the brain, whereas the soul (originally it was the correct English translation for the Ancient Greek word »psyche«) is more connected with the Platonic, the Platonico-Christian realm (heaven as the Christian example). ** **

The English word „soul“ and the German word „Seele“ stand for the Ancient Greek word „psyche“, and that is correct. Whether we believe in soul / Seele / psyche is another issue. And:

I wrote:

„I believe and I do not believe in souls, because I am a doubter when it comes to believe in souls. Also I want and I do not want to believe that we have souls. So my answer to your question contains a »yes« and a »no«.“ ** **

Now you have told me that humans „appear to be the only animal that can project the soul to something outside itself, i.e., to an entrapped entity that eventually survives the prison body“ (**). How can humans do that?

Dan~ wrote:

„What are your own daily practices?“ **

Do you exclusively mean one's own daily practices that are in line with one's philosophy?

Orbie wrote:

„What I am trying to work on, is applying through communicating philosophy with practicality, by getting feedback through those with whom I am sharing thoughts. If this process progresses the way as it I would like to, I will be able to enhance my ability to unify philosophy and the way of understanding. After understanding, application of it may follow.“ **

Would it be correct, if I said: „What you are »trying to work on«, thus your »applying through communicating philosophy with practicality«, is similar to a religious practice or a spiritual excercise“?

Orbie wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»All philosophy leads to politics and religion.« **

And the residual leads to psychology.“ **

Thus back to philosophy.

750) Arminius, 22.06.2015, 01:32, 20:29, 21:21 (3240-3242)

The capitalistic countries or empires do not always have the same degree of capitalism. Some of them have also a relatively high degree of socialism. But capitalism and socialism are merley the two sides of the same faked coin. If there is merely capitalism, then the market is a liberalistic market or something like a place of Darwin's „survival of the fittest“; but if there is merely socialism, then it is a dead socialism because of the lack of capitalism. So capitalism is always before (although not long before) the socialism. The socialism depends on the capitalism, and the capitalism is not capable of expanding its markets ad infinitum without being stopped by a huge catastrophe. Should it be in the interest of the capitalists, at least the „late“ capitalists, to prevent the disappearance of the socialism (because a coin must have two sides)? Yes and no - because it depends on the development stage of the said faked coin, and e.g. in its last development stage it is not possible anymore to prevent the disappearance of the socialism. The situation of that faked coin is almost a dilemma.

Ierrellus wrote:

„Consciousness as we know it is informed by mind, body and soul.“ **

It depends on the definition and interpretation of „consciousness“.

Ierrellus wrote:

„It is not some abstract entity; neither are its constituents.“ **

It depends on the definition and interpretation of „consciousness“.

Ierrellus wrote:

„Psychology involves interpretation of mental cntent ...“ **

It depends on the definition and interpretation of „psychology“.

Ierrellus wrote:

„... if mind is something more or different, we can't know it.“ **

We can know it. „Even“ the ancient people had a relaltively high degree of knowledge about it. The currently valid definitions and interpretations are more eyepollution than eyewash, more brainpollution than brainwash, thus they are mostly not correct.

Ierrellus wrote:

„About the projection statement--most Christians believe with Plato that the soul is trapped in the body until death releases it.

Yes. But how can humans appear to be the only animals „that can project the soul to something outside itself, i.e., to an entrapped entity that eventually survives the prison body“ (Ierrellus)? And why?“ **

Uccisore wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The capitalistic countries or empires do not always have the same degree of capitalism. Some of them have also a relatively high degree of socialism. But capitalism and socialism are merley the two sides of the same faked coin. If there is merely capitalism, then the market is a liberalistic market or something like a place of Darwin's „survival of the fittest“; but if there is merely socialism, then it is a dead socialism because of the lack of capitalism. So capitalism is always before (although not long before) the socialism. The socialism depends on the capitalism, and the capitalism is not capable of expanding its markets ad infinitum without being stopped by a huge catastrophe. Should it be in the interest of the capitalists, at least the „late“ capitalists, to prevent the disappearance of the socialism (because a coin must have two sides)? Yes and no - because it depends on the development stage of the said faked coin, and e.g. in its last development stage it is not possible anymore to prevent the disappearance of the socialism. The situation of that faked coin is almost a dilemma.« “ ** **

I get what you're saying, but when you realize there is actually such a thing as distributivism, and this dichotomy between socialism and capitalism is a false one, socialism loses it's reason for existence.“ **

I wrote three times: „faked coin“!

Uccisore wrote:

„That we reflexively think economic thought can be plotted on a line with socialism at one extreme and capitalism at the other is basically a consequence of the Cold War, and not a real thing.“ **

Agreed, but there was a time before the „Cold War“ too. And the meaning of „socialism“ and he meaning of „communism“ is not the same. Therefore I often use „egalitarianism“ as a hyperonym for „communism“ and „leftish socialism“ as its hyponyms. And what do we currently have in China? How would you call the econimical/political situation in China: Communism? Socialism? Capitalism? State monopoly capitalism (stamocap)? Synthesis of communism and capitalism? Synthesis of socialism and capitalism?

Uccisore wrote:

„So for example: the vast majority of people, if they have any opinion at all, would think of pure capitalism as resulting in corporate monopolies, and anti-trust laws being the introduction of 'a little bit of socialism'. But ask yourself this: if the fundamental belief of socialism is that the means of production should be controlled by the State, why in the world would a socialist be against an industry being centralized in one corporation (which can then be regulated)? Why would folks who think "From each according to his abiity, to each according to his need" organize labor unions divided by vocation? And then you look up distributivism, realize that the 'accomplishments' of socialists in capitalist society really weren't their accomplishments at all, you are reminded of how socialists like to re-write history whenever it suits the revolution to do so, and you tell the commies to fuck right off.“ **

Yes, but not all socialists are communists. And the means of the production can also be controlled by relatively small commons - not merely by states, institutions, or private capitalists.

Uccisore wrote:

„This pretty much goes from Zinnat too - if you're coming at it from the „socialism and Capitalism as sides of a coin, or poles on a continuum“, then you're way out in the dark.“ **

Okay, here comes Zinnat:

Zinnat wrote:

„Ucci,

It is not anyone else but you who is in the dark and misunderstanding the issue from very starting.

It is not socialism which is extreme opposite of capitalism, but communism. Socialism is a mix of two, with having capitism as a major ingredient.

The debate is only about the ratio in the mix, n ot about ingredients per se.

Think about it, again.“ **

Not all socialists are communists. As I said: I often use „communism“ and „leftish socialism“ as hyponyms and „egalitarianism“ as their hyperonym - because in this case it is necessary to differentiate.

==>