771) Arminius, 21.07.2015, 00:10, 02:43, 03:59, 04:27, 14:44, 15:11 (3324-3329)

You should not be surprised if someone asks you whether you want the humans to completely return to nature, to completely become animals, because you refer to generalities like nature.

There is the word „revolution“ in the title of this thread, and we have had enough so-called „revolutions“ and all of them have been more than gruesome.

Why do you think that there has to be a better ethical theory than the one that is presently being taught in classrooms (of the US, I guess, right?)?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote

»SAM must work according to the principle of subsidiarity.« ** **

»Subsidiarity (s?b?s?d?'ær?t?)
n
1. a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) (in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level

Very much so. And no doubt even more than the RCC.

People think in terms of a government making decisions and the people doing the work. There is a degree of sense to that of course. The problem is that just as the work must be distributed, the decision making must also be distributed. And many throughout history figured that out too. That issue has been proven to death. But the problem is that they never seemed to have understood upon what basis to divide decision making. They are always globalizing the wrong things and localizing the wrong things.“ **

Intentionally. On purpose. By design.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And that is the practical function in the belief in God (a wiser decision maker). But the remaining problem is that those who speak for God haven't sufficient reason to be trusted. Thus even though religions can govern a vast population through prophets and preaching, they cannot do it harmoniously enough to establish true »Heaven on Earth«. The belief that there is a wiser decision maker somewhere way up there on the governing mountain or sky is insufficient.

God must be brought down to Earth so that people need not put faith and trust in remote controllers from afar. It isn't God whom people mistrust, rather those who speak for God. SAM removes the middle men (generally upsetting their change tables).“ **

How can SAM do this successfully?

James S. Saint wrote:

„Can one live in ANY society void of pretense?

Excellent question, to which there is but one answer ...: NO!

.... Unless ... it is a SAM Coop.

I challenge anyone to come up with a realistic society in which people can actually be truly open and deeply honest with the people around them yet it not be a SAM Coop. That would be the true Heaven on Earth or, alternatively, total imprisonment. In extreme cases many people can be honest, as long as they stick to specific concerns and speak exactly as the listener requires. To be free to speak without worrying that someone might misunderstand requires SAM. I will debate that with anyone on this whole planet ... well, except conspicuous idiots.“ **

So you think that it would be possible to live in a society void of pretense then (and only then), if this society were a SAM Coop. There has not been any SAM Coop. So do you think there will be one?

Is it possible to live identically, thus according to the sentence: „A is A“ (compare: A = A)?

As I already said several times: That (**) can work only then, if SAM is and remains small, and if there is no other form of society and corporation than SAM.

The dasein / existence of the current machines is authentic. If the machines will remain as they currently are and humans will still live then, then the machines will perhaps cause an authentic dasein (existence, life) of the humans by use of SAM.

772) Arminius, 22.07.2015, 15:36, 15:59, 16:00, 16:00, 16:43, 20:43, 22:24, 23:32, 23:59 (3330-3337)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Each SAM coop is small but there can be any number of them. And the more there are, the better for everyone.“ **

That is what I am saying.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But what other governing types are also going on elsewhere is irrelevant other than them being a potential hazard to navigation. SAM doesn't at all require that the entire world population be SAM.“ **

If the others are not like SAM, then they try to infiltrate SAM and will perhaps destroy SAM.

James S. Saint wrote:

„SAM can exist inside just about any other governing style. Otherwise you would be saying that for humans to live, all animals must become human.“ **

No. Animals are not capable of destroying human governing styles.

James S. Saint wrote:

„SAM is a higher intelligence form of society, higher on an evolutionary scale and doesn't require revolution at all.“ **

That does not necessarily prevent the danger of infiltration and destroying of SAM by others.

James S. Saint wrote:

„By »dasein« do you perhaps mean »under the current circumstances«?“ **

By „dasein“ I roughly mean what Heidegger's existence philosophy means by it.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Again, my answer would still be »No« unless you are in a SAM Coop. The »outside world« from the Coop would never permit complete honesty with it nor in it. Most secrets are not kept due to them being something negative but rather due to the possibility of them being either presumed negative or simply used against the group/person. People do not tell their address online, not because it is a negative address issue, but because of the possibility, not probability, that the information will be misused.“ **

They cannot prevent the misuse of information by not telling their address.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And even though not telling something is not lying, hiding something generally and eventually requires deception (dishonesty). And as long as the world is being aggressive and presumptuous (those two tend to go together), secrecy to some degree is required and thus deception to a surprisingly large degree is required.

With Socialism and eventual Communism being the world mode and agenda, very serious deception is an absolute must and is a part of the eternal design. So the current dasein situation certainly requires pretense on many, if not all, social levels.

Another simpler but less stable form of establishing total honesty can be arranged through extreme love. The problem with that today is that the powers that be know how to aggravate and destroy any love relationship that is not approved. SAM provides for the extreme love relationship but adds the protection against adversarial interference (an extremely common dasein issue of the day).“ **

„Love“ is a great word with a huge field of meaning. I guess you mean something like „agape“ (New Testament), an unselfish love.

James S. Saint wrote:

„All societies of today are artificial structures and thus require pretense in order to maintain. The leaders must appear sufficiently proper. The workers must appear sufficiently proper. The thinkers must appear sufficiently proper. Everyone must appear sufficiently proper because the whole structure depends upon the beliefs of others, not the truth of the situation.“ **

Yes, but that is difficult to implement in reality.

Amorphos wrote:

„There would need to be a reason at the end of life, such to give credence to the suffering as the means to create something out of someone’s life. Change in the world may make us think the reason is worldly learning-from-suffering, and perhaps humanity gets better over time by learning from that. However, if we remove suffering we take away the function and it’s utility in giving us that purpose.“ **

Life in a negative sense of valuation is not only about suffering but also about death. Humans want to be immortal - like gods.

Ornello wrote:

„Sauwelios wrote:

»Nietzsche does of course not says ›Being is willing to power‹, but ›life is will to power‹ or ›Living is will to power‹ (Leben ist Wille zur Macht).« **

That is a mistranslation. The zu means »for«, not »to«, and Wille is not always merely »will«, as you can see if you consult a good German-English dictionary. Thus, Leben ist Wille zur Macht = »Life is the desire for power«.“ **

Phoneutria wrote:

„Oh crap ..., Ornello, ... you just broke ILP.“ **

No, Ornello merely broke ILN 1 (I Love Nietzsche), ILSC (I Love Social Criticism).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Well, the Nietzsche portion anyway.

And no matter which way Nietzsche meant it, he was wrong.“ **

The Nietzschean(ist)s do not know what Nietzsche meant - as usual.

But perhaps the German philologist Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche did also not know what he meant.

Ornello wrote:

„Ich bin zu Berlin means »I am in Berlin«.“ **

„Ich bin in Berlin“ <=> „I am in Berlin“.

Ornello wrote:

„Er is nicht zu Hause means »he is not at home (or in)«. To say I am going home, you say nach Hause, not zu Hause.

See this: ** “ **

Instead of „Er ist nicht zu Hause (zuhause)“ you can also say „Er ist nicht daheim“ <=> „He is not at home“.
Instead of „Ich gehe nach Hause“ you can also say „Ich gehe heim“ <=> „I am going home“ or „I go home“.

The English (and b.t.w.: also the Low German) preposition „to“ is the right translated form of the High German preposition „zu“ in the term „will to power“ or „will to might“ <=> „Wille zur Macht“. But it is also true that the English (and b.t.w.: also the Low German) preposition „to“ requires a following verb, if the foregoing word is a noun, and this is mostly also required by the High German preposition „zu“.

Are you shocked now?

So again: perhaps the German philologist Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche did also not know what he meant.

The German preposition „zu“ does not always but mostly also require a following verb, if the foregoing word is a noun. „Wille zur Macht“ or „Liebe zum Detail“ are examples of the absolutely accepted exceptions of a rule. So the preposition „zu“ in the term „Wille zur Macht“ is the right preposition, and therefore the term „Wille zur Macht“ is correctly translated by „will to power (might)“.

Ornello wrote:

„»Will to« can never be followed by a noun in English.“ **

Ornello, you have misunderstood me. I did not say that „will to“ is followed by a noun. I said it is followed by a verb. Please read my last post (**|**) again.

I wrote:

„The English ... (and b.t.w.: also the Low German) preposition »to« requires a following verb, if the foregoing word is a noun, and this is mostly also required by the High German preposition »zu«.

....

The German preposition »zu« does not always but mostly also require a following verb, if the foregoing word is a noun.“ ** **

The foregoing word of the preposition (in this cae: „to“ or „zu“) is of course meant by „if the foregoing word is a noun“.

Again: Will (noun and foregoing word of the preposition »to«) to (preposition) power (noun).

The English rule and the German rule are the same. The German rule allowed the said exception of that rule (**|**) much earlier than the English language - that is the only difference.

Ornello wrote:

„It's impossible. The 'to' is not a preposition here, but part of the infinitive (»to live«, »to fight«).“ **

I'm very sorry, Ornello, but you are wrong.

Ornello wrote:

„There is no such thing as »will to (noun)«.“ **

Normally it is „noun + to + verb“ as it is in German: „Wille + zu + Verb“ but in High German „Wille zu (Nomen)“ is acceptionally also possible. That is what I said.

Ornello wrote:

„But in German, Wille zu is followed by a noun, sometimes a nominalized verb (Wille zum Leben). Thus, Wille zur Macht is perfectly normal.“ **

As I said: It is an exception of a German rule that means the same as the English rule: „Nomen (noun) + zu (to) + Verb (verb)“. So the construction „Nomen + zu + Nomen“ is normal merely as an exception of that said rule.

Ornello wrote:

„The zur means »for«, just as it does in zum Beispiel. Thus, since »for« is the correct translation of zur (and »to« is incorrect), a noun such as »desire« or »wish« is called for.“ **

Behind the word „zur“ are two compund words: „zu“ + „der“.

Ornello, the German language made an exception of that said rule long ago, very long before Nietzsche wrote his books; and later the English language made this exception too.

So „Nomen + zu + Nomen“ is an accepted exception of the rule „Nomen + zu + Verb“.
Exactly the same in English: „noun + to + noun“ is an accepted exception of the rule „noun + to + verb“.

Ornello wrote:

„It doesn't matter whether German allows Wille zu + verb or noun. I have seen plenty of examples of both. My point is that in English, 'will to' + noun is impossible, because the 'to' is not a preposition but part of the infinitive.“ **

No, and you did not carefully read my posts, because if you had done it, then you would have known that the rules and the changes in the history of both languages are the same - the only difference is that the German language allowed the said exception of that rule much earlier than the English language.

Ornello wrote:

„There is no »will to cheese«, »will to ketchup«, »will to peanut butter«, etc., but »desire for« works for those nouns, and for any noun. But, observe that »desire for« cannot be followed by a verb: »desire for eat«, »desire for run«, »desire for fly« are improper formations.“ **

Yes, that is what I said as well, but I also said that both languages (German earlier, Englsih later) allowed an exception of that rule.

773) Arminius, 23.07.2015, 03:48, 04:10, 04:25, 04:54, 05:16, 16:37, 17:44, 18:14, 18:50, 19:33, 20:09 (3339-3349)

Ornello wrote:

„No, there is no »exception« to the rule in English. The earliest translation of Nietzsche's expression I could find was »will for power«, from the 1890s. Some time later, some translator used »to« instead of »for« ....“ **

You just admitted that an exception was axccepted. The native speakers of the English language accepted the „to“ in the term „will to power“, probably because there were more examples before the „will to power“. Centuries before this there was the same linguistical change in Germany.

Ornello wrote

„... probably because he didn't know the German zu means »for« since it sounds like »to« and is used with verbs like the English »to« is.“ **

The German „zu“ and the English „to“ have the same root. In Low German „to“ is still used instead of „zu“ which is High German, as I said several times (**|**). So „to“ is not only used in English but also in Low German.

Ornello wrote:

„But of course the academic morons have no sense and never even questioned it. Perhaps it was a native-speaking German translating into English (such mistakes are frequently made by non-natives).“ **

It is possible, but I guess that it did not happen in that way.

Ornello wrote:

„It is not 'incorrect', it is impossible.“ **

Again: The exception of that said rule was accepted and is accepted by the native speakers.

Language changes.

The verbs „machen“ (German) and „make“ (English) and the nouns „Macht“ (German) and „might“ (English) had lost their former much deeper relationship, so that the rule „Nomen + zu + Verb“ („Wille zu machen“) / „noun + to + verb“ („will to make“) was not possible anymore and became a rule exception: „Nomen + zu + Nomen“ („Wille zur Macht“) / „noun + to + noun“ („will to might“). Use other examples in order to ascertain this rule exception by negating the other examples.

I am speaking of both the German and the English rules in order to show why both (and not merely one of the both) languages changed.

The English langauge has changed, Ornello.

The German „zu“ does almost always mean „to“. Hence I wrote:

„The German »zu« and the English »to« have the same root. In Low German »to« is still used instead of »zu« which is High German, as i said several times. So »to« is not only used in English but also in Low German.“ ** **

That guy seems to be stupid.

Believe me, Ornello, „for“ does almost always mean „für“, and „zu“ does almost always mean „to“.

Do you speak any of the said two languages? If yes, then it can only be English. You do not know anything about the German language, thus you should be silent when it comes to translate words form German into English and from English into German.

There are so many examples for the rules I mentioned, so that a list of them would just be too long for this thread.

You have no idea. Your posted article is not correct, because it is suggesting that languages contain more exceptions than rules. A language with more exceptions than rules is no language. The posted examples are indeed correct, but do not disprove the correct statement that „for“ does almost always mean „für“, and „zu“ does almost always mean „to“.

So the translation of the German „Wille zur Macht“ into the English „will to power“ or „will to might“ is correct.

No. The said rules and exceptions (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**) are the same in both languages: German and English. You have no idea but something to learn; so you should be silent when it comes to the knowledge of language(s). So if you cannot learn a foreign language, then try to learn the English language, especially the history of the English language, and you will see that „will to power“ is the correct translation of „Wille zur Macht“. In addition, the English title of the book has been accepted since it was released. You are like Mutcer because he also has no will to learn. Try to learn some English, Ornello. It pays.

Good luck!

Ornello wrote:

„I am a native English speaker and a professional translator of Nietzsche. Don't tell me!“ **

Warum wissen Sie dann nichts über das Deutsche, zu wenig über das Englische und nichts über die Geschichte des Deutschen und des Englischen? Erzählen Sie mir nichts. Sie sind garantiert kein professioneller Übersetzer.

You are no professional translator. Otherwise you would know the rules and exceptions I was talking about (**|**|**|**|**|**|**|**) . The rules and exceptions are well known. I am a professional linguist (incl. philologist, translator). Don't tell me.

The rules and exceptions have to do with the language history of both German and English.

Please send me one of your „translations“, Ornello! I can guarantee you that you are no professional translator!

Sie haben keine Ahnung von Sprache, keine Ahnung von Grammatik, keine Ahnung von Sprachgeschichte. Dies haben Sie mit dem, was Sie über die Regeln und Ausnahmen in der Grammatik der beiden Sprachen Deutsch und Englisch gesagt haben, sehr deutlich gezeigt.

You did not read my posts carefully. As I said several times: it was the same rule that lead to a change in both languages - in German earlier, in English later. It was the same rule that was involved. Why are you not capable of understanding that? The grammatical rules are like physical rules. There is no language without grammatical rules. A language without grammatical rules is no language. A nature without physical (natural) rules is no nature. It does not matter whether you call them „rules“: they do their work.

P.S.: I am still waiting for your „translations“.

Your posts are incoherent, because you have no idea how language works and changes, you are confusing e.g. a preposition with an infinitive. That is absolutely ridiculous.

The source language is German, and the German philologist Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche meant two nouns and a preposition between them: „Wille zur Macht“ - not „Wille Macht zu haben“ („zu haben“ <=> „to have“) - both are possible in German (and b.t.w.: in English too), one with a following noun and one with a following verb; and Nietzsche decided to write „Wille zur Macht“, because he had the will to do that, and it was no problem, because it does not violate the German language.

The rules and the exceptions are the same in German and English. The term „will to power“ is accepted in English.

P.S.: I am still waiting for your „translations“, Ornello.

Ornello wrote:

„You'll not see them.“ **

As I said: You are no professional translator.

Ornello wrote:

„If you are a native speaker ....“ **

You have an excuse for everything, Ornello. This time it is the scapegoat ideology again. You are wrong.

Ornello wrote:

„I am not surprised that you want to distort the English to conform to the German. This is typical of Germans ....“ **

You have an excuse for everything, Ornello. This time it is the scapegoat ideology again. You are wrong.

Ornello wrote:

„This is typical of Germans, and part of the reason that one should never translate into a foreign language. One must always translate into one's native tongue. No exceptions! The native speaker is always right. ALWAYS!!!!“ **

That is nonsense, Ornello. Nobody said „that one should never translate into a foreign language“. It matters which native speaker Nietzsche was, and Nietzsche was German, thus a German native speaker, and wrote in German as his native language. So German is the source language. The translation has to start with the source language. ALWAYS!!!!

I can guarantee you that you are no professional translator.

Again: You do not read my posts carefully. I did not say that syntax had nothing to do with the structure of language. I said that syntax has nearly nothing to do with what we were talking about. You are confusing syntax with grammar. But grammar and syntax are not the same. Grammar is more than syntax, and syntax is more than morphology.

You have an excuse for everything, Ornello. You are wrong.

774) Arminius, 24.07.2015, 04:35, 05:17, 05:28, 15:23, 15:39, 15:43, 16:01, 16:10, 16:38, 17:54, 19:05, 19:42, 20:19, 20:37 (3350-3363)

Children develop and learn to be like adults. The older a child the more similar to an adult.

James S. Saint wrote:

„And being human does not prevent the possibility of a lion attacking and eating you or perhaps a gang of apes from attacking your family. So is that going to stop you from trying to be human? Would you rather be an ape or a lion?“ **

Would it make a great difference in the case of the certain extinction of all human beings?

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„What if time is actually flowing BACKWARDS???“ **

I offer the follwoing thread (**|**).

If children are capable of living authentically and adults are not capable of living authentically anymore, then the difference of both is because of development and learning, upbringing and education, thus because of natural and cultural processes which cause that adult humans are not capable of living authentically anymore.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Other than finding another planet to invade, SAM is the only hope homosapian has left. SAM knows how to use machines ... and how not to.“ **

I thought so: SAM is a matter of hope.

Opa wrote:

„That is correct. Do you know why?“ **

Yes.

Opa wrote:

„Then why did you start the topic with precisely this question?“ **

I started the topic with that question in order to find out what some ILP members think about the topic.

Opa wrote:

„I can understand that.“ **

I also can understand that.

Opa wrote:

„Do you want me to give you a Freudian perspective on that?“ **

Feel free to do it.

Lexica - especially for those who can't get rid of Google and Wikipedia.

Think about the following question: Is the „common-sense-is-dangerous“-statement more dangerous than the common sense?

Your „writer“ is wrong.

What do you think about the quantity of those who „haven't any“ (**) common sense?

What do you think about the quantity of those who „haven't any“ common sense?

We can say that an „authentic human life“ means a „life according to the human's nature“, whereas an „unauthentic life“ means a „life according to the human's culture/s“.
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
So if „humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s“ (**|**), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.

But many humans - especailly most of the current humans - do not want to hope. Those humans want everything now!

775) Arminius, 25.07.2015, 21:46, 23:23, 23:45, 23:59 (3364-3367)

States will probably also disappear.

Laughing Man wrote:

„States won't dissapear. They'll just evolve into the global super state instead citizen!

Global big brother has come to bring utopia, salvation, and heaven to everybody all across the planet.“ **

States as we know them will probably disappear, because they are too expensive and can be easily replaced by a machine network that works much more efficiently than a human state. This is already in works. Feel free to call this machine newtork „state“, but keep in mind that this machine newtork will be much more than a human state.

Not everybody accepted / accepts the „law of the jungle“ as „common sense“.

You mean as SAM?

776) Arminius, 26.07.2015, 00:41, 17:47 (3368-3370)

Laughing Man wrote:

„ * Grabs popcorn and a cigarette * “  **

An electro cigarette? * Giggles in the background *

Ben J. Schmoe wrote:

„Our bodies don't lie. They always respond authentically to their environment.“ **

Because they are part of the nature.

I wrote:

„We can say that an »authentic human life« means a »life according to the human's nature«, whereas an »unauthentic life« means a »life according to the human's culture/s«.
In other words: Humans need their culture/s to not live according to their nature and need their nature to not live according to their culture/s.
If humans are humans because of about 2% of their nature and because of about 98% of their culture/s (**|**), then they have merely a chance of about 2% to live authentically.“ ** **

___

Orbie wrote:

„We have created a difference, or differance, to set the stage for the showdown of the noumenal with the phenomenal world, and if I were a Kantian, I could say, we should stick to our guns and resist the phenomenal invasion into our cultural authenticity.“ **

You told me that you believed in the „world peace“/„perpetual peace“ (Kant), so at least in this way you are a Kantian. .... Do not forget ....

777) Arminius, 27.07.2015, 18:15 (3370-3379)

Political correctness has caused further disintegration - of course.

778) Arminius, 28.07.2015, 01:39, 04:37 (3371-3372)

The precise translation:
- „Es“ <=> „id“
- „Ich“ <=> „ego“
- „Über-Ich“ <=> „superego“.

....

Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.

Thanks.

I think „young“ fits a bit better than „small“ and „little“. So I wrote:

„Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.“ ** **

They learn for example some hygienic aspects or the eating habits of their culture.

779) Arminius, 29.07.2015, 01:31, 01:39. 01:46, 03:05, 03:40, 03:51, 04:45 14:56, 15:33, 17:25, 17:36, 19:55, 21:30, 22:01, 23:50 (3373-3387)

Topic: Is the Darwinistic selection principle false?

Thesis:

The Darwinistic selection principle is false, unless human beings were not included in that theory.

Darwin's selection principle means that successful living beings have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings and live on, whereas unsuccessful living beings have less offspring than the successful living beings and die out. But in the case of the human beings this selection principle can be reversed: successful human beings have less offspring than the unsuccessful human beings and die out, whereas unsuccessful living beings have more offspring than the successful living beings and live on. The human culture/s allow/s to circumvent the Darwinistic selection principle.

Ben J. Schmoe wrote:

„These puzzles are on Wikipedia with solutions explained.“ **

This thread should be called „Cheating Fun“.

Great and Wise Trixie wrote:

„Never heard about philosophy jobs. Philosophy is about being destitute and not fitting into society. Satyr is one of the best philosophers here, and he lives with his mom.“ **

Shouldn't a philosopher live alone?

Animals can also have the cold or the flu.

Most of the best philosophers of all times lived alone.

Should all people be philosophers?

Most of the people should not live alone (thus: should not be philosophers).

Sorry, Ben. You have misunderstood me. I was merely referring to the statement in your post („These puzzles are on Wikipedia with solutions explained.“ **) but not to you personally.

If people can get all the solutions and their explanations from other websites, then this thread is more about cheating than mathematics.

What you did was right, Ben. Don't worry.

„Spaces of Transformation: Spatialised Immunity.

Peter Sloterdijk’s philosophico-morphological theory is based on an understanding of the history of culture as spatialisations of forms. The world in which we live now requires us to design new types of ‘spatialised immunity’. More broadly, the concept of a spherical logic of space – a polymorphologic of form, order and thinking – is explicated in Spheres, his three-volume archaeology of the human attempt to dwell within spaces, from womb to globe. The Spheres project (Bubbles, Globe, Foam) is a significant topological turn in the field of contemporary philosophy, »a super-workout for communicative energies capable of finding contact throughout the entire world.«“ **

3380

Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution itself is an equivocation. It even contains a contradiction, because the humans do do not completely fit it. On the one side humans fit Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution when it comes to human nature, but on the other side humans do not fit Darwin's selection principle of his theory of evolution when it comes to human culture/s respectively to the modern era/s of human culture/s.

What do you not understand?

Your ideological (modern religious) „statement“ (**) is meaningless, because your false god Darwin was partly wrong, regardless whether it is hard for an Darwinistic theist like you to believe it (by the way: Darwin was a theist too - a pantheist).

When it became obvious that the „natural selection“ was partly false, the „sexual selection“ was invented. When it became obvious that the „sexual selection“ was also partly false, the „kin selection“ was invented. When it became obvious that the „kin selection“ was also partly false, the „social selection“ was invented. And so on, and so on .... The „natural selection“ is - more or less - contradicted by the other „selections“, especially and completely by the „social selection“. The Darwinistic selection principle is merely a farce.

The theologist Darwin was a Malthusian, and Malthus was an economist.

In nature (in nature!) fitness or success is measured by reproduction. Living beings that have the most offspring are the „fittest“, thus are most successfull (because you can merely be most successful, if you are the „fittest“). Success is the consequence of fitness. The success follows the fitness. So when it comes to nature it is absolutely correct to say that successful living beings live on, because they have more offspring than the unsuccessful living beings, whereas successful living beings die out, because they have no offspring or less offspring than the unsuccessful living beings. But when it comes to humans, especially to modern humans culture/s, it is not correct to say that, because modern humans are fit, thus successful, when they have no offspring or less offspring than those humans who are not fit, thus unseccessful.

The said „social selection“ contains the possibility of selecting against the Darwinistic selection principle. And this happened and happens. Thus it was and is a fact.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The Darwin principle of evolution has only been a part of what has been altering the nature of life, animal and human. The principle of filtering the strong in and the weak out is entirely situationally dependent. Given the exact same competitive creatures in a different environmental situation, the opposite set could succeed instead.“ **

This definitely means that the selection principle of Darwin, the Darwinans, and the Darwinianists is false.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Strength and weakness are not simple concepts when it comes to actual life.“ **

The „Political Correctness“ wants us to speak of „fitness“.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Darwin actually defined strength and success in terms of which ever mutation survived. So actually by definition, the strong always survive more, else they weren't really the strong. But when it comes to human interaction (societies) and reproduction, »strong« has to be thought of in different terms than merely direct conflict. In a Darwin minded society, those who seek to reproduce the most are „stronger“ than those who perhaps seek to kill their competition. They are not thought of as being strong because people still think in terms of natural animal competition when they envision strength. And as stated by Platospuppy, „successful“ during this era is mostly an issue of monetary gain or public recognition, not proliferation.“ **

This also means that the selection principle of Darwin, the Darwinans, and the Darwinianist is false.

James S. Saint wrote:

„So it all gets very complicated and from one era to another can almost completely change. But there is one aspect that can never change. And that is which ever behaves in a manner that is more anentropic, survives longer. But then ensuring which behavior that really is can be complicated.

So I cannot say that the principle is entirely true nor entirely false. It is partially true and partially false. It is not a »holy«, stand-alone principle and is often reversed. And the intentional effort to go along with it, completely defeats it.“ **

Partially true and partially false scientifically means false, because it has to be regarded as false, if merely one part of a theory is false. It is the theorist who has to provide a correct theory.

Opa wrote:

„Well, I hope this benefits someone.“ **

No. All what you said was no news to me.

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

- ›Es‹ <=> ›id‹
- ›Ich‹ <=> ›ego‹
- ›Über-Ich‹ <=> ›superego‹.« ** **

I was only using the English for all you here.“ **

The English translation of Freud's „Es“ is „id“. Why do you not know this? A German native speaker must explain the English translation of Freud's „Es“ to an Englsih native speaker who claims to know some of Freud's books. That's odd.

Opa wrote:

„I read Freud in German.“ **

Where do you come from? What is your first language? And what are your other languages, if you have any?

Opa wrote:

„I read others in English, but I do think to remember they used »it«.“ **

That's odd. However, I am glad to see that my information has benefited you.

Opa wrote:

„However, the Wikipedia shows »ID«, as you say. Maybe my memory is faulty, but then again, the Wikipedia is not always right. Anyway, use a translator from German to English and find out that the German word »Es« is translated with »it«.“ **

I know almost all books of Freud, and my translations are correct. You can believe me. Freud's „Es“ is translated by „id“.

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.« ** **

Children learn things bit by bit. It took my son a while to figure out that eating seashells is not a good idea. He is still working on not balancing on the window sill to try to reach the door handle. He has only fallen once or twice. It worries me, so I stop him. Because I stop him, he has not learned yet.“ **

You should not stop him to often, because children need freedom in the sense of as much free space as possible, and mothers usually constrain / box their children too much because mothers are usualy too much frightened when it comes to rear, nurture, educate their children.

Opa wrote:

„Anyway, do you agree with the general ideas in what I wrote? Is it helpfull to you?“ **

As I said: All what you said was no news to me.

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I wrote:

›Very young children already learn what their culture allows and forbids.‹ ** **

They learn for example some hygienic aspects or the eating habits of their culture.« ** **

I want to point out that the Super-Ego is what contains the cultural lessons and is often spoken of simply as culture. I don't think you know that; judging from your replies.“ **

Then you are judging falsely. I am not a Freudian(ist). I am no ...(ist) at all. Freud meant his „Über-Ich“ („superego“) as the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of the (A) culture, and for a child this means the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of: (A,a) mother, father, siblings - thus family -; (A,b) kindergarteners, teachers, peer groups and other groups - thus society.

James S. Saint wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»Partially true and partially false scientifically means false, because it has to be regarded as false, if merely one part of a theory is false. It is the theorist who has to provide a correct theory.« ** **

Certainly as a logical statement or solitary theory. My point was that Darwinism isn't a solitary principle when it comes to evolution. There are other principles involved. So as far as being the god of evolution, Darwinism is certainly a false god (aka "incomplete controlling theory").

And since I first heard of the phrase »survival of the fittest«, I immediately noted that it is actually the »survival of the fitted« (those who fit into their environment at the time).

Darwin was really asking, "Why do we see this variety of creature at this time?" His answer was "because these are the one that survived." That much of it is unquestionably true.“ **

Yes. What is really very much questionable and partially not true is the selection principle - not more. Darwin‘s theory of evolution is based on three principles: (1) variation, (2) heredity, (3) selection.

James S. Saint wrote:

„But then the idea got extended and extrapolated (as people seem to not be able to avoid) to suggest that absolutely nothing else was responsible for life being the way it is found. That was over-reaching the principle and certainly false.

What had some truth to it, became preached as a god.“ **

Those who claim to be „atheists“ are antitheists, or theists, or both (that's possible), and in this case Darwin is their false god. There are many of those false gods - as you know; but the main problem are not the false gods themselves but those stupid ideologists (modern-religious zealots) who believe in them.

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»No. All what you said was no news to me.« ** **

Warum hattest du denn dies Subjekt angefangen?“ **

Fast alle Titel meiner Threads sind Fragen. Ich möchte wissen, was andere ILP-Mitglieder wissen und glauben oder meinen zu wissen.

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The English translation of Freud's ›Es‹ is ›id‹. Why do you not know this. A German native speaker must tell an Englsih native speaker who claims to know some Freud's books how to translate Freud's ›Es‹. That's odd.« ** **

Im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch ist »es« doch »it«.“ **

Ja, im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Aber nicht in der Fachsprache Freuds.

Opa wrote:

„Und, ich sage dass ich es auch oft in Psychoanalyse so gelesen habe. Wie gesagt: es ist möglich dass ich es nicht ganz richtig mehr erinnere. Es ist schon einige Jahre her.“ **

Bei mir ist es noch länger her.

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»I know almost all books of Freud ....« ** **

Kennst du seine Werke?“ **

Ja.

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You should not stop him to often, because children need freedom in the sense of as much free space as possible, and mothers usually constrain / box their children too much because mothers are usualy too much frightened when it comes to rear, nurture, educate their children.« ** **

Ja. Natürlich, aber als er da fällt, ist es möglich dass er seinen Hals bricht. Solle ich nicht passieren lassen natürlich!“ **

Das ist auch richtig.

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»As I said: All what you said was no news to me.« ** **

Das war mir nicht deutlich wie viel du weisst davon.“ ***

Ja, wahrscheinlich, denn ich bin nicht mehr sehr an Freud interessiert.

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Then you are judging falsely. I am not a Freudian(ist). I am no ...(ist) at all. Freud meant his ›Über-Ich‹ (›superego‹) as the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of the (A) culture, and for a child this means the rules, principles, taboos, etc. of: (A,a) mother, father, siblings - thus family -; (A,b) kindergarteners, teachers, peer groups and other groups - thus society.« ** **

Aber immer noch mit kleinen Schritten.“ **

Ganz genau, ja.

Opa wrote:

„Mein Deutsch ist vielleicht nicht sehr gut.“ **

Es ist gut.

Opa wrote:

„Ich brauche es nicht oft. Es ist auch nicht meine erste Sprache. Englisch is auch nicht meine erste Sprache. So spriche ich noch enige Sprache. Jedemfalls: entschuldige vor den Fehler.“ **

Eine Entschuldigung ist nicht nötig. Danke für die Antwort. Ich habe mich sehr gefreut.

Opa wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Fast alle Titel meiner Threads sind Fragen. Ich möchte wissen, was andere ILP-Mitglieder wissen und glauben oder meinen zu wissen.« ** **

Vielleicht ist es nu Zeit deine Gedanke zu erzählen?“ **

Vielleicht. Manche Gedanken habe ich ja schon erzählt. Die anderen Gedanken werden folgen.

Opa wrote:

Arminius wrote:

»Ja, im allgemeinen Sprachgebrauch. Aber nicht in der Fachsprache Freuds.« ** **

Vielleicht ist es auch abhängig von wen wir lesen?“ **

Deshalb schrieb ich »Fachsprache Freuds«. Der Unterschied zwischen »Es« und »es« ist im Deutschen gegeben, aber im Englischen nicht mehr: »it« und »it«. Um den Unterschied auch im Englischen deutlich machen zu können, hat man einen Unterschied erfunden: »id« und »it«.

Opa wrote:

„Oder ist man nicht so strict mehr?“ **

Wohl nicht mehr so sehr wie früher - „dank“ Internet u.ä..

Opa wrote:

„Vielleicht sollen wir einander noch mal treffen , weil seine Werke doch immer noch inspirieren können.“ **

Vielleicht, ja.

780) Herr Schütze, 30.07.2015, 20:28 (3388)

Ist es da ein Wunder, daß es den islamischen Terror oder z.B. den IS gibt?
Es läßt sich sehr viel Geld machen mit diesen ganzen Widersprüchen und am meisten mit den Kriegen.

==>