841) Arminius, 09.01.2016, 00:01, 00:01, 00:01, 00:01, 00:02, 00:04, 00:04, 00:06, 00:07, 00:31, 00:33, 00:56, 12:50, 13:21, 14:24, 14:57, 17:38, 18:53, 19:15, 20:46, 22:33, 22:55 (3922-3943)

James S. Saint wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»You think that »capitalism« and »socialism« are opposites or do not fit together, but that is a fatal fallacy.« ** **

What is the difference between Crony Capitalism and Socialism?

The name.“ **

Yup.

The Rich Dude 3 wrote:

„Is Evolution True?

I wrote this cause I want to try to convince some people that evolution is false, cause it is. I think it is false cause if people evolved from monkeys and apes and stuff then how can we all have such unique abilities and characteristics? there are many answers you might come up with but the only right answer is that we got these characteristics and abilities from the ultimate creator, God. I am saying this not cause I think I'm smart and all that (even though I am), but I am saying this causeI know and believe in the Lord and that He created us. If you THINK otherwise please tell me soI can try to get you to know that you are wrong! thank you for your time and goodbye!“ **

Evolution is true, but the Darwinistic selection principle is false!

Back to the topic (**) by looking at the following picture:

What do you think?

According to RM:AO „existence is that which has affect“. If we want to know what came first and look at the natural forces for a while (only for a while!), then we have to say that the main force affectance refers to electromagnetism, thus not gravity.

The Darwinists may repeat their errors about the „selection principle“ and the definition of „fitness“ as often as they want to: they do not get more true by repeating them. „Survival determines who is fittest“ is no definition that explains what „the fittest“ means, what „fitness“ means. „Survival as in perpetuation“ is merely a formula of a prayer and has nothing to do with the question what „fitness“ means in reality, because in order to know which living being is „the fittest“, thus „determined by the survival as in perpetuation“ (?), you have to wait until the „end of the perpetuation“ which is impossible, an oxymoron.

It is impossible to save the Darwinistic selection principle, because the fabricated exceptions of the rule, the „natural selection“, contradict that rule. At last the Darwinists have merely contradictional exceptions of the rule they contradict. And please: What is nature according to the Darwinists? It is another word for God. So the Darwinists are pantheists.

No wonder, because it was the time of naturalism when Darwin published his theory. Naturalism is based on a teleological definition of „nature“. To naturalists like Darwin and his Darwinists (especially: Spencer and Haeckel) nature is God and God is nature. So when the Darwinists say that the „nature selects“ they mean „God selects“. The Darwinists are pantheists.

I am sorry, but this likeable theory is false.

Zoot Allures wrote:

„Me and some guys from school had a band and we tried real hard.“ **

No. Not in the summer of 1969. Be honest! I guess that you were born in 1976 when Frank Zappa published his „Zoot Allures“.

Increasingly states, companies and private households reach the point, from which on the credit no longer opens but blocks the future: Growing debt services saps ever larger parts of current income - until the line is exceeded, beyond which older debts only be postponed by a cascade of new debts in a permanently paralyzed tomorrow. This situation deserves to be called „post-historical“: It completely fulfills Arnold Gehlen's classic definition of the posthistoire as a state of high „mobility above the stationary bases“ - while one would like to replace the word „stationary“ by the word „untenable“. **

Deleuze and Guattari took that up from Friedrich Nietszche's books, for example Morgenröte (1881), Zur Genealogie der Moral (1887), but they probably took that also up from Max Stirner's book Der Einzelne und sein Eigentum (1844), because (to me) Deleuze's and Guattari's anti-genealogical philosophy is more like Stirner's than Nietzsche's philosophy. By the way: Max Stirner (actually: Johann Kaspar Schmidt) published his book Der Einzelne und sein Eigentum when Nietzsche was born (1844).

„Where Fichte had lectured: »Act like nobody!«, Stirner replicated: »Do what you can do alone on the world: Enjoy yourself!«“ - My translation of: Peter Sloterdijk, Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, 2014, S. 461. **

Leyla wrote:

„Phyllo, did you never hear about »collaboration«?
Your statements are based on a black-and-white thinking. First you said »the Nazis«, then »the Germans«, but you never say »the Europeans«. There have been many SS-formations in all European countries (except the UK, Ireland and Iceland). So if you identify the Nazis with the Germans, you have to identify them with the Europeans as well. And when the so-called »resistance« became stronger, the end of the war was almost reached. There was resistance in Germany as well and even much earlier than in other countries.“ **

For example: Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts (also in UK and Ireland).

Two early recruits to the British Free Corps (BFC): SS-Mann Kenneth Berry and SS-Sturmmann Alfred Minchin, with German officers, April 1944.		A French volunteer of the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French) - took an active part in the Battle of Moscow (1941) and the Battle of Berlin (1945).

Leyla wrote:

„The politically correct Wikipedia is not an objective source.“ **

Yes. So Wikipedia should be used very carefully.

Artimas wrote:

„I believe Russia was already at Japans door step and ending the war with them ....“ **

Russia was not in war with Japan untill the war was not over in Europe, because both had a treaty to not attack each other. So the Soviets had only one front, namely the western front. But then the fact that the war was over in Europe became the welcomed chance for the Soviets to attack Japan and to occupy Japanese islands. And so the Soviets did. Please do not forget: The Soviets were aggressive imperialists, and they would never had survived a two-front war. So they had to wait with their attack against Japan until the war in Europe was over.

Artimas wrote:

„There is no master race but instead each side having aspects of which they are superior in. Einstein finished the nuclear bomb but Nordic/germanic people started it. That war was one of the biggest leaps In tech (war tech mostly) in human history, and most of it was due to germanic people. USA and other sides would take German tech when possible and figure out how it worked themselves so that they could build it for their armies as well.“ **

Yes. There are many examples. Some of those German weapons were not used during the war, and many current experts say that if the Germans had used them they would have won the war.

Arminius wrote:

„James S. Saint wrote:

»Arminius wrote:

›Wernher von Braun was a Nazi - have you forgotten that? -, and after the World War II he was blackmailed: 'either you help the USA or you will be put in prison'! His crew were also blackmailed. They all preferred to help the USA because they did not want to be jailed.

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

Do you have any references for that? (not that I seriously doubt it)?« **

Yes, I have. And there are also documentary films and the fact that all these Germans came to the US in May 1945 and lived there in a city which was founded just for that reason. Google for example this: Operation Paperclip or Operation Overcast.

104 German rocket scientists (aerospace engineers): Wernher von Braun and his team at Fort Bliss in Texas, USA, 1945.

Operation Paperclip was the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) program in which more than 1,500 German scientists, technicians, and engineers were brought from Germany to the United States for employment after the World War II. It was conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA). In other words: It was a criminal act, one criminal act of the other crimninal acts of the greatest raid of all time.

B.t.w.: Nearly similar the number of the German scientists, technicians, and engineers who were brought in the Soviet Union (USSR) after the World War II.“ ** **

The later rockets of the US - also of the SU (Soviet Union, Russia), the EU and China - that brought US people to the Moon are the German rockets V1 and V2, built by Wernher von Braun and his team during the Second World War at the rocket research institute in Peenemünde.

Did the US or the EU or the communist Merkel (CDU = Communistic Dictatorship Union) herself already bring the war to Europe by letting the islam-fascistic conquerers in? ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **

The European fight modern military wars all around the world, but they do it not on their own but in function of the USA as the leader of the NATO. And the Europeans have been forgetting to defend Europe for so long (too long?).

Fortress Europe, before it is too late.

Smiling machines? Okay, here they are:

Maia wrote:

„Do you believe in the Jewish god?“ **

Do you?

Maia wrote:

„Phyllo wrote:

»Maia wrote:

›I'll ask again. Do you believe in the Jewish god?‹ **

The Jews don't own God. There is no Jewish God.« **

Yes, there is. They invented the »one true god« idea. If you are a monotheist, you are worshipping the Jewish god.“ **

The first monotheistic God was invented by the Egyptians, the next by others, at least not by Hebrews that you falsely call „Jews“. The Hebrews copied „their“ God from the Egyptians and many aspects of „their“ religion from the Babylonians.

Maia wrote:

„The Khazar theory has been proven wrong by genetics.“ **

It has not been proven wrong.

I know that if you talk about noise you mean that noise we already talked about. But what noise is it in a more philosophical sense? Is it the same noise in the universe that Pythagoras already mentioned?

Zoot Allures wrote:

„I thought Zoot Allures was released in 1975. If I'm wrong and you're right, you are the first person to ever know something about Frank Zappa that I don't.“ **

Zoot Allures wrote:

„My God.

You're right. 1976.“ **

Thank you.

D 63 wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The idea behind the rhizome was, as I already said, to have a symbol for the anti-genealogy. No ancestors, no origin, no parents, no past, no descendants, no children, no future, no hierarchy - but a mesh (network) of consumers (also drug consumers, of course, because Deleuze and Guattari themselves were professing drug consumers). Deleuze and Guattari had the obsession that the original sin was ancestry, descent, origin, just genealogy. So they said consequently that their rhizome was an anti-genealogy.« ** **

Reading this, Arminius, especially the last part:

»So they said consequently that their rhizome was an anti-genealogy.« ** **

I now realize that the genealogical was the arborescent approach that D & G opposed to the rhizomatic.“ **

Yes. The invisible underground mesh (network) against the visibly sprouting, striving upward tree. The roots of trees are not networked like rootstocks (rhizomes) of mushrooms, and mushrooms do not have such a long stems like trees have, and do not have branches, twigs, leaves like trees have.

Arbiter of Change wrote:

„The comment section of a liberal video:

....“ **

That is a typical internet-„talk“ and especially a typical „talk“ of liberals / socialists - both are racists.

Racist A with 8 posts.
Racist B with 5 posts.

Topic: What do you think about peace and pacifism?

Is peace (right) more worth / more worthwhile than war (left)?

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„DNA machine changes everything. With it, there's no need for revolts, no need for wars, since there are no more bad politicians since people are more rational.“ **

Okay. But besides that: What do you think about peace and pacifism? How do you value peace and pacifism? I infer from your answer that you are a friend of peace or even a pacifist, because you want to avoid war. Is that right?

842) Arminius, 11.01.2016, 16:02, 16:13, 16:16, 16:21, 16:36, 16:48, 17:02, 17:20, 17:33, 17:42, 17:53, 17:57, 18:54, 19:19, 19:34, 19:50, 20:08, 21:00, 21:45, 23:47 (3944-3963)

Erik (Primal Range) wrote:

„Gangs allow men the chance to exercise their power, not just any power, but something reminiscent of the primordial past.“ **

That is absolutely right and shows - unfortunately - that the development is neither progress nor regress, because it is both. And it is just the civilization that shows the way back to nature, because civilization itself is often more barbaric than the barbarity itself. Therefore we have to distinguish between a wild barbarity and a civilized barbarianism. The civilzation has to be more barbaric because it has to find the way back to nature as its next goal.

If anyone who has a problem with fastfood „has bad genes or is a lazy ass“ (**), then most of them must have a lazy ass, because there has been a real fat US „nation building“ since the first US fastfood was bought.

Orbie (as Jerkey) wrote:

„How can you harmonize war and peace? Tolstoi tried to put an optimistic spin on Schopenhauerian pessimism, that is why he admired william James by far, however, look at the current Russian/American relations, and the gyrations it went through in the course of the last century, and it makes one wonder, whether such optimism was justified.“ **

If you identify Buddhism with pessimism, then you are right. But I do not think that both are identical. Schopenhauer was the first European Buddhist, an Eurobuddhist, so to say, a syncretistic Buddhist.

For Uccisore:

R.I.P., D.B. ....

- David Bowie, The Jean Genie, 1973. -
- David Bowie, Sound and Vision, 1977. -

Copied part of a post in another thread.

But Buddhism is not only a religion but also a Weltanschauung, a philosophy, an ethical system. And ethically it has much in common with Christianity as in stark contrast to Judaism and Islam.

- David Bowie, Helden, 1977. -
- David Bowie, V-2-Schneider, 1977. -

Jerkey wrote:

„The priest who married my wife ....“ **

Wait .... A priest married your wife?

Jerkey wrote:

„I meant, hm ... my wife and I.“ **

I thought so but was not quite sure.

James S. Saint wrote:

„The priest marrying his wife would be interesting, but I want to see the selfies of the priest marring HIM. “ **

Do you agree, Jerkey?

One more time:

Jerkey wrote:

„The priest who married my wife and I told us that he founded an interfaith group in Tokyo, merging Catholicism and Buddhism. Such endeavors are not your run of the mill efforts ....“ **

Was that priest more Christian (Catholic) or more Buddhistic?

Allen Watts and Thomas Merton were not Catholics.

Thomas Merton (1915-1968) was baptized Protestant. As adult he began (in the 1930's) to be interested in Catholicism.

Again: Thomas Merton (1915-1968) was baptized Protestant. As adult he began (in the 1930's) to be interested in Catholicism.

I do not want you to change your interpretation. But interpreatations are no facts. And it is a fact that Thomas Merton (1915-1968) was baptized Protestant and that he began (in the 1930's) to be interested in Catholicism as an adult. Why should I not tell the facts or at least the facts at first? My interpretation may follow, for example after Jerkey's response.

What is that (**)? A pictorial self-description?

James S. Saint wrote:

„They know full well how to rewrite history and blame shift anything onto who or whatever.“ **

Yes. Oh, yes.

James S. Saint wrote:

„Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

»What goes away?« **

All of the old, non-updated religions. Although most update so as to become indistinguishable from each other (»One World Religion«).“ **

This „One World Religion“ can also be called a „synctretistic religion“ (**|**).

Copied post in another thread.

Do you (**) really mean „mathematically impossible“ (and why?) or „logically impossible“ or both?

843) Arminius, 14.01.2016, 00:04, 00:07, 00:08, 00:13, 00:20, 00:24, 00:25, 00:28, 00:37, 00:40, 01:19, 01:28, 01:37, 12:34, 13:08, 13:30, 14:51, 15:04, 15:04, 15:04, 15:31, 15:58, 16:16, 16:31, 16:56, 17:13, 17:27, 17:46, 18:53, 19:08, 19:37, 19:50, 20:11, 20:29, 22:38 (3964-3998)

Maia wrote:

„In terms of military, the EU is Britain and France. We are bearing the finincial burden for the whole continent.“ **

What an utter nonsense! In which world do you live, child?

Some facts of the European Union statistics in 2016:

1) German net contribution: 9,976,038,941 Euro.
2) French net contribution: 3,806,907,859Euro.
3) Italian net contribution: 3,437,179,157 Euro.
4) Dutch net contribution: 3,362,533,781 Euro.
5) Swedish net contribution: 1,259,462,800 Euro.
6) Danish net contribution: 628,960,212 Euro.
7) Austrian net contribution: 478,332,030 Euro.
8) Finnish net contribution: 264,432,284 Euro.
9) British net contribution: 245,700,046 Euro * (* because of the rebate of ca. 5,200,200 Euro).

All other 18 members of the EU an the EU itself (of course!) are net receivers. The biggest ne receivers are Greece and Poland. That is no coincidence.

Source: **

In addition: Germany also pays the depts of all bankrupt EU countries.

Germany has always been the biggest net payer of the EU. Therefore the EU was founded.

The EU and the Euro mean the exploitation of Germany.

Otherwise this EU-monster could and would never have been founded.

Here the example of the year 2008:

Edward Harrison (from Credit Writedowns) wrote:

„This chart is in German, but most of the terms should be clear. The top half of the chart are the net payers of existing fiscal transfers within the EU, Germany being the largest, followed by Italy, France, and the Netherlands. The biggest net beneficiaries are on the bottom half, with Greece in first place, followed by Poland, and Spain.“ **

Source: European Commission. **

About Edward Harrison:

Edward Harrison is the founder of Credit Writedowns and a former career diplomat, investment banker and technology executive with over twenty years of business experience. He is also a regular economic and financial commentator on BBC World News, CNBC Television, Business News Network, CBC, Fox Television and RT Television. He speaks six languages and reads another five, skills he uses to provide a more global perspective. Edward holds an MBA in Finance from Columbia University and a BA in Economics from Dartmouth College. Edward also writes a premium financial newsletter. Sign up here for a free trial.

The population density in the EU-27:

Source: **

Leyla wrote:

„To the »Turd«:

Did you even read the article you linked to?

»Many had no valid documents, whilst others did not want to apply for asylum in Germany but in other countries, notably in Scandinavia, police said.«

Most of those sent back to Austria are not Syrians, who usually get asylum.

The whole article is not that negative, but you made a sort of hate-speech out of it.

The immigration to Germany has not stopped, 7 millions are expected, and it is not planned to stop it (the globalist did not give such an order). Can you imagine that? That is masochistic politics like a genocide, an autogenocide. During the last four months more than 1,1 Million people immigrated to Germany, and many of them not for political, but for economical reasons. Along with people who really need asylum came lots of criminals, drug-dealers, people who are not interested in anything else but money.

Merkel has made mistakes, at least from the point of view of the people, especially of the German people; but she did not make mistakes from the point of view of the globalists. And the German people are not guilty for the false politics of their governments. The English, Swedish, and Dutch people are also not guilty for the false politics of their governments. The majority of the Germans did not want to be in the NATO, did not want the EU, did not want the Euro (the Euro means the exploitation of Germany. One example: Germans have to work now until the age of 67, to pay for the Greeks, so that they can retire with 45).

The immigration to Germany has not stopped. Come to the German borders and look what happens there.

Turd Ferguson wrote:

„You deserve it for being a nation of selfish shitheads.“ **

You're just a warmonger and a racist and either you have no idea what's really going on or you get paid for writing such a crap. It looks as if you need a scapegoat. You are using the Germans like Hitler used the Jews.

You are completely right, Leyla.

Turd Furgoson wrote:

„Europe is racist, not me.“ **

Be honest, at least for one second, Turd. We all know that you are the godwannabe of all racists and of all trolls. You want to be the god of all trolls and all racists.

You - not others - should be put into the middle of the African jungle.

Uccisore wrote:

„Doing that »pretending not to know what perfectly ordinary sentences mean« thing again, Arminius?“ **

Doing that „pretending to know that Arminius is pretending not to know what perfectly ordinary sentences mean“ thing again, Uccisore?

The English word „marry“ can be translated with many German words and in three different grammatical forms (non-reflexive/active, reflexive/passive, reflexive/active forms). The following table shows the different active forms:

When you say that a priest married your wife and you (**), then „marry“ means in German „trauen“, also „vermählen“, „ehelichen“, „verehelichen“, „verheiraten“ - but never„heiraten“; when you say that a priest married your wife (**), then „marry“ means in German „heiraten“, also „vermählen“, „ehelichen“, „verehelichen“, „verheiraten“ - but never „trauen“. So there is a difference between the active act of a priest or/and a registrar on the one hand („trauen“ etc. but not „heiraten“) and the act of the two who became a couple on the other hand („heiraten“ etc. but not „trauen“).

This was what I thought when I read your sentence: The priest who married my wife and I told us that he founded an interfaith group in Tokyo, merging Catholicism and Buddhism.“ **

And after it I was joking a bit. So please excuse me a bit.

Primal Rage wrote:

„Turd is a ... classic internet troll. He is characterized by the fool archetype. ....“ **

Turd Ferguson is one of the most lying and trolling racist members of ILP. Why is he not permabanned? Others are permabanned because of nothing, but this terrible troll Turd Ferguson can do whatver and whenever he wants, and the ILP moderators do nothing than being kind to him.

James S. Saint wrote:

„That highest fertility rate country is Niger (approximately 7 children every per woman). The USA has been very actively importing vast numbers of their people into the USA, giving them homes and jobs (can't image why).“

When was it?

Copied post in another thread.

I mean: When did the USA start to import vast numbers of people from Niger?

And by the way: How many have they imported till now?

Copied post in another thread.

I mean: When did the USA start to import vast numbers of people from Niger?

And by the way: How many have they imported till now?

Copied post in another thread.

Up to now nobody has solved my last riddle („Perfect Logicians“ [**|**]).

Six people in two groups.

There are six people A, B, C, D, E, F which are in each case either in group 1 or group 2. The following statements are given:

1. Both A and B are in 1.

2. F is in 2, and if E is in 2, then C is also in 2.

3. D is in 1, and if F is in 2, then A is also in 2.

4. A and E are both in 2.

5. D is in 2, and E is in 1, and if C is in 2, then B is in 1.

6. D and B are both in 2.

7. The statements 1-6 are wrong.

Who is in which group?

Both war and peace are the result of thinking.

When did the USA start to import vast numbers of people from Niger?

And by the way: How many have they imported till now?

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius, she's blind. I mean that literally and not as joke.“ **

Oh, I did not know that. Sorry. Thanks for the information, Moreno.

Moreno wrote:

That said she could have responded to the non-graphic information you provided that directly contradicted her quite simply incorrect remarks. All she had to do was admit her error and move on.“ **

So no graphics anymore to Maia. Okay. Sorry, Maia.

The Spanish speakers are more than the French speakers, and French is merely a second language, whereas Spanish is a first language.

Maia. The financial and the military system are not really seperated from each other, because all that has to be paid. You made an error and should admit it:

Moreno wrote:

„All she had to do was admit her error and move on.“ **

Look here (**) for the answer.

Look here (**) for the answer.

Look here (**|**) for the answer.

The military household belongs to the national household. If there was no EU, then most of the nations would not have enough money for their military. Germany pays the most by far (namely about 40 times more than the UK for example - compare the statistical data), as I said quite several times, and the military is also paid by it, because otherwise there would be no money for the military.

So again:

Arminius wrote:

Some facts of the European Union statistics in 2016:

1) German net contribution: 9,976,038,941 Euro.
2) French net contribution: 3,806,907,859Euro.
3) Italian net contribution: 3,437,179,157 Euro.
4) Dutch net contribution: 3,362,533,781 Euro.
5) Swedish net contribution: 1,259,462,800 Euro.
6) Danish net contribution: 628,960,212 Euro.
7) Austrian net contribution: 478,332,030 Euro.
8) Finnish net contribution: 264,432,284 Euro.
9) British net contribution: 245,700,046 Euro * (* because of the rebate of ca. 5,200,200 Euro).

All other 18 members of the EU an the EU itself (of course!) are net receivers. The biggest net receivers are Greece and Poland. That is no coincidence.

Source: **

In addition: Germany also pays the depts of all bankrupt EU countries.

Germany has always been the biggest net payer of the EU. Therefore the EU was founded.

The EU and the Euro mean the exploitation of Germany.

Otherwise this EU-monster could and would never have been founded.“ ** **

Sorry, but you are telling utter nonsense again. The military household is no household of the moon. It is not possible to separate the military household from the rest of the household.

You can do me the favor and say to your government that it should leave the EU, and you will see that the UK would be there where it was before it joined the EU - with a desolate household. They all depend on German money. That is how the EU works. So each EU „nation“, if one can call it still so, can be blackmailed. That is how the EU works -regardless whether you and I like it or not? I do not like it.

It is also not possible to separate the social household from the rest of the household. No part of the household can be separated from the whole houshold. Like it or not.

It is just logic and mathmatics. Your wizardry does not exist.

Maia, you have to to put all that numbers of the several contributions together. Do some mathematics, please. In addition: There is no big difference between the military contributions of the UK and Germany. But looking at the statistics and data does merely make sense then, if you combine them together, because the money they spend does have to come from somewhere, Germany's contribution is 40 times higher than the contribution of the UK.

It makes no sense to talk with you, if you do not accept the simplest mathematics and logic.

Have a nice day.

The UK may sometimes have spent more money on its military than Germany on its but not always.

The UK spent much on ist military during the 1930’s too, but it did not have the capacity of spending more than Germany.

Maia wrote:

„Per capita, according to the page I linked, or per GDP, the UK spends about twice as much as Germany. But yes, you're right, having an army can have fringe benefits. But without it, for defence the EU would be reliant on France alone.“ **

That is not true. In addition: The UK and France did not want Germany to spend much on its military. Then - the more the world had become globalistic - the UK and France noticed that they - bit by bit - had to spend more on their military than Germany on its. And what was their conclusion? „Germany must spend more money on its military!“ That is odd. What has Germany been doing since then? Germany spend more money on its military again. So what you are critizising is nothing more than „peanuts“, a bagatelle. You have to value it in the longer term.

Maia wrote:

„The UK had drastically reduced its spending. Chamberlain's »peace in our time« deal was a ruse to buy time so we could re-arm.“ **

I did not mean Chamberlain but Churchill, the warmonger.

Maia wrote:

„It bought us about 18 months, in which we frantically built up the RAF to defeat Hitler's invasion.“ **

You? Okay, you needed alomost all nations of the world, especially the nations USA and the USSR, to defeat Hitler's invasion, because Hitler stopped the invasion of the Uk in order to invade the USSR and the USA. The whole world against Germany!

Maia wrote:

„Germany can give the money it would otherwise spend on its military to help fund other countries' economies? So instead of giving a mere 9 billion to the EU, it could give, say, 90 billion? Those other countries could then spend the money how they wish, including on defence.

Utter nonsense. All other countries profit from Germany, because Germany pays the most by far - 40 times more than the UK, for example, as I already said several times.

And again:

When the UK and France noticed that they - bit by bit - had to spend more on their military than Germany on its, they demanded immediately: „Germany must spend more money on its military!“ That is odd. What has Germany been doing since then? Germany has been spending more money on its military again since then. So what you are critizising is nothing more than „peanuts“, a bagatelle. You have to value it in the longer term.

Czechoslovakian weapons (like arrows and bents) were not needed. The German military industry was strong enough, much stronger than that of the UK. 6 years agaist the whole world - that is merely possible with a huge military industry, a good military (army, organization, ... etc.), economical and administrative system. By the way: The current Germany has still a huge military industry and also still a good economical and administrativ system, but the difference to earlier times is that Germany exports its weapons, especially to the USA and Israel.

Oh, Phyllo, that are again „peanuts“!

Phyllo wrote:

„Your Fuhrer did not think so.“ **

Insulting? .... - Okay, „my“ Führer did not need that weapons - regardless what your „interpretation“ is.

That is again your self-description, Phyllo. Thanks.

The realiity is almost always war or peace as a break (pause) of war but not really harmony - unfortunately.

Moreno wrote:

„You know I haven't studied logic and I have no good way to annotate, but I will make a start ....

Start Moment:
A knows that B has 12, that A has 12 or 15, that B sees either 12 or 15 and no other number.
A says No.
B knows that A has 12 and that A has seen either 12 or fifteen on B. He knows he must have 12 or fifteen. If A has seen 15, then he is thinking either I have 9 or 12. If A has seen 12, then A is thinking I have either 12 or 15. B knows this is what A is thinking.
B says no.
A knows now that if B has seen 12 he is thinking that he either has 12 or 15. While at the same

I can imagine where one takes into account the limited possibilities and what the other must be thinking that at some point an elimination happens. But I cannot hold it in my head.“ **

You are on the right way. Go on, please!

Write it down, if you can not hold it in your head, as you said.

Here is a video called „Frank Zappa Philosophy“.

844) Arminius, 07.02.2016, 00:01, 00:03, 00:04, 00:05, 00:07, 00:09, 00:10, 00:12, 00:14, 00:18, 00:19, 00:22, 00:23, 00:25, 00:28, 00:31, 00:36, 00:38, 00:44, 00:50, 00:52, 00:53, 00:55, 00:59, 01:05, 01:29, 14:04, 14:50, 18:23, 18:45, 19:20, 19:23, 19:23, 20:03, 20:57, 21:13, 21:22, 21:32, 22:23, 22:47, 23:25, 23:44, 23:52, 23:56, 23:59 (3999-4043)

The pro-immigration activists and women's right activists contradict each other, because the immigrants rape women wherever it is possible.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„The end of History will be AD, (After the DNA Machine.) After this age, a new era of happiness and prosperity will begin.“ **

Would you mind describing how your „DNA Machine“ works?

Moreno wrote:

„The ways to make money that produce nothing are increasing.“ **

Yes, and this has been becoming a dictatorship of inflationism, especially since the 15th of August 1971 when the US president Richard Nixon reversed the gold backing. This is just a bastard economy.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„1. A and B cannot both be in 1. Either A is in 1, B is in 1, or Neither are in one
Either A or B, or both A and B is in group 2.
2. F is undefined. E is undefined. C is undefined.
3. D is undefined. F is undefined. A is undefined.
4. Either A or E, or both A and E are in group 1.
5. D is undefined. E is undefined. C is undefined. B is undefined.
6. Either D or B, or both D and B are in group 2.

No solution.“ **

Sorry, but there is a solution.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„A: Since he has 12, that means I do not have 9.
Case 1. I have 15. This means he thinks he has 12 or 9.
Case 2. I have 12. This means he thinks he has 12 or 15.
If I say no, that will tell him that he does not have nine, and that I know he does not have nine. Because if he had nine, that would mean I have 15. But I am unsure if I have 15.
»No.«
B: Him saying no means I do not have 9. Because if I had nine, he would know that his is 15. So he knows i do not have nine.
Case 1. I have 15. This means he thinks he has 12 or 9.
Case 2. I have 12. This means he thinks he has 12 or 15.
If I say no, that will tell him that he does not have nine, and that I know he does not have have nine, and that I know he does not have nine. Because if he had nine that would mean I know I have 15. But I am unsure if I have 15.
»No.«
A: Case 1. I have 15. Since I already made him know he doesn't have 9, this means he would think he has twelve. Since he doesn't know if he has twelve, this means Case 2 is true, that I have twelve.
»I have twelve.«
Three turns.“ **

Sorry, but that is false.

Was Zappa a Schopenhauerian?

If we hold mathematics up as an example of measuring how much can be explained, then we can say: economics means much mathematics with many formulas and not merely statistics, whereas psychology and especially sociology mean almost no mathematics except merely some formulas and statistics.

All living beings - especially the human beings - are beings of trying, copying, training (learning), changing (varying, modifying, ... dying). If they were not, they would be not more than genetically programmed beings. So living beings and their doings are always surrounded by variations. So if one is commanded to do „x“ and does „x“ without any variation, then there is no cultural change of doing „x“. During almost the whole Stone Age, many doings happened without any cultural variation resp. with the cultural command of preventing any natural and cultural variation - as far as it is possible, of course. The opposite has been becoming true since the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, especially since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution. Variation leads to change (development, evolution, history), and doing the variation means trying.

Modernity means much, probably too much trying. So modern humans should not try too much any more, because they have already changed the world too much. In other words: modern humans should become unmodern again, more genealogical again, more traditional again, more conservative again. If they will not do this, then they will die out. Since the beginning of the Neolithic Revolution, especially since the beginning of the European Industrial Revolution, the humans have been changing the world too much, and the price will probably be the extinction of the humans, if they will not stop changing the world too much. So again: do not try too much, because your offspring will have to pay the price for your trials, your trials as your errors.

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Maybe the humas will wait until the machines will completely take over.

D 63 wrote:

„Once again, being a progressive/liberal ....“ **

But being progressive and being liberal are not the same, they have almost nothing to do with each other.

Humans are not really capable of being progressive, of being liberal, of being equal, of being fraternal. This is only possible in a spiritual sense of a sphere like a culture. But first of all, humans are natural beings, and nature is not progressive, not liberal, not equal, not fraternal. So being progressive, being liberal, being equal, being fraternal jsut means being ideological (religious in a modern sense) - not more and not less.

By the way: liberalism and egalitarianism contradict each other. They are an oxymoron, a contradiction.

D 63 wrote:

„In other words: when women win, we all win.“ **

The current situation is that 99% of all humans lose; so: when 99% of all humans lose, all women lose! **

Carleas wrote:

„Richard Dawkins recently suggested that it is immoral not to abort a pregnancy when we know that the child will have Down's syndrome.“ **

According to his favorite evolution theory, that is like saying: „It is immoral not to abort a pregnancy when we know that the child will be like Richard Dawkins.“

Richard Dawkins is a godwannabe.

And what is after the annihilation?

That (**) is surely the Queen’s best song.

Topic: Philosophy and Art.

The similarities between philosophy and art are not caused by an accident.

What do you think about the similarities, the analogies?

Topic: Pantheism.

What do you think about pantheism?

Celine Kayser wrote:

„I got the idea to begin this thread after scanning through the first two pages of thread titled »Will machines completely replace all human beings?« (**|**).“ **

Oh, yeah.

Celine Kayser wrote:

„My conclusion:
There is no greater threat than competition because competition will eventually drive out ANY form of competition. A threat because if unable to assess rightfully the situation we are today faced with, an unprecedented upheaval must be expected. We are about to find out why Darwinism does not, never did, apply humans.“ **

Darwinism is the trial to interpret the nature only economically - by competition, by a false selection principle (**|**) as if living beings were selected like goods, articles, products.

Celine Kayser wrote:

„To answer this question, one has first to ask: is chasing money and wealth accumulation the sole purpose of Life?“ **

No. Of course: No.

Celine Kayser wrote:

„Unfortunately it is too late to replace »money printed out of thin air« with currencies backed by intrinsic values such as gold and silver.“ **

No. It is not too late to replace it.

Celine Kayser wrote:

Our economic paradigm began to inexorably contract with the Information Age, the invention of the computer. What seems to have worked out for millennia, isn't really as it seems as the model has also greatly improved the »art of killing« on a massive scale.

However, the Information Age has also allowed man's creativity to surpass itself, it is the main drive propelling technology, and by technology it is meant Robotics essentially. Robotics is a trend that many still regard as science fiction or associate with awesome gadgets. This perception shifts somehow their lack of concern about what is merely ten to fifteen years ahead and will impose upon societies unprecedented shock waves. The only way to avoid the latter is to declare the Information Age as anti-humanitarian but how realistic is it? Can we block the advance of Knowledge itself when societies already rely so much on computerization? Achieving this would send us back to a late 1800's lifestyle, prior the Industrial Revolution.“ **

That would send us back to the late 1700's, prior the Industrial Revolution, because the Industrial Revolution began in the late 1700's.

Celine Kayser wrote:

„The advance of Robotics will affect everybody, from the factory worker to the surgeon as machines will eventually become smart enough to take over their tasks. With the rise of Artificial Intelligence, computers will self-build, and this means that even software programmers, engineers and decision makers will not have a job anymore. The media industry is already close to become entirely digitalized and at some point, virtual characters will replace today actors and TV anchors. Considering this very near future environment, what is exactly the future of money?... AND competition?

Ending this erroneous perception implies the end of money as we know it. Life itself comes to a zero sum game which can no longer be passed onto the next generations. The market exists as an illusion, or delusion, that society can cheat this very zero sum game. More Knowledge does not lead to more wealth but less materialism.

The metaphysics of competition and the end of money as we know it (**).“ **

You have opened an interesting thread. Thank you.

So: Is competition ethical? I answer with a counterquestion: What if 99% of all humans are not allowed to compete and 1% of all humans compete on the whole planet and in the whole solar system?

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Anja Steinbauer wrote:

„Kant posits the human being as caught up in an insoluble tension: Wanting to know and yet by our very nature being unable to know. This is the dilemma which we see portrayed in Goethe’s Faust. Faust seeks knowledge with such passion that his insight that true human knowledge is impossible distresses him to the degree of contemplating suicide (and ultimately entering into a contract with the devil). It was a tension that the Idealist philosophers of the 19th century could not bear, hence for instance Hegel’s hope of overcoming in history by means of the dialectic. Kant, however, tells us that we have to live with this conflict, it is the human condition.“ **

If the greatest philosopher is the first one who has demonstrated that there are definite limits to what philosophy can do, then Kant is the greatest philosopher of all times. And even Schopenhauer - not usually known as a thinker full of happy praise for anyone or anything - held Kant’s book „Kritik der reinen Vernunft“ („Critique of Pure Reason“) to be „the most important book ever written in Europe“.

Humans are not capable of knowing everything and anything - regardless whether there is philosophy or science, whether there is enlightenment or counter-enlightenment, whether there is idealism or realism, whether there is kynism or cynism -, the deep sense of knowledge is a great cyclical game of life. Kowledge (or intelligence) is a highly efficient weapon, yes, but it is not the only highly efficient weapon.

On the one hand the sentence „knowledge is power“ is right, but on the other hand the speaker of this sentence speaks this sentence in order to get power. So the sentence is both philosophical and political, but the political side has becoming stronger and stronger since the will to knowledge was overtaken (passed) by the will to power, and that also means: philosophy has been going down since it was overtaken by politics.

Globalism stands for the most extreme expansionism and dictatorship (imperialism to a global extent); so the dichotomy globalism versus nationalism (including: regionalism, localism, ... individualism, thus at last any ism of freedom and independence) can also - at least economically - be called debtism (inflationism) versus autarkism (an ism of economical independence), because globalism is mostly based on economical (especially financial) facts, thus: globalistic corruption.

Today there are no real conservatives. If one says these days „I am conservative“, then you can be sure that that one is lying. And politicians are lying anyway. „Being a politician“ and „lying“ are synonyms.

Paul Ramsey wrote:

„We on the Alt Right are the hippies of our time. We are the counter culture.“ **

Do you agree?

Copied post in another thread.

Obviously you are the only one here who is not capable of reading.

This riddle was alraedy solved (**).

Again: Obviously you are the only one here who is not capable of reading.

Q.E.D.

99% of the humans are controlled by 1% of the humans.

And his knees are destroyed too!

Naturally brains are made for survival, and culture is embedded in nature. So first of all there is a natural reason why a brain exists. The cultural reason merely follows. It is a followup reason, thus not the natural reaosn as the original reason. So cultural phenomenons like philosophy and science are not the primary reason why a brain exists. In other words: Our brains were not primarily but merely secondarily made for philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons, and philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons are no organs of our body but merely cultural phenomenons.

Kant was right in almost all aspects (except some ethical aspects): his cosmological hypotheis, his theory about the emergence of the solar system, his theory about life, his theory about human beings, his anthropology and other philosophical or scientifical theories are true.

For example: In order to know what is behind or beyond nature we need philosophy, especially metaphysics, but philosophy and its metaphysics are embedded in human culture which is embedded in nature. So this is a dilemma of human knowledge (cognition and so on) and simultaneously the reason why humans are not capable of knowing everything.

Occidental philosophy compared to - for example - a tree, architectural art, clothes:

Moreno wrote:

„Carleas wrote:

»Arminius, you make Dawkins' point when you use having Down's syndrome as an insult. That's a tacit agreement with Dawkins, because it implies that having Down's is a bad thing, and moreover that everyone agrees it's a bad thing. That, if true, would be a point in Dawkins' favor.

It's also a textbook ad hominem fallacy.« **

I don't think that's a good read of his post. First, if he is critisizing and kind of human, it would be the godwanna be human, not the Down's syndrome human. Second he is showing the consequences of Dawkin's argument. It was not that Dawkin's is wrong because he is a godwanna be, but rather Dawkin's position entails a problem for Dawkin's own existence. His existence is a necessary condition for any argument his kind of mind would make.“ **

James S. Saint wrote:

„Carleas wrote:

»Arminius, you make Dawkins' point when you use having Down's syndrome as an insult. That's a tacit agreement with Dawkins, because it implies that having Down's is a bad thing, and moreover that everyone agrees it's a bad thing. That, if true, would be a point in Dawkins' favor.

It's also a textbook ad hominem fallacy.« **

Emmm... no.

Arminius said »According to Dawkins' favorite theory ...«. He was saying that Dawkins was suggesting to abort disabled fetuses and thus should have been aborted himself.“ **

Y e s ,  o f   c o u r s e .

Thanks, Moreno and James S. Saint.

Copied post in another thread.

Should I permaban Carleas? No, that would be too Darwinistic or even too Dawkinsistic.

Carleas wrote:

„Arminius, my apologies if I've misunderstood your point.“ **

Okay, Carleas; although at first I though I would have to permaban you, but then I thought: „No, that would be too Darwinistic or even too Dawkinsistic“.

Have a nice day.

Copied post in another thread.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»What do you think about pantheism?« ** **

It fits better for me than the strange primarily transcendent deity models. I would include panpsychism in this also. As far as effects I think it avoids some of the catastrophic indifferences created by the Abrahamic transcendent deities and also removes some of the 'oh, I am a little piece of nothing, God is Great, type relations that are also destructive though in a different way.“ **

You are reminding me of the following thread: ** **

Hahaha wrote:

„Arbiter of Change wrote:

»Economics can be explained by referring back to human nature, and what is it that explores human nature?

Sounds like a typical reversal of hierarchy, looking at nature from the perspective of human social norms, instead of observing nature and how social norms emerge within it.

Unsurprisingly, appears it was employed by Marxism.« **

Market economics is a complete fiction and construct especially concerning traditional social hierarchy. There is nothing natural about it and it is all built upon bullshit obfuscations or assumptions of human nature.
Not much natural but much mathematical about it.“ **

Not much natural but much mathematical about it.

Both giving (for example in order to get peace) and taking (for example in order to get peace) are two sides of the same thing: on the one hand war is behind you and peace in front of you, on the other hand peace is behind you and war in front of you. There is always the same or at least a similar situation; the duration is different, but the question is always merely: what is next?

Celine Kayser wrote:

„7 hermetic principles ....“ **

Name them please.

Let's have the next interim result for the question: „Should the NATO be terminated?“

We have 37.5% (3 votes) for „yes“, 62.5% (5 votes) for „no“, and 0% (no votes) for „I don't know“.

For comparison: ** **

Please vote!

Amorphos wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Yes, and this has been becoming a dictatorship of inflationism, especially since the 15th of August 1971 when the US president Richard Nixon reversed the gold backing. This is just a bastard economy.« ** **

The bank of England sold quite a lot of its gold because it was no longer needed as a basis for money. I expect American banks done the same. Its like free money! They first make the value of things upon the worth of gold, then keep the worth and sell the gold lol. I noticed that the Chinese are big on buying gold, which is jolly good of them muhahaha. All the west needs now is to get their hands on the Chinese money markets so they can drain all the wealth back, the Chinese however can see that coming hence keep stopping it.“ **

How will that end?

Amorphos wrote:

„Its stupid, only weak people require stroking like dogs, ~ oh haven't he/she done well, is all we get on tv these days. Now have a sweetie for being good at something and fuck off.“ **

They are so „good“, and in reality they are cynic and false (=> „left“).

When being cynic becomes a societal system, so that we can call it „cynism“, then all governers, all politicians, all rich people, all followers behave according to cynism. All others can only fight this cynism by being kynic (= counter-cynic). Many of them do not notice what is wrong with them. Many of those polically correct (pc) cynics do not notice what is wrong with them.

When will they become cynics?

Amorphos wrote:

„I don't mind security robots like those, because i'm the kind of low class citizen who would otherwise have to do shit jobs like that. This is what people don't realise, robots like any other machine will do the shit we don't want to. I was once offered a job in a factory, putting something in a machine pressing a button then taking it out again, oh how I wished for another machine which can push that damn button.

On the other hand, I equally don't want robots being my boss and doing shit for them.“ **

Yeah.

What if robots become more and more humanoid, thus android?

But you are asking: „Is competition ethical?“ **

I answer with a counterquestion: What if 99% of all humans are not allowed to compete and 1% of all humans compete on the whole planet and in the whole solar system?

Do not post a picture of yourself!

Physics and metaphysics, in other words: Science and philosophy.

845) Hubert Brune, 08.02.2016, 01:23, **, ** (4044-4046)

@ Simon Käßheimer (**).

Hallo, Simon.

Es ist wieder soweit. Vielleicht erinnerst Du Dich noch an den 08.01.2012, als ich, nachdem Du Dich (um 04:40 Uhr) in mein Gästebuch eingetragen hattest, Dir antwortete:

„Danke für den Gästebuch-Eintrag (**).

Es ist nicht »bald«, wie Du geschrieben hast (**), sondern sogar mehr als 4 Jahre her: »war so frei deine Site auf meiner zu verlinken“«, so Simon Käßheimer am 6. Dezember 2007 um 18:34 Uhr (**)!

Ein Banner scheint ja für Dich sehr wichtig zu sein.

Wie es bei mir üblich und selbstverständlich ist, habe ich Dir damals - am 6. Dezember 2007 - als Dank für Deinen 1. Gästebuch-Eintrag (**) eine E-Mail zukommen lassen.

Daß aber das Gästebuch nicht besonders leicht zu finden ist, ist ein berechtigter Kritikpunkt von Dir. Bisher war ich der Meinung, daß die meisten Besucher das Wort »Kontakt« auch richtig verstehen und also wissen, daß damit auch wirklich der Kontakt gemeint ist, denn zu dem semantischen Feld des Wortes »Kontakt« gehört auch das Wort »Gästebuch«. Aber gut: die Wünsche des Kunden haben Prorität. Siehe selbst: Auf meiner Startseite steht an der Stelle des Wortes „Kontakt“ seit heute das Wort »Gästebuch« (**).

Also, Simon, bis dann - so um Februar 2016 herum.“ ** **

Ich gratuliere Dir zu Deinen neuen Webseiten. Sie gefallen mir!

Ich wünsche Dir alles Gute.

Danke, Herr Müller, für Ihre freundlichen Worte (**).

Mein Interessensgebiet ist nie begrenzt gewesen. Meine Arbeit als Intensivlehrer hat aber damit nur insofern zu tun, als sie eine Folge, jedoch keine Ursache und auch keine Finalursache dafür ist.

Freundliche Grüße.

Danke, lieber Simon, für Deinen dritten Eintrag in mein Gästebuch. **

Ich werde Deine Internetpräsenz auch in Zukunft aufsuchen. Übrigens mag auch ich die Figur „Ottmar Zittlau“ sehr - „joh, dat stimmt“ (**). Zwischen dem 8. und dem 10. März des Jahres 2020 werde ich mich wieder in Dein Gästebuch eintragen. Spätestens dann erwarte ich Deine Rückmeldung.

Ich grüße Dich und wünsche Dir alles Gute, mein Lieber.

846) Arminius, 29.02.2016, 00:01, 00:03, 00:07, 00:15, 00:17, 00:18, 00:57, 00:59, 01:01, 01:13, 15:54, 16:09, 16:10, 16:52, 16:53, 16:53, 16:58, 17:20, 18:10, 18:40, 18:54, 19:10, 20:18, 20:28, 20:40, 20:59, 21:23, 21:39, 22:44, 22:58, 23:13, 23:32, 23:58 (4047-4079)

No. Not being allowed to compete is not competition but a possible consequence of competition. My example was that 99% are forbidden to compete. Your response is that this non-competition „is competition“. That is not possible. Competition and non-competition are never the same. It is like saying „truth is lie“ or „lie is truth“. So you are wrong.

What you mean is the culturally based competition like techno-creditisms (formerly known as „capitalism“), but the naturally based competition will as long as living beings exist not disappear.

And by the way: Sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution and also a good example in order to explain what competition means. If you want to please somebody, then you are already a competitor, and sex is also and a special guarantor for that fact. You are saying (in your signature): „Sex is the fundamental principle of Creation.“ That is also not possible, because sex is a relatively young phenomenon of evolution. So the fundamental principle of creation must be an older one.

„No doubt“ (**)? Why are you so sure?

„Roko's Basilisk rests on a stack of several other not at all robust propositions.

In July 2010, LessWrong contributor Roko posted a thought experiment to the site in which an otherwise benevolent future AI system tortures anyone who does not work to bring the system into existence. This idea came to be known as »Roko's basilisk«,based on Roko's idea that merely hearing about the idea would give the hypothetical AI system stronger incentives to employ blackmail. Yudkowsky deleted Roko's posts on the topic, later writing that he did so because, according to him, although Roko's reasoning was mistaken, the topic shouldn't be publicly discussed in case some version of the argument could be made to work.[8] Discussion of Roko's basilisk was banned on LessWrong for several years thereafter.

The core claim is that a hypothetical, but inevitable, singular ultimate superintelligence may punish those who fail to help it or help create it.

Why would it do this? Because - the theory goes - one of its objectives would be to prevent existential risk - but it could do that most effectively not merely by preventing existential risk in its present, but by also »reaching back« into its past to punish people who weren't MIRI-style effective altruists.

Thus this is not necessarily a straightforward »serve the AI or you will go to hell« — the AI and the person punished need have no causal interaction, and the punished individual may have died decades or centuries earlier. Instead, the AI could punish a simulation of the person, which it would construct by deduction from first principles. However, to do this accurately would require it be able to gather an incredible amount of data, which would no longer exist, and could not be reconstructed without reversing entropy.

Technically, the punishment is only theorised to be applied to those who knew the importance of the task in advance but did not help sufficiently. In this respect, merely knowing about the Basilisk — e.g., reading this article — opens you up to hypothetical punishment from the hypothetical superintelligence.

Note that the AI in this setting is (in the utilitarian logic of this theory) not a malicious or evil superintelligence (AM, HAL, SHODAN, Ultron, the Master Control Program, SkyNet, GLaDOS) — but the Friendly one we get if everything goes right and humans don't create a bad one. This is because every day the AI doesn't exist, people die that it could have saved; so punishing you or your future simulation is a moral imperative, to make it more likely you will contribute in the present and help it happen as soon as possible.“ **

That is comparable with the projects of the „Neuer Mensch“ („Neumensch“), also as a „Übermensch“, „Herrenmensch“.

Hahaha wrote:

„Original Human Nature.“ **

Nice topic.

Arminius wrote:

„When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. Although it is difficult to say whether there is one human culture or several human cultures, I would say, if I had to refer to merely one human culture, that a human being is a luxury being. In another thread I said:

»The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.« ** **

Only human beings (thus no other living beings) are able to distance or disassociate themselves so much from nature. Humans live on islands of luxury. They have their human bubbles like hulls / shells, caves, huts / cottages, houses, beyond that: castles, churches / cathedrals, cities, city states, states, nations, empires, global empires ... and so forth. Because they are much more spiritual / mental / intellectual than other creatures, they have not only a bodily but also a spiritual immune system. This spiritual immune system is the main cause of the enormous luxury and the characteristic feature of human culture/s. Because of the fact that there are many different spiritual immune systems of humans possible, one should rather speak of several human cultures and not of one human culture.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Naturally human beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.“ ** **

Arminius wrote:

„Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment, but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about the »luxury islands«.

Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.

So when I say »human nature is human culture/s«, then I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals; so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural sense this relation is inversely proportional.

If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!“ ** **

Disassociation from nature is luxury.

4051

Hahaha wrote:

„There are two predominant historical western thinkers discussing the subject of human nature. Jean Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Hobbes.“ **

Those two were not predominant but had the most extreme opinion when referring to human nature. Their biographies reflect their opinions on this topic.

When Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) lived there were many terrible wars, for example: (1) the war between England and Spain (1588-1599), (2) a very terrible war, probably the most terrible war of the Occidental history - the Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) -, (3) another war which was terrible too - the English Civil War (1642-1651) - and (4) the also terrible wars started by Louis XIV of France.

When Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) lived the wars were already so called „Kabinettskriege“ („cabinet wars“), thus they were not as terrible as they had been before.

But Rousseau's philosophy about the human nature is wrong, because his „natural human“ as the „wild human“ is not the better human.

Solipsism is the most extreme form of subjecivism, and materialism is the most extreme form of objecivism. The problem of solipsism and materialism or simply of subject and object is not really solvable, it is a dualismn. Many philosophers have tried to solve it and have failed.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The NATO must be terminated because, economically, the US and the EU are deadly enemies. Do you agree?« ** **

Not really. They are way too intermeshed. And the corporations/financial institutions running them are buddies if not, often, the same. Not that this makes for an argument for nato.“ **

They are only as long „buddies“ as their interests are the same, but their interests are not always the same. I remind you of one bankruptcy example that happened in 2008: the bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the United States; the filing remains the largest bankruptcy filing in US history, with Lehman holding about $ 640 billion in assets (**). There are no real „buddies“. In the deepest reality there are only everyone-against-everyone-fighters. Everyone wants to be a monopolist.

	Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius (234-149).
	Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius (234-149).

The main beneficiary of a war is almost always the same who started it.

Who was the main beneficiary of the two world wars?

Who will be the main beneficiary of the third world war?

The same.

The United States need a war because of their extreme debt - like their debt before the 1st and the 2nd World War. After the 1st World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies and other German assets, values), and after the 2nd World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies [even scientists, engineers and so on {**|**|**|**}] and other German assets, values; and this robbery was the biggest robbery of all time) and their Dollar system became the Dollar Empire. Now the United States have again extreme debt, so ....

....

„Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam“ - Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius, a.k.a.: Cato the Elder (234-149).

Since 146 B.C. :

What about the opposite one: logic as a subset of mathematics? There were and are people who liked and like that very much. They think that hiding something behind mathematics is easier than hiding something behind logic.

Okay; maybe that robot (**) has currently not more skills than a child that was born 18 months ago; but note that this ontogenetic human development of 18 months corresponds with the phylogenetic human development of some million years; and if we say that the first steam engine was the „birth“ of that robot, then it is now about 250 years old (because the first 250 years of a robot after its „birth“ correspond with the first 18 months of a human after his/her birth), but the speed of its further development will probably become very much higher, because a pure cultural (technological) development can be faster than a pure natural development or even a mix of a cultural and a natural development (the human development is such a mix), so that robots will be soon capable of using language in a more efficient way than humans, for example; the question is, if robots will be able to do it with any emotion, with selfish.

Copied part of a post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Most of all living beings, especially all older species (thus the huge majority of all living beings) are not capable of having sex. They live without any sex or something like sex.

It is an error to believe that robots should have sex (excepted that they use sex for the control of humans).

Copied post in another thread.

For robots themselves sex is a disadvantage.

Kant was right in almost all aspects (except some ethical aspects): his cosmological hypotheis, his theory about the emergence of the solar system, his theory about life, his theory about human beings, his anthropology and other philosophical or scientifical theories are true.

In order to know what is behind or beyond nature we need philosophy, especially metaphysics, but philosophy and its metaphysics are embedded in human culture which is embedded in nature. So this is a dilemma of human knowledge (cognition and so on) and simultaneously the reason why humans are not capable of knowing everything.

Naturally brains are made for survival, and culture is embedded in nature. So first of all there is a natural reason why a brain exists. The cultural reason merely follows. It is a followup reason, thus not the natural reaosn as the original reason. So cultural phenomenons like philosophy and science are not the primary reason why a brain exists. In other words: Our brains were not primarily but merely secondarily made for philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons, and philosophy or science or other cultural phenomenons are no organs of our body but merely cultural phenomenons.

Well, ... I would not seriously call that (**) „sex“.

Many people fear mathematics, and many people are cynics. Now, combine this two facts, please!

If they (**) did not respect it, then they would not be cynics. So the furtive (secret) respect is already a part of the definition of „cynic“.

Pantheism has four mainstreams:

1) Theomononistic pantheism.
2) Physiomonistic pantheism.
3) Transcendental pantheism.
4) Immanent-transcendental pantheism.

All empirical extensions end some day.

Also panem et circenses:

=>

Here are some (hopefully interesting) links: ** ** ** ** ** **

Copied post in another thread.

Copied post in another thread.

Hahaha wrote:

„Scenes from a Greek border on the way to Europe.“ **

Where is the NATO? The NATO is a defensive alliance!

Is the NATO what you call the „theater of the absurd“ (**)?

Why NATO (**|**)?

Copied post in another thread.

Hahaha wrote:

„Arminius, I don't understand your questions. Can you please rephrase them?“ **

I guess you mean this questions:

1) „Where is the NATO?“ ** **
2) „Is the NATO what you call the »theater of the absurd« (**)?“ ** **
3) „Why NATO(**|**)?“ ** **

1) I am asking where the NATO is in that situation you showed from the Greek border, because the NATO was founded as a defensive alliance.
2) If the NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, then it has no right to exist and is - for example - a „theater of the absurd“ (**).
3) The NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, and, economically, the US and the EU are deadly enemies! Therefore the question: Why NATO (**|**)?

Copied post in another thread.

I am asking where the NATO is in that situation you showed from the Greek border, because the NATO was founded as a defensive alliance. If the NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, then it has no right to exist and is - for example - a „theater of the absurd“ (**). The NATO is no defensive alliance anymore, and, economically, the US and the EU are deadly enemies! Therefore the question: Why NATO (**|**)?

Do you think that a consciousness can never be dead?

Hahaha wrote:

„It's a coordinated move by the United States and globalists to take Europe down.“ **

Yes. And the United States depend on the globalists (global bankers and other globalists).

Yes, of course.

The theory of the Big Bank is true, but the theory of the Big Bang is probably not true.

You said that you „have been near death many times“ (**).

847) Arminius, 08.03.2016, 00:14, 00:17, 00:19, 00:24, 00:29, 00:31, 00:33, 00:36, 00:39, 00:57, 01:13, 01:15, 01:17, 01:20, 01:23, 01:25, 01:26, 01:27, 01:56, 01:57, 01:59, 02:01, 02:01, 02:07, 02:11, 02:17, 03:52, 04:08, 17:56, 18:06, 20:18, 20:55, 23:11, 23:25 (4080-4113)

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»They are only as long ›buddies‹ as their interests are the same, but their interests are not always the same. I remind you of one bankruptcy example that happened in 2008: the bankruptcy of the Lehman Brothers, the fourth-largest investment bank in the United States; the filing remains the largest bankruptcy filing in US history, with Lehman holding about $ 640 billion in assets (**). There are no real ›buddies‹. In the deepest reality there are only everyone-against-everyone-fighters. Everyone wants to be a monopolist.« ** **

Yes, but those people want the set up to be such that their class is given the greatest concentrated power and that life is harsh for everyone else. They are not nice people. They are psychopaths, but they want the world to move in a similar direction.“ **

And they have a cynical position.

Moreno wrote:

„They want privitization of everything, all of them. They want transnational organizations like the WTO, say, or IMF, or the new pacific states trade thingy, to have the power to override governments. They want the finance sector as unregulated as possible. And so on.

All that is known, yes.

Moreno wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The main beneficiary of a war is almost always the same who started it.

Who was the main beneficiary of the two world wars?

Who will be the main beneficiary of the third world war?

The same.

The United States need a war because of their extreme debt - like their debt before the 1st and the 2nd World War. After the 1st World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies and other German assets, values), and after the 2nd World War they had no debts anymore (exploitation of Germany - reparations, robbery of German patents, technologies [even scientists, engineers and so on {**|**|**|**}] and other German assets, values; and this robbery was the biggest robbery of all time) and their Dollar system became the Dollar Empire. Now the United States have again extreme debt, so ....« ** **

You have a cynical position ....“ **

The cynical position is on the side of the beneficiaries and especially of the main beneficiaries of the wars; so they have a cynical position (see above), the most cynical position ever, Moreno.

Moreno wrote:

„I actually think there might be worse motives for heading towards WW3.“ **

Which motives do you mean? The main motive is always power (might; because of always having a will to might and a will to night), and that means: control - by (for example) divide et imperea, panem et circenses, cynism, lies, fraud, violence, murder, wars, terror, terrorism, fear, torture, enslavement, racism, dysgenics, corruption, blackmail, extortion, indoctrination, indignation ... and so on ... and so on ....

Europe has almost twice as many inhabitants as the United States. If the 28 European small armies were under a single command, then Europe had the largest military force in the world. And - of course - the competitors, rivals, enemies of Europe love it to have to deal with a disunited Europe and disunited European nations. The more so-called „refugees“ come to Europe, the more unstable Europe is to the delight of Europe’s rivals (competitors, enemies). Therefore - for example - Obama praises Merkel.

One day you will be able to look up who has steered the refugees.

It is not possible to destroy the whole Earth and all living beings on it with all the nuclear weapons we have. The earth has survived much worse disasters - several times. All the nuclear weapons we have can destroy many living beings - but just not all. Many primitives species of the living beings have survived much worse disasters - several times. So this species are still there.

If you destroy parts of life, then a new but similar cycle will start.

Many people fear economics too.

Science has become more and more a function of politics. Scientists have become politically correct functionaries of the cynical rulers.

If those who are not scientists want to have scientific solutions, then they have to use their own brains in the first place.

Kant wrote:

„Habe Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen!“
(Immanuel Kant, Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, 1784).
Translation:
„Have courage to use your own mind!“

And a „fall guy“ is a scapegoat. Right?

Sex bots?

And: Why?

Like I said: All oldest and most of the older species. Do you really not know those species?

Art is another means to say the truth or the lie. If science fails (and at last it always fails), then art can be used instead of it (although it can also fail); if philosophy fails (and at last it always fails), then art can be used instead of it (although it can also fail). Art is a mirror of a society and its forms and institutions; art shows the fitness of a society, how a society is in form; so art can be used for analogies.

Copied post in another thread.

Mags, do you remember our conversation one year ago?

Here is the copy: ** **

Today is my second ILP anniversary.

Cheers.

Feminism is merely another means for the 1% of the humans to become richer and richer, thus more and more thus more and more powerful (mighty), whereas the other 99% become poorer and poorer, thus less and less powerful (mighty).

I advise you (**) to read Peter Sloterdijk’s „Rage and Time“.

Why do you (**) not like the Chinese?

Who is the second from the left (**)?

And also (**) Poland, Czech, Slovenia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Ukraine, White Russia, for example.

That (**) was pure propaganda. In reality the Soviet Union and all the other „communistic“/„socialistic“ countries were extreme nationalistic countries.

But if we are honest, we have to admit that the nation is the largest size of a society we humans can somewhat manage - but not more. All larger society sizes turn out repeatedly as empires, thus: dictatorship.

In other words: Multiculturalism does not work. It leads to something like civil wars, anarchy, thus: chaos.

I guess, you think that chaos must and should be in order (sic!) to get a new order. Is that right?

Europe will never become the „United States of Europe“ as some European idiots say but it will become the most chaotic territory of all time if the Europeans will furthermore do what their rivals (competitors) want them to do.

Copied post in another thread.

Yea.

She uses the wrong word - „sex“ - for what she is meaning.

Yep.

Do you also know who the godfather of the mafia family is?

The problem of subject and object is not really solvable. Obviously it is an everlasting dualism. Many philosophers have tried to solve it and have failed, and many philosophers will try to solve it and will fail.

We do not know whether it would be better for the humans to be capable of solving that problem or not. I rather give the advice to live with dualisms. Many people are not even capable of living with dualisms.

Mathematics is an abstract discipline, yes, and it is - of course - logical. And logic is in your mind, your subjective mind.

If you say that something is objective, then you refer to the world, thus to something outside your subjective mind.

Copied post in another thread.

Kriswest wrote:

„Congrats!!!!“ **

Thanks.

Kriswest wrote:

„My first deliberate mixbreed chicks hatched today. I hope they are able to withstand attacks from Hawks and raccoons plus other predators. My flock of gentle chickens were decimated this year. I chose the hens that were aggressive and not killed(Copper Maran) and a very large social protective chicken (Jersey giant). I hope it works. They should protect the entire flock,, maybe.“ **

I wish you good luck!

Mags J. wrote:

„I remember it well... happy second anniversary, bay-bee ;).“ **

Yea, thank you.

HaHaHa wrote:

„It's also a eugenics program if you think about it utilizing female hypergamy with social economics. It's soft eugenics at play.

It's about limiting opportunities for reproduction.“ **

Yes, and about reducing reproduction. It is more a dysgenics than an eugenics program.

Moreno wrote:

„The US is actually the model of this chaos. You have cities going bankrupt. Regions without water. Masses of poor people. Deserted towns and cities. More and more homeless. People working harder and harder for less and less. Extreme disagreements about how things should be handled. All under an oligarchy still skimming.“ **

This should remind you of - for example - the Great Depression which led to the Second World War.

An asteroid with the name „Kamikaze“?

So again:

Copied post.

No racism anymore, no multiculturalism anymore ... does not mean: no wars anymore, no murder anymore, no violence anymore, no rape anymore, no poverty anymore, no lies anymore ... and so on.

It depends on how the word „job“ is meant. Do you mean „job“ as an occupation or as a profession?

Topic: Occidental Philosophy versus Oriental Philosophy.

There are great differences between the occidental philosophy and the oriental philosophy.

What do you think about this two kinds of philosophy, their differences and their similarities?

848) Arminius, 11.03.2016, 00:01, 00:03, 00:04, 00:05, 00:08, 00:10, 00:19, 00:21, 00:23, 00:25, 00:28, 00:30, 00:37, 00:39, 00:53, 01:27, 01:36, 01:37, 02:14, 02:27, 02:45, 03:06, 11:50, 11:55, 12:12, 12:52, 15:46, 16:27, 17:11, 17:59, 19:13, 19:20, 19:39, 23:18, 23:53 (4114-4148)

Mathematics is both subjetive and objective; but primarily it is a subjective system (exactly: a subsystem of the subjective system logic), and secondarily it is an objective system (exactly: an applied subsystem of objective systems).

Arminius wrote:

„Relating to the process of awareness / consciousness there are two »ways«: (1) the way from semiotical, linguistical operations to logical (philosophical), mathematical operations, (2) the way from mathematical operations to logical (philosophical), linguistical, semiotical operations.

Some of the non-human living beings have consciousness, but they have a very much smaller brain and less consciousness than the human beings have. Only human beings have such very, very complex conscious systems, especially the linguistical, the logical (philosophical), and the mathematical system. Let's say that some of the non-human living beings have a pre-consciousness because the diffrence between their consciousness and the consciousness of the human beings is too large.

An example:

A lioness „instinctively »knows«“ how much cubs she has. When one or more of them are lost, she realises it, but she can't count like humans can. At first the lioness »goes« the conscious »way 1« without any linguistical and logical operations (see above), thus from the semiotical operations (sign: »lost cubs«) to the mathematical operation (»all cubs – missing cubs«), and then she „goes“ the conscious »way 2« without logical and linguistical operations (see above), thus from the mathematical operations (for example: 7 – 2 = 5) to the semiotical operation (sign= »less cubs«). The mathematics in the brain of the lioness works but she doesn't »consciously ›know‹« that it works.

Another example:

A predator must be able to calculate the »worth« of attacking a prey. If it is not profitable or even too dangerous, it is better to protect oneself and to gather forces. A predator with a broken leg can hardly catch a prey; a predator with a broken lower jaw can hardly eat a prey: a predator without a tongue can hardly drink. Predators must „instinctively »know«“ much about their environment and their skills, their risks, what is possible and what is too dangerous.

In order to survive the non-human living beings don't need such a complex brain, such a complex awareness / consciousness, especially such complex systems of language (linguistics) and logic (philosophy), as the human beings have. Human beings are luxury beings (**|**|**|**|**|**).

Human beings can say: »I don't want to eat today because tomorrow or later I am going to eat a Sacher torte«. The evolution of the luxury beings means the process of winning more and more luxury at the cost of losing more and more instincts, means becoming less and less beings of adaptation to the environment but more and more beings of alienation, of insulation. Nevertheless, human beings are also predators, but they are luxury predators because they are luxury beings.“ ** **

And we - the humans - judge about subjectivity and objectivity. If we were not capable of using mathematics much more than (other) animals, then we would use it just subjectively, namely for self-preservation (like all [other] animals), and because we would not know or merely instinctively know that, we were also not capable of knowing what „subjective“ and „objective“ mean.

Please rephrase that (**).

One can call it so (**) as well, yes.

One of those pills seems to be a special one:

Knowledge and belief have the same roots.

Can you give some examples with numbers and facts - just in order to compare them with the situation in Europe or elsewhere.

It was the 1929 starting World Depression (also known as „Great Depression“) that caused it, but the NSDAP did never get a majority.

Here are the results of the German Reichstag elections from 1919 to 1933:

The World Depression („Great Depression“) and the following disastrous politics started 1929. Look at the election results for the NSDAP and notice when they really exploded. Then you will know why they exploded.

The dictatorship was already a fact when the last election (1933) happened, and even this election did not bring the majority to the NSDAP (Nazis).

Fent wrote:

„Leftists think anything that opposes them is fascist. It's childish.“ **

According to leftists, all those who are right from them are rightists, and they call them „fascists“, because they want to be „anti-fascists“. But in reality they are the fascists, the new fascists. The new fascist does not say „I am the new fascist“, the new fascist says „I am the anti-fascist“.

You should make a video about the whole RM:AO that lasts about 20 or 30 minutes. The advantage is that such a video makes it possible to understand the whole RM:AO within 20 or 30 minutes and that you do not need to explain any single element of RM:AO again and again.

World War III .... With what enemies?

Okay. I am curious about it (**).

It is an example but an fairly realistic example: Look at the current demographic trend.

Hahaha wrote:

„To Arminius.“ **

Thanks.

Hahaha wrote:

„I was impressed with our conversation on feminism and dysgenics that I was hoping we might collaberate together in making a thread on the subject.“ **

Thanks.

First of all I would like to say that I am sure that feminsm is definitely against women. Almost all of those who benefitted and benefit from feminism were and are men, and those few „women“ who also benefitted and benefit from feminism were and are mostly masculinized, thus no real women. You may compare feminism and its women with the so-called „communistic socialism“ and its so-called „proletariat“. This communistic proletariat did never have any power, at least less power than in the societies of the so-called class enemy, the so-called „capitalism“. Almost all of those who benefitted and benefit from communistic socialism were and are no proletarians, and those few „proletarians“ who also benefitted and benefit from communistic socialism were and are mostly sponsored, thus no real proletarians.

The communistic oppressors of the proletarians merely want the proletarians to work for them and to love them as their good leaders. You can find the same situation on the feministic side. The feministic oppressors of the women merely want the women to work for them and to love them as their good leaders. Both communism (communistic socialism) and feminism (also genderism and similar isms) are merely different versions of the same totalitarianism. The goal of this totalitarianism is the total control of its people (about 99% of all humans) by several means (divide et imperea, panem et circenses, cynism, lies, fraud, violence, murder, wars, terror, terrorism, fear, torture, enslavement, racism, dysgenics, corruption, blackmail, extortion, indoctrination, indignation ... and so on ... and so on); so dysgenics is one of them.

Moreover: machines are cheaper than humans; so - sooner or later - humans will not be needed anymore.

Hahaha wrote:

„I have a social economics theory in relation to how this dysgenics feminist program is carried out which in reality is just a false front for initiated state eugenics.“ **

Before we go into detail I would like to know what you exactly mean by „dysgenics feminist program“ and by „initiated state eugenics“.

Hahaha wrote:

„Nihilism Versus Platonism.

It is clear to me that everything I am against as a nihilist extends from Platonism whether it comes to morality, ethics, government, social ideals, abstract epistemology, or falsified objectivism. Those things all extend from Platonism.

The direct opposite of Platonism historically is skepticism and of course the inheritance of skepticism in the modern sense is nihilism. It is known that Friedrich Nietzsche was one of the biggest critics of Plato and Socrates alike.

I wanted to create this thread as a way to criticize Platonism from a nihilistic point of view. I'm still in the beginnings of creating a critique of Platonism but am wondering what others think on the subject.“ **

From an ancient point of view, some parts or at least the consequences of the Platonism were also nihilistic. So if non-ancient nihilists are against Platonism, then they are nihilists who are against a part of the ancient nihilism. This seems to be a contradiction, but this contradiction can be solved, at least partly, because the ancient nihilism is different from the non-ancient nihilism.

World War III Angry wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»Knowledge and belief have the same roots.« ** **

I disagree, knowledge is rooted in understanding, belief is rooted in thinking something is true, its an attitude. Knowledge is more than just an attitude, it is understanding of the matter at hand. In fact, the attitude is the least important aspect of knowledge; that being the attitude of thinking it is true, or of certainty.“ **

I disagree, because „understanding“ and „thinking something is true“ are processes that belong to the same root(s). Animals with a primitive (not complex enough) brain do not distinguish between „understanding“ and „thinking something is true“. You need to have a well enough working complex brain in order to distinguish between „understanding“ and „thinking something is true“.

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:

„Well writ post (**|**).“ **

Thanks.

The problem is that in reality there is no pure (100%) communism and no pure (100%) capitalism but always a mix - more or less -, and this mix is full of corruption. So corruption is the main problem.

Hahaha wrote:

„I'll private message you either tonight or tomorrow for further details on this project.“ **

All clear.

My argumentation is an evolutionary biological (especially neurological) one, and I compare the phylogenetic evolution with the ontogenetic development. You can be sure that animals with a primitive (not complex enough) brain are not capable of distinguishing between „understanding“ and „thinking something is true“. So you need to have a well enough working complex brain in order to distinguish between „understanding“ and „thinking something is true“. The said roots are evolutionary biological (especially neurological) roots, mainly the nervous system that leads to a primitive brain that leads to a more complex brain that leads to a still more complex brain ... and so on.

Hahaha wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The problem is that in reality there is no pure (100%) communism and no pure (100%) capitalism but always a mix - more or less -, and this mix is full of corruption. So corruption is the main problem.« ** **

I'll private message you either tonight or tomorrow for further details on this project.“ **

Yes, one can say so, and I go a bit further: also „higher animals“ like great apes, dolphins, some bird species, for example, are capable of what a nearly two years old human child is capable of; I say that, for example, bonobos and chimpanzees are capable of corrupt behaving, although merely in a primitive way.

Amorphos wrote:

„Arminius wrote:

»The problem is that in reality there is no pure (100%) communism and no pure (100%) capitalism but always a mix - more or less -, and this mix is full of corruption. So corruption is the main problem.« ** **

Corruption isn't so much of a problem if you are effectively dictator of a communist state, and the one in charge of much of it.“ **

It depends on the definition of „corruption“. The communistic leaders and their many, many, many functionaries are corrupt. They do what corrupt humans do.

Yes, that (**) is right. And as far as I know him (**) he wants some but not all people to challenge him because of that good exercize you mentioned (**).

Moreno wrote:

„There has been a trend in occidental philosophy to the autonmous individual, with understanding considered having a good representation of reality inside the head. Emphasis on freedom of the monad self. Free from outside control, independently evaluating in a detached way the objective world that is outside it. This goes down from politics and up from ontology in the West. In the Orient the self it not considered separate. It is part of the family, it is merged or should merge with the object. The goal is not separateness, freedom from, but being well enmeshed.....in the family, in the environment, joining the flow. The self as meeting place, nexus. One must take into account the other in a dialogue. In the West expression of the unique individual in the moment. In the East engaged in harmonius dance in a long chain of history. Understanding is not contained in the East, but a doing, a relation.“ **

Agreed. The difference between the extreme individuality and the extreme community is one of the main differences between Occident and Orient.

One can also call it holism versus individualism.

You (**) should begin with the definitions, the defintional logic, your concept of „existence“, of „affectance“, then show an example with a particle, of course. But maybe that you are right and a video is not the best medium to explain what RM:AO is, although it is possible to divide it into several „sub“videos: one for RM, one for AO, and more than one for other aspects of RM:AO.

World War III Angry wrote:

„I think the only thing that can discern this would be neurological validation through pinpointing differences in belief and knowledge, or not. If there is no difference, then it becomes a matter that might be unknown due to lack of proper technology that can differentiate the subtle difference.“ **

Science also depends on definitions. If scientists try for example what you call the „pinpointing differences in belief and knowledge, or not“, then they have to begin with the definition of the words „belief“ and „knowledge“ - regardless whether they want to or not. So scientists can always find or not find what they want to or what the politicians want them to find or to not find.

Sapere aude! Have the courage to use your own mind - as Kant said (translated by me).

Ierrellus wrote:

„Lord of the Flies.

In this book a group of boys, stranded on an island, revert to a bestial form of paganism. So is this the existential core of humans? Do we, under duress, become animalistic? Is there in this symbol-minded story, no belief in the essential goodness of humans? Are we simply »bad« at the core?“ **

Ierellus wrote:

„The topic here is whether or not the preadolescent boys, stranded on an island reverted to savagery because of social indoctrination or because of something innate within themselves. Perhaps it could be both?“ **

Here is the end scene of the film: **

World War III Angry wrote:

„Very good then - so there is no real basis you claim other than a subjective definition?

I contend my framework is superior in that it notes a difference that leads to a more coherent state of mind for all.“ **

No. And i was not talking about a „subjective definition“. Your interpretation is false. Read my posts again. Perhaps you can come to the right interpretation. Good luck!

A sleep has an end. And the death? Is it endless? And if it is endless: How do you think or imagine an endless death?

World War III Angry wrote:

„Ok, so then I ask what are these definitions of belief and knowledge that they must begin with?“ **

It is not so difficult to say. So just make some suggestions.

Wait ..., „be“ is not possible, but „is“ and „are“ are possible? (**). You know that „is“ and „are“ are the inflected forms of the same Infinitive: „be“.

So you (**) are not going to make any video about RM:AO?

Einstein had sponsors. And if you have sponsors too: Einstein had other sponsors.

Ah, you (**) have an own forum! Congratulations! I have just read the subtitle: „A community of budding artists, philosophers, gamers and scientists against fascism, libtardism, humanism, and unreason in all it's forms“ (**).

James S. Saint wrote:

„Zinnat wrote:

»Secondly, it is true that wikipedia is not perfect and expects incoming reader knowledgeable to some extent with the subject, yet it is perhaps the best thing that modern technology (internet) has created ever.

Its founders and running team certainly deserve a lot of appreciation, at least intent wise.« **

Careful. The Nazi war machine was once the greatest thing of „modern“ technology. Everything granted to you can be used against you.“ **

Yes.

849) Arminius, 12.03.2016, 12:07, 12:10, 12:41, 12:58, 13:22, 14:08, 14:12, 14:57, 18:29, 20:04, 20:07 (4149-4159)

He is too much a Western Conservative.

Rousseau gave his children in an orphan asylum! He preached water and drank wine.

One of the words for the definitions of „belief“ and „knowledge“ that they must begin with as one original phenomenon is the word „information“ in a very primitive sense which means, for example, without lie, fraud, corruption, cynism .. and so on.

But isn't killing yourself too much work for you (**)?

Copied post in another thread.

I guess that you (**) know that hypergamy as based on politics is „only“ a modern phenomenon but is actually based on the fact that women tend to marry men of higher classes. To marry men of higher classes makes sense then, when it comes to motivate both men (to get higher positions) and women (to get men of higher positions). It becomes a problem then, when it becomes a political, institutional, publicly regulated, dictatoral matter - and that is the case in the so-called „Western World“.

Copied post in another thread.

Hahaha wrote:

»You have a new private message (**).

Yes, hypergamy has always existed to some degree in human history but before recently it was thing for a small minority of women. As you said so aptly in your post it only became disruptive upon being institutionalized for all women including the lowest common denominator.“ **

Yea.

World War III Angry wrote:

„Information is useless without understanding though.“ **

That is not true. You do not understand what I mean, what „information“ in a very primitive sense means, or/and you do not want to understand and have a ready-made opinion in your head which you do not want to let it out of it.

World War III Angry wrote:

„All of us are inundated with so much information every day we can't possibly process it all. We process what is reasonable to process.“ **

Q.E.D.: You do not understand what I mean, what „information“ in a very primitive sense means. Try to evolutionarily go backwards - far away from now. Otherwise you will never understand what the word „information“ in a very primitive sense means.

WW_III_ANGRY wrote:

„Even an amoeba receives information, but does that mean it knows anything?“ **

Again: You do not understand what I mean, what „information“ means .... An amoeba does not need to believe (sic!) and not need to know (sic) about its information.

Have you forgotten the topic of your thread?

World War III Angry wrote:

„Why isn't it true?

It is useless because without understanding nothing can be said to be of use. To ascribe a »use« for something, anything, requires understanding of what that „something, anything“ is and does - and what it should do or does naturally. IF there's no conscious awareness of existence, it doesn't matter what anything does. Thus useless.“ **

Like I said: Understanding in a very primitive sense does not mean what we understand when we use the word „understanding in a human sense. Remember: Your thread is about belief and knowledge; and an amoeb does not need to understand what information means (you should not always confuse all living beings with human beings!), it does not need to believe or to know in order to be informed in the sense of „being in form“. „Information“ originally comes from „being in form“ (there is no need of belief and knowledge). Do you understand that?

You asked me what the common root is. I have given you the answer several times, but you have not understood it, and that is the problem, your problem.

Stones do not believe and not know. Primitive living beings do not believe and not know, but they are „in form“ (they live) without believing and knowing it.

Surreptitious 57 wrote:

„There is information and there is knowledge. All knowledge is information. But not all information is knowledge.“ **

That is what I said to WW III Angry several times, but he did not understand it.

850) Arminius, 13.03.2016, 02:55, 03:55, 16:07, 21:09, 22:08, 23:00, 23:16 (4160-4165)

World War III Angry wrote:

„I certainly understand that. He didn't make that distinction initially.“ **

Oh, yes, I did (with other words, of course), but you did not understand it.

Do you understand your own words?

World War III Angry wrote:

„That is great insight of yours as that receiving information is being informed. Is being informed mean understanding? Well, yes it does, essentially. I don't know what you mean by primative, but any sort of knowledge is knowledge, regardless of how menial it is. Like I said, does an amoeba receiving information mean it is understanding it?“ **

No.

World War III Angry wrote:

„We may not know the answer to that question but one can just say no, it isn't - because it has no mind, at least that we know of. It would be an assumption otherwise. I agree an amoeba does not need to understand what information means ....“ **

Are you sure that you agree?

World War III Angry wrote:

„I never confused that with all human beings I never claimed an amoeba needs Information. It seems you're arguing against something I never stated.“ **

That is - again - not true. I gave you an advice („you should not always confuse all living beings with human beings!“) but did not say that you stated this or that. Giving an advice does not necessarily mean that a statement was given in a text (in your case: your text in your posts) but that in could be in your thoughts. Note the subjunctive - „should“, „could“ - in my sentences.

I think that you are confusing all living beings with human beings in your thoughts, not necessarily in your posted statements. Do you know the distinction (difference) of your thoughts and your posted statements? I am trying to understand why you are writing so much nonsense. Now my conlusion is: Your statements or your thoughts or both your statements and your thoughts are false - but never none of them.

World War III Angry wrote:

„But being informed is understanding - but an amoeba may just be »reacting« not being informed.

The reverse is true. „Being informed“ can but does not necessarily mean „understanding“. „Being informed“ and „being in form“ (it is like: „to live“) belong together, and this has primarily nothing to do with your interpretation of „understanding“. A cell does not need to humanly understand its information.

Remember: Your thread is about belief and knowledge. A cell does not have a belief and a knowledge in the sense that you mean. The „belief“ and the „knowledge“ of a cell are the same: information (coming in form, being in formed, being in form) in a primitive sense which means without understanding and all other mental processes an anthropocentric human being always hastily interprets into all living beings.

World War III Angry wrote:

„Perhaps you didn't understand what I wrote, I wrote the basic gist of it, more needs to be said at a later time, as I stated elsewhere in this thread.“ **

You are the one who did not understand what almost all others wrote in this thread. That is obvious. You contradict yourself. And when you „agree with everything except knowledge is a subset of information“, then it is ridiculous, because it is like saying „I agree with 100% but not with 99% of your statement“. The main statement was that „knowledge is a subset of information“. And when you say „because information is very broad and goes beyond the mind“, then it becomes even more ridiculous, because it becomes obvious that you did not understand the thesis and its argument you want to criticize. So again: You are the one who did not understand what almost all others wrote in this thread.

By the way: Do you know what you really want? And if yes: What do you really want?

Hahaha wrote:

„What's the difference really between post-modern nihilism and this ancient kind of nihilism you're talking about?“ **

First of all I would not call one of those boths nihilism forms „post-modern“, because nihilism is a modern phenomenon.

The difference is almost what you also already (but more allusively or suggestively) said in another thread (I can't find it at the moment): Socratism and Platonism changed the Ancient-Greek philosophy and this change was criticised by the ancient cynics (Antisthenes, Diogenes and others), but later this became normal, so Socratism and especially Platonism and followers became cynical as well and they mixed with „movements“ like the Stoics and the Christians. I know ,this statement is especially a Nietzschean statement, but nevertheless: it is true. Nietzsche called himself a „Cyniker“ instead of „Zyniker“ (this is the correct spelling form in German) just to show that he did not want to be a modern cynic („Zyniker“) but an ancient cynik („Cyniker“). By the way: To make it more Ancient-Greek-alike he should have called himself a „Kyniker“, I think. So a „Cyniker“ or „Kyniker“ is cynical towards the „Zyniker“ - because the ancient cynics have become normal, thus more and more the modern cynics which can only be cynically criticised by cynics who are more again like the ancient cynics (therefore: Cyniker/Kyniker versus Zyniker). Now I am saying that there are two different forms of nihilism as well, because cynism and nihilism belong together, although they are not the same (cynism is a subset of nihilism, so to say), and there are more than two forms of nihilism. But in that said post I was talking about two different forms of nihilism: one of the Ancient-Greek culture and one of the Occidental culture. They are different. Our modern nihilism we are confrontated with is (1) a more regulated one than the ancient one was and (2) much more active than the ancient one was. But I don't exactly know whether they can be used against each other. Probably this phenomenon is comparable with the speed of light, because it has always the same amount, whereas other velocities can have different amounts.

James S. Saint wrote:

„»I don't see any reason to care.« What else is nihilism.“ **

Yes, but that is more the Ancient-Greek variant of nihilism, whereas our Modern-Occidental variant of nihilism is more regulated and more active than the Ancient-Greek variant of nihilism was. The Modern-Occidental nihilist says: „You are allowed to do x“, although he/she knows that it is unethical, immoral. This is the cynically regulated side of the Modern-Occidental nihilism, the cynically unregulated side of the Modern-Occidental nihilism is the destruction of all values with the support of the cynically regulated side.

Celine Kayser wrote:

„Do you assume that the great depression happened out of the blue?“ **

No. Of course: No. If you read my other posts, then you will know it.

==>