And (by the way): Goethe lived in a time of two philosophically and
scientifically important Occidental eras: (1) Enlightenment, (2) Idealism/Romantic.
James S. Saint wrote:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, ....
**
Yes.
Which verb comes semantically very close to the verb instill?
Mags J. wrote:
We may not be here to know or document it ... so. **
You mean you and me (for example)? If yes, then you are probably right.
But maybe other humans who have become cyborgs (transhumans) will be capable
of living for ever.
Mark Morris said:
Well, theres every expectation that in about 5 billion
more years, that our sun will swell up to become a red giant. And then,
as it gets larger and larger, it will eventually become whats
called an asymptotic giant branch star a star whose radius is
just under the distance between the sun and the Earth one astronomical
unit in size. So the Earth will be literally skimming the surface of
the red giant sun when its an asymptotic giant branch star.
A star that big is also cool because theyre cold red
hot versus blue hot or yellow hot like our sun. Because its cold,
a red giant star at its surface layers can keep all of its elements
in the gas phase. So some of the heavier elements the metals
and the silicates condense out as small dust grains, and when
these elements condense out as solids, then radiation pressure from
this very luminous giant star pushes the dust grains out. That may seem
like a minor issue, but in fact these dust grains carry the gas with
them. And so the star literally expels its atmosphere, and goes from
a red giant star to a white dwarf, when finally the core of the star
is exposed. Now, as its doing this, that hot core of the star
is still very luminous and lights up through a fluorescent process,
this out-flowing envelope, this atmosphere that was once a star, and
thats what produces these beautiful displays that are called planetary
nebulae.
Now, planetary nebulae can be these beautiful round, spherical objects,
or they can be bipolar, which is one of the mysteries that were
working here is trying to understand why, at some stage, a star suddenly
becomes axisymmetric in other words, is sending out iss
atmosphere in two diametrically opposed directions predominantly, rather
than continuing to lose mass spherically.
We cant invoke rotation of the star that would be one
way to get a preferred axis, but stars dont rotate fast enough.
If you take the sun and let it expand to become a red giant, then by
the conservation of angular momentum, it literally wont be spinning
at all. Itll be spinning so slowly that itll literally have
no effect. So we cant invoke spin, so there must be something
going on deep down inside the star, that when you finally expose some
rapidly spinning core, it can have an effect.
Or, all of the stars that we see as planetary nebula can have binary
companions, that could be massive planets or relatively low mass stars
that themselves can impose an angular momentum orientation on the system.
This is in fact an idea that Ive been championing for decades
now, and it has some traction. Theres a lot of planetary nebula
nuclei, the white dwarves, that seem to have companions near them that
are suspect for having been responsible for helping strip the atmosphere
of the mass-losing red giant star but also providing a preferred axis
along which the ejected matter can flow. **
Wikipedia wrote:
One billion to two billion years in the future, the increase
in solar radiation caused by the helium build-up at the core of the
Sun will result in the loss of the oceans and the cessation of continental
drift. Four billion years from now, the increase in the Earth's surface
temperature will cause a bad greenhouse effect. By that point, most
if not all the life on the Earth will be gone. The most likely fate
of the planet is being destroyed by the Sun in about 7.5 billion years,
after the star has entered the red giant phase and expanded to cross
the planet's orbit. ....
When the Sun first became a main sequence star, it radiated only 70%
of the current luminosity. The luminosity has increased in a nearly
linear fashion to the present, increasing by 1% every 110 million years.
In three billion years the Sun is expected to be 33% more luminous.
The hydrogen fuel at the core will finally be limited in 4.8 billion
years, when the Sun will be 67% more luminous than at present. Thereafter
the Sun will continue to burn hydrogen in a shell surrounding its core,
until the increase in luminosity reaches 121% of the present value.
This marks the end of the Sun's main sequence lifetime, and thereafter
it will be into a red giant. **
Tara West wrote:
According to a team of astronomers, Andromeda Galaxy will consume
our Milky Way Galaxy approximately five billion years from now. ....
The Milky Way has actually cannibalized smaller galaxies in the past.
It has been a long time since the Milky Way has merged with another
large galaxy, but astronomers note that you can still see remnants of
all the old galaxies weve cannibalized. However, the Milky Way
will do a little more consuming of its own before the Andromeda Galaxy
has a chance to take a bite at it.
Dr. Robotham discussed the consuming of galaxies by the Milky Way
....
»Were also going to eat two nearby dwarf galaxies,
the Large and Small Magellanic Clouds, in about four billion years.«
**
It is believed that Milky Way galaxy will grow bigger in nearly four
billion years by consuming two dwarf galaxies nearby- the Large and
the Small Magellanic Clouds. After the Milky Way does its consuming,
the Andromeda Galaxy will then eat up the Milky Way, because it is more
massive even after the Milky Way consumers its nearby smaller galaxies.
Scientists do point out that the process takes billions of years.
Therefore, it will be around four billion years before the Milky Way
begins consuming its neighbors, and another billion years after that
before it comes into contact with the massive Andromeda Galaxy.
Astronomers believe that the process of larger galaxies consuming
smaller galaxies will keep happening until a few very large galaxies
remain in the universe. They said the process will take a long time
to happen, and is billions of years in our future. **
James S. Saint wrote:
The »Prime Mover« is the primary cause of all motion
and is eternal. Something cannot be a cause of something else without
that something else appearing, else it really isn't the cause. Because
the primary cause of all motion is eternal, motion itself must also
be eternal.
The Prime Mover did not begin the universe, but rather is at the very
foundation of any and all motion (aka »spirit«). The physical
universe is made entirely of the changing, the motion itself, physical
spirit. And such motion continues eternally because the Prime Mover
for it is eternal (yet not itself physical). **
So at first there was the Prime Mover (spiritual) and the universe (physical)
and thus two universal realms: (1) the spiritual realm as the foundation
of any and all motion (changing); (2) the physical realm containing the
motion itself (physical spirit).
Pandora wrote:
Globalism is the key word here, with its implied abolishment
of traditional national identity. **
As I said. Yes.
Pandora wrote:
Islam's incorporation into Europe, as it is right now, is too
forced and quick, meaning that someone is pushing for war. (A war which
will benefit US). **
Yes. And it is also true that that war will benefit the US (like other
wars did before).
Pandora wrote:
The dilemma that I see is that if a country wants to preserve
its traditional national identity, it could only do so as a/n (economically)
subservient state to another superpower; and that is a delicate position
to be in, as it is not certain if and for how long it will be able to
protect its interests in such a position. A war in Europe will likely
weaken it, at least economically; and economically weakened country
is still vulnerable to exploitation. The other option is diversification
of Europe, a process which normally takes generations. An expedited
diversification could be a response in order to prevent war, but I don't
see it working out (due to sabotage). What is the best course of action?
**
That is the question, yea.
Pandora wrote:
Is allowing to be coerced into war the best choice for Europe
right now? Even if Europe chooses the war, will it be in a position
to defend itself against globalists after the war is over? **
1.) Globalists are in Europe too.
2.) Europeans would have to become absolutely capable of defending themselves
and their whole territory.
3.) War is lucrative, and many actors, especially the most powerful ones
- the Globalists -, know that they will benefit, become more powerful
or at least remain powerful.
So I guess that Europe will probably remain relatively passive and weak,
in an oddly awaiting position, then be coerced into war pretty soon (at
least long before 2050 [**|**]),
and the result will be a huge loss and a huge chaos. The beginning of
it can alraedy be seen (although many people do not want to see it, because
they shall not want to see it - which means that this first little circle
is complete, because the plan of the Globalists is reached again).
Prismatic 567 wrote:
You are always blabbering your condemnations of my views without
any proper arguments nor justifications. That is not the way for any
credible intellectual and philosophical discussions. **
You are the one who is always blabbering his condemnations
of other views without any proper arguments nor justifications.
So you are also the one who is not capable of prticipating in credible
intellectual and philosophical discussions.
Note: I have quoted your problematic statements which can be found in
all your threads.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
Btw, I have spent always 3 years full time basis studying Kant and
his philosophy .... **
So it seems that you will have to spent probably more than 30 years
from now on in order to undertand what Kant was talking about. Your errors
are not a ressult of Kant's philosophy but of your false interpretation
and consequently of your false derivations from it.
If Kant lived today, he would be the first one who agreed with me and
said to you: Du bist nicht vernünftig, sondern doof oder zynisch.
Aufklärung ist der Ausgang des Menschen aus seiner selbstverschuldeten
Unmündigkeit. Unmündigkeit ist das Unvermögen, sich seines
Verstandes ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Selbstverschuldet
ist diese Unmündigkeit, wenn die Ursache derselben nicht am Mangel
des Verstandes, sondern der Entschließung und des Mutes liegt,
sich seiner ohne Leitung eines anderen zu bedienen. Sapere aude! Habe
Mut, dich deines eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen! ist also der
Wahlspruch der Aufklärung. - Immanuel Kant,
Beantwortung der Frage: Was ist Aufklärung?, 1784.
Der Mohammedianism unterscheidet sich durch Stolz, weil er,
statt der Wunder, an den Siegen und der Unterjochung vieler Völker
die Bestätigung seines Glaubens findet, und seine Andachtsgebräuche
alle von der mutigen Art sind. - Immanuel Kant,
Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft,
1793, 4. Stück, 2. Teil, § 2, A 269, B 285.
Der Mensch ist ein Tier, was eine Erziehung nötig hat.
- Immanuel Kant, Reflexionen über die Anthropolgie,
1798.
What you are doing here in this webforum is just the oppositie of what
Kant wanted his readers to do.
And what you are saying about silly and stupid is nothing
else than your self-description. You have given no single argument for
your silly and stupid statements. Note: You are the one who
has opened this thread. So you have to give coherent arguments for your
subject. But you have given no single one. That is in fact silly and stupid.
Yes (**).
Inventing gods has never been stopped. The opposite is true: More and
more gods have been invented.
Yes (**).
And the worst thing is that he (**)
- by doing that - is almost always misusing a dead philosopher.
Yes (**).
He was the one (**).
Of course.
Eine Würdigung Nietzsches wird immer stark davon abhängen,
wie man den » Willen zur Macht« auffaßt. Ermunterung
zu imperialem Zynismus? Kathartisches Geständnis ? Ästhetisches
Motto ? Selbstkorrektur eines Gehemmten ? Vitalistischer Slogan? Metaphysik
des Narzißmus? Enthemmungspropaganda? - Peter Sloterdijk, Kritik
der zynischen Vernunft, 1983, S. 389. **
Translation: An appreciation of Nietzsche
will always strongly depend on how one understands the »will to
the power«. Encouragement to imperial cynicism? Cathartic confession?
Aesthetic motto? Self-correction of an inhibited? Vitalistic slogan? Metaphysics
of the narcissism? Propaganda of disinhibition?
Brahman (Sanskrit: holy might, world soul),
originally a magic spell, then the force giving the effectiveness to the
act of sacrificing, finally the creative and conversing principle of the
world - being by the fact itself (ipso facto) - that creates,
carries, conserves, and takes back everything into itself.
According to the Vedanta the Brahman is identical to the Atman (Sanskrit:
self, soul/psyche).
Samsara (Samasara) is the self-repeating cycle of the individual life
(life cycle) by rebirths (cycle of rebirths) with all their sufferings
from which one can merely be redeemed by entering the Brahma resp. the
Nirvana.
Do you like competition?
Although life philosophy wants to understand life by life itself, it
should not be completely reduced to vitalism and biologism which are aspects
of it but not more.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
Correction; {}
»Btw, I have spent {almost} 3 years full time basis studying Kant
and his philosophy ....« **
Eather you are lying or not capable of studying Kant and his philosophy
without knowing that fact.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
I admit I do not know German.
If you insist in using German, then there is something wrong with you.
**
So you admit to not have read Kant. I thought so.
So there is something wrong with you.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
So far, you have not justified where I am wrong at all.
**
Wrong again. I have justified where you are wrong in almost every post.
If you are not capable of reading them, then you obviously do not know
English either.
I do not have to repeat my words again and again.
DNA was not known when Kant wrote his books. So Kant did not say anything
about DNA. Your deductions are completely false. Morality
is something that must be learned. There is no morality gene. Any statement
that there might be a morality gene has been falsified.
What you are saying is false. And it is dangerous too.
Prismatic567 wrote:
Just show me, like; Prismatic 567 stated »Y is true«
but the truth as justified is »X«. **
Prismatic 567 is not capable of showing any tiny hint that his silly
statements could be true. You have not read Kant, you know
nothing about morality, nothing about genetics, nothing about children,
nothing about education, ... and so on and so forth. Your posts have shown
this fact very clearly, regardless whether you admit it or not.
Prismatic 567 wrote:
Btw, don't bring language to mess up the issue,
- any difference in terms of language can be reconciled. **
Absolutely wrong.
And you forgot to say: don't bring up to use words against me.
Sorry, but you are just too dumb.
Yes (**).
Probably he is even more than that.
Pandora wrote:
One needs to ask himself as what comes first in order to determine
what is a part of what. **
Himself? Whom do you mean?
Prismatic 567 wrote:
»Life Philosophy« [vitalism ++] would imply partial
philosophy and will not cover whole-life and the whole of reality.
**
You have not read or at least not understood what life philosophy is,
how it is defined. Life philosophy (by definition) does not have to cover
the whole of reality. This is already said in this thread. Just try to
read it.
And it is also not simply meant as a way of life (**).
It is true that you will not find one isolated gene that causes
morality. And it is also true that even several genes that could
cause morality are not findable. His stupid statements collapse
in any case. The main issue is that his statements are not
only stupid but also evil, thus dangerous.
He would have to prove that all humans are born with a potential
to be evil (**),
because that is his stupid, false, evil, dangerous statement.
It is not possible to prove that. He is WRONG. His "statement"
is FALSE.
It is possible to falsify his statement, because
there is no single genetic finding, no result, no experiment that can
prove his statement.
Arminius wrote:
Pandora wrote:
»Islam's incorporation into Europe, as it is right now, is
too forced and quick, meaning that someone is pushing for war. (A
war which will benefit US).« **
Yes. And it is also true that that war will benefit the US (like other
wars did before). **
**
In line with that the following post I just found: **
.
He (**)
does not want to face reality (for example the fact that he does not know
you [**]
at all).
FALSE (**).
What Mags means by false idols (**)
IS what I mean by »scientific« gods (**|**).
And all science is Occidental science.
Russell and Whitehead built upon Frege, yes. But
Einstein did not built upon Newton, although both can cosmologically be
regarded as relativists. Einstein was influenced by the physicist Planck
and the mathematician Hilbert. (Hilbert submitted the same general relativity
theorie [GRT] on the 20th of November 1915, five days before [!]
Einstein), but Einstein published it before Hilbert).
What about the nature?
60 miles <=> 96.56... km.
....
Will you move again?
I mean the climate, the landscape (especially the trees and the mountains),
the seascape ..., and something more.
No. You (**)
are wrong. What he is (and you are) saying is like saying everything
I say is true because it is possible to be true. That is not how
science works and how science should work, because, if it does, then it
is no science anymore. Moreover: He is misusing a philosopher of the 18th
century as his witness for his 21st century statements. There
is no morality gene. Period.
People have to learn what good and evil mean.
That is a fact. And this fact is the reason why morality is almost always
misused in education, regardless whether in kindergartens, schools, universities,
or by the mass media, the political system
Thank you (**)
very much.
Infants learn and want to learn (they are very much interested in learning),
whereas many ILP members seem to have stopped learning.
|