I combined the question of whether music is best with the question of whether Trump is dangerous and the question of whether Biden is dangerous.
You can discuss anything, you just have to want to.
I am Kathrina. Hello.
This all is what some of the ILP members (me inclusive) should discuss. Others are seemingly not capable of doing it.
Who is “we”?
This all is what some of the ILP members (me inclusive) should discuss. Others are seemingly not capable of doing it.
See above and below.
No.
Look. If you want a discussion, you should think about the topic anyway. The more room you give for such a discussion, the better the quantity and quality of the thought contributions.
You see it differently, because you would rather have an established basis that has already been checked off beforehand, to which you then only want to say “yes”, so that you can finally embrace everyone again.
I will not change a single word in the opening post. Besides, you can see that the opening post is very well received.
The question whether or not human kindness has destroyed more than it has nurtured is indeed interesting, and I would add the question whether or not nurturing causes destroyment and destroyment causes nurturing.
Yes, it struck me as an unformed question as well (not to be confused with an uninformed question). I got the general gist of it but I find it hard to answer unless it’s narrowed down to something more specific, or a set of more specific items.
I have no doubt of that. That is, it seems, what this forum is meant for, wouldn’t you say?
An audience to filter these ideas and concepts and thoughts, to make sense out of them? To create a common language with which an entire community could discuss them and manage to make sense to each other? Sure! In fact, that’s what I think is the philosopher’s function in society, to be the guardians of ideas, those who, with a healthy mind as you say, filter the ideas passing around society and “cleans” them–that is, keep them healthy, useful, and robust–such that we minimize the amount and kinds of bad ideas, or unhealthy ideas, that could grow from this network of ideas and information.
But that doesn’t quite explain what “education” is in this context. What did you mean that “I think this education is at least important for the person who seeks it first”?
I’ll tell you what I think. I think Kathrina is trying to say that we can all have a common education that we all share (harmonious) about our differences (predispositions). ← At this point, I think “typical of human beings” speaks for itself.
^ But really, that’s just a guess.
You mean, leaving no room… ?
Could be, and from a secular point of view (i.e. sans God), there is nothing higher that humanity. To less self-aware minds, this could go straight to one’s head.
Well, I would like if Kathrina rejoined this conversation. I would like to know the answers to my questions (and now yours). And I’d like to know if our interpretation of her “title” is anywhere close.
EDIT: Oh, and look, now I do know!
Hi Kathrina! I’ll reply to you tomorrow. Gotta get some sleep.
I did. I saw a connection of themes between your post and it. Nothing that makes it any more clear though. And you didn’t mention anything about music in your post.
Oh, believe me, I do. Don’t confuse my rudeness for disinterest.
Well, screw them. Maybe you’re right. Maybe we should be discussing this. But first, what is “this” that we’re discussing?
I don’t know. You tell me. Aren’t your questions directed at all of us?
Well, screw them. Maybe you’re right. Maybe we should be discussing this. But first, what is “this” that we’re discussing?
Ooooh! Well, then all I have to do is ask: what is all the above? And you’re answer will resolve everything.
We did manage to make the question more specific: what is “harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings with regard to reason and mind”?
Encode and I pulled that apart a bit and did a semi-deep dive analysis bringing out a few interpretations. Did you read them? Were we even close?
For humanists and so-called “humanists”, humanity has a very high value. However, most humanists do not answer the question of what humanity actually is. There are many others who, for that reason or not, have arrived at an interpretation of humanity that not only calls humanity into question, but even turns the very meaning of the word upside down. But the original meaning itself is also not quite clear, because already at the time when this word appeared - in antiquity - mischief was done with it.
Not I, dear Gib, but Cicero presented the harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings with regard to reason and mind as the main goal of humanity. This should be accompanied by the highest development of human culture and morality and accordingly behavior towards fellow men, indeed towards all creatures. The idea of humanity experienced its actual foundation and development in the 18th century in the era of New Humanism. For Kant, humanity is “the sense of the good in community with others in general; on the one hand, the general feeling of participation, on the other hand, the ability to be able to communicate intimately and generally, which qualities, combined together, constitute the sociability appropriate to humanity, by which it differs from animal confinement”.
Humanity as a value can really be understood as “the best” (well, with values one rather says “the highest”), as for example music can be evaluated as the best. Due to the fact that humanity has been misinterpreted and misunderstood because of the misuse, humanity can also be understood as something that is dangerous, because in its name wars, killings of people and many other creatures, environmental destruction, pollution of the planet Earth and also already its environment have been carried out. The “human rights” have been used more and more only by a few people in the sense of destruction, murder and pollution for reasons of greed for power. This will become worse and worse in the future if this crime will not be stopped. But what can you expect when it is the criminals themselves who (are supposed to) “stop” and “punish” their own crimes?
As if the contamination of the Earth would not be enough, the few - the rulers - have also littered the cosmic environment of the Earth, expose all creatures to the sprayed and vaccinated poisons, high-energy radiation (5G, 6G) and the control of AI. These few, but rulers, make the middle class - the Western middle class -, pay for all this. And 99.9999% of all humans are supposed to subordinate themselves to all this voluntarily.
I already said all that in a shorter form in my opening post, and the others got it right the first time, which is why I’m still wondering what you have your problems with, Gib.
[tab]It is not always necessary to explain what one means with a lot of sentences or even a lot of books or websites, even more so when one wants to have a discussion. Most of the time, a few sentences are much more useful for driving a discussion. [/tab]
Proly 'cause they went with the general gist of what you said, which I stated above that I got. But I like to get a bit more specific because otherwise I feel like it’s guesswork and that I’m just expressing my own thoughts rather than addressing your question. That plus the question addresses topics that are too broad and complex to have a simple yes/no answer.
Encode and I came up with this rendition of what the harmonious education of the predispositions typical of human beings means:
But since you said the idea was originally Cicero’s, I’ll have to look it up.
You can have abstract and exotic definitions of “humanity” but I don’t get what’s so wrong with “the community of human beings on the planet Earth”. ← I think that’s the definition. Simple. Common sense. Creative and profound definitions like Kant’s are fine, but I wouldn’t say that most people misunderstand what humanity really means just because there are these esoteric definitions out there. ← Those are the fringe ones.
Anyway, on the question of whether humanity is overall good or overall evil, I’m inclined to say evil–I don’t have any facts to back that up, I’m just cynical–but I must also repeat this is a very heavy question with no clear yes/no answer. How does one even measure the overall good or evil that comes out of human beings? And shouldn’t one have to define “good” and “evil” first? Get some consensus from a reasonable number of people? And should we be judging the overall good/evil of humanity as a whole, or would such a judgment be meaningless in light of the fact that individuals are good/evil? Questions, questions, questions. ← You see Kathrine? That’s where my mind goes with questions that are this broad and general… I try to give my answer but end up posing more questions.
That’s right. It is also one of the main reasons why I do not want to define the meaning of the word “humanity” or its definition very precisely myself. This would anyway irritate more than enlighten.
Since technology and subsequently economy, media and politics have become frantic, it is hardly possible to keep track of exactly who changes what, when, where and why. Also, many word meanings change in the process. This can go so far that a “neo-speak” (Orwell said “newspeak”, which he referred however to the communism) results alone due to the technical development.
If one assumes in any case that “humanity” is rather dangerous than e.g. best, then one should (be allowed to) expect that the word for it will either be changed in such a way that people understand its meaning, how dangerous “humanity” is, or else the word meaning will remain the old one (e.g. in the sense of Kant or Humboldt), but then people will have to learn to turn this meaning of the word around, because if people will not do this, they will not notice how much they are lied to and deceived (we have enough examples of this from history, especially the communist examples since 1917).
Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.
Wilhelm von Humboldt, the brother of Alexander von Humboldt, defined the task of the state as providing external protection and internal legal security, but otherwise holding back as much as possible and leaving as much freedom as possible for individual and national development.
Many will perhaps prefer to see the word “national” replaced by the word “global”, but we have never had a “global society” and we would first have to experience a “global society” in order to be able to judge whether it can also function in the same way as a national one (I don’t think so, because a “global society” can only lead to oppression, surveillance and violence, many deaths).
Yes.
There are not or at least not only esoteric definitions. There are simply too many misunderstandings, because there are too many misinterpretations, and “controlled misinterpretations” can also be called " intentionally misused interpretations".
The masses as the huge majority in any society are not interested in “definitions” anyway, but use words, and words have meanings. But even in meanings the masses are not very interested, although they should actually know that words always have meanings.
The masses prefer to let think instead of thinking themselves.
So again: Maybe the masses need a lie to believe in.
Yes, but if you really like to go into the details, you should have noticed that I beat you to it, too, because I intentionally did not speak of “good versus evil”, but of “best versus dangerous”, because I juxtaposed something morally evaluated with a rather natural experience in life.
And my further intention was to leave it up to the discussion how to relate the two.
I think that a code of anthropotechnics must be formulated. This would retroactively also change the meaning of classical or idealistic humanism / new humanism - because with it it would be revealed and written down that humanitas does not only imply the friendship of human being with human being; it also always implies - and with increasing explicitness - that human being represents the higher power for human being.
This thread is giving me a few things to think about - I am taking my time with it.
Thank you gib. It is great to see you again too I hope that everything is well in your corner of the world.
I had no idea of your level of knowledge and understanding when I started posting in this thread. As I read through your posts I get a better idea of where you are situated in relation to your original post and the rest of this thread.
Today the globalists are making the revolution, the permanent one, and the people are being fought as if they were the globalists, the rulers of the world.
Do people sometimes ask the wrong question? or do they sometimes ask the wrong person? Or both? The answer is ‘yes’ to both. There is a small chance that you will receive a useful answer in this case.
Sorry for replying so late. I just don’t post that often.
Nietzsche called for and taught transhumanism, and did so very clearly.
Examples:
“I teach you the overman! Man is something that is to be overcome.” (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 8 ).
“Look, I teach you the overman! The overman is the sense of the earth. Your will say: the overman be the sense of the earth!” (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 8 ).
“Man is something that must be overcome …” (Ibid., 1883-1885, p. 40).
is anywhere close.
