Theme: Deception

  • German Philosophy

    by Daniel Gurpide The more I follow Curt’s posts, the more I realize German philosophy is not that ‘great’. The Greats of German philosophy (Kant-Fichte-Hegel-Marx-Heidegger, I’m leaving Nietzsche outside on purpose, I know) make up a Counter-Enlightenment tradition that ends up being suspicious of science and technology, anti-individualistic and anti-liberal. They all contributed in varying degrees to the authoritarian regimes that developed in the 1900s – the various forms of authoritarian nationalisms, the national and international socialisms, the fascisms – and the cultural catastrophes named ‘Frankfurt School’ and ‘Post-Modernism’. Kant (the only picture in Kant’s house was a portrait of Rousseau that was hanging over his writing desk) buttressed the pre-modern worldview of faith and duty against the inroads of the Enlightenment: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” (Kant) Hegel explicitly attacks the entire tradition of logic as it had developed from Aristotle to modernity. He wants to believe in a kind of spiritually-driven, dialectically-evolving metaphysics that cannot be expressed logically. His deeper views are that one’s self is but an aspect of the collective, that the Divine works through collective self-realization, and that the State is the manifestation of the Divine. Hegel on the beginning of the universe: “So far, there is nothing: something is to become. The beginning is not pure nothing, but a nothing from which something is to proceed; so that being is already contained in the beginning. The beginning thus contains both, being and nothing; it is the unity of being and nothing, or is not-being which is being, and being which is also not being.” This is a forewarning of the worst Heidegger, the ‘nazi’ philosopher par excellence who paradoxically ended up recreating the Jewish cosmogonic myth (Creation ‘ex nihilo’). The triad Kant-Fichte-Hegel is behind the modern German educational system, still active nowadays: a factory of perfect automata devoid of personality, adept at crushing any signs of individualism. Social conformism explains why today in Germany there is no resistance to the suicidal program implemented by ‘Big Mutti’. German philosophers are Lutheran pastors in a new garb. All of them, even Marx. Is he German or Jewish? I’m not sure. Isn’t Protestantism another big gulp of Abrahamism? Are Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Heidegger German or Jewish? Is more dangerous the combination of a German philosopher raised in an Abrahamic cult or a Jewish thinker educated in the German school?
  • GERMAN PHILOSOPHY by Daniel Gurpide The more I follow Curt’s posts, the more I r

    GERMAN PHILOSOPHY

    by Daniel Gurpide

    The more I follow Curt’s posts, the more I realize German philosophy is not that ‘great’.

    The Greats of German philosophy (Kant-Fichte-Hegel-Marx-Heidegger, I’m leaving Nietzsche outside on purpose, I know) make up a Counter-Enlightenment tradition that ends up being suspicious of science and technology, anti-individualistic and anti-liberal. They all contributed in varying degrees to the authoritarian regimes that developed in the 1900s – the various forms of authoritarian nationalisms, the national and international socialisms, the fascisms – and the cultural catastrophes named ‘Frankfurt School’ and ‘Post-Modernism’.

    Kant (the only picture in Kant’s house was a portrait of Rousseau that was hanging over his writing desk) buttressed the pre-modern worldview of faith and duty against the inroads of the Enlightenment: “I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.” (Kant)

    Hegel explicitly attacks the entire tradition of logic as it had developed from Aristotle to modernity. He wants to believe in a kind of spiritually-driven, dialectically-evolving metaphysics that cannot be expressed logically. His deeper views are that one’s self is but an aspect of the collective, that the Divine works through collective self-realization, and that the State is the manifestation of the Divine.

    Hegel on the beginning of the universe: “So far, there is nothing: something is to become. The beginning is not pure nothing, but a nothing from which something is to proceed; so that being is already contained in the beginning. The beginning thus contains both, being and nothing; it is the unity of being and nothing, or is not-being which is being, and being which is also not being.” This is a forewarning of the worst Heidegger, the ‘nazi’ philosopher par excellence who paradoxically ended up recreating the Jewish cosmogonic myth (Creation ‘ex nihilo’).

    The triad Kant-Fichte-Hegel is behind the modern German educational system, still active nowadays: a factory of perfect automata devoid of personality, adept at crushing any signs of individualism. Social conformism explains why today in Germany there is no resistance to the suicidal program implemented by ‘Big Mutti’.

    German philosophers are Lutheran pastors in a new garb. All of them, even Marx. Is he German or Jewish? I’m not sure. Isn’t Protestantism another big gulp of Abrahamism? Are Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Heidegger German or Jewish? Is more dangerous the combination of a German philosopher raised in an Abrahamic cult or a Jewish thinker educated in the German school?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-14 09:01:00 UTC

  • The Church’s Murder Of Scientists

    Lezinsky studied philosophy for eight years as a Jesuit, and then became a judge in legal cases against the Jesuits concerning estates. He wrote a treatise entitled “The non-existence of God” and was later executed on charges of atheism. His trial has been criticized and is seen as a case of legalized religious murder in Poland. On the basis of a public accusation, a trial at the front of the Sejm Commission was conducted. There is a transcript of the proceedings in a Library of Kórnik, including a speech by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Instigator Regni Szymon Kurowicz Zabistowski, in which he cited fragments of De non existentia Dei. “After recantation the culprit was conducted to the scaffold, where the executioner tore with a burning iron the tongue and the mouth, with which he had been cruel against God; after which his hands, the instruments of the abominable production, were burnt at a slow fire, the sacrilegious paper was thrown into the flames; finally himself, that monster of his century, this deicide was thrown into the expiatory flames; expiatory if such a crime may be atoned for.” The treatise itself was destroyed by the diet but the cited fragments that survived are as follows: I – we beseech you, o’ theologians, by your God, if in this manner do you not extinguish the light of Reason, do you not oust the sun from this world, do you not pull down your God from the sky, when attributing him the impossible, the characteristics and attributes contradicting themselves. II – the Man is a creator of God, and God is a concept and creation of a Man. Hence the people are architects and engineers of God and God is not a true being, but a being existing only within mind, being chimeric by its nature, because a God and a chimera are the same. III – Religion was constituted by people without religion, so they could be worshipped although the God is not existent. Piety was introduced by the unpietic. The fear of God was spread by the unafraid so that the people were afraid of them in the end. Devotion named godly is a design of Man. Doctrine, be it logical or philosophical, bragging to be teaching the truth of God, is false, and on the contrary, the one condemned as false, is the very true one. IV – simple folk are cheated by the more cunning with the fabrication of God for their own oppression; whereas the same oppression is shielded by the folk in a way, that if the wise attempted to free them by the truth, they would be quelled by the very people. V – nevertheless we do not experience within us and within any other such an imperative of reason, which would ensure us of a truth of divine revelation. Alas if they were present in us, then everyone would have to acknowledge them and would have no doubts and would not contradict the Writings of Moses and the Gospels – which is not true – and there would be no different congregations and their followers as Mahomet etc. Such an imperative is not known and there are not only doubts, but there are some who deny a revelation, and they are not fools, but wise men, who with a proper reasoning prove what? the very contrary, what I also prove here. Concluding, that God does not exist”.
  • The Church’s Murder Of Scientists

    Lezinsky studied philosophy for eight years as a Jesuit, and then became a judge in legal cases against the Jesuits concerning estates. He wrote a treatise entitled “The non-existence of God” and was later executed on charges of atheism. His trial has been criticized and is seen as a case of legalized religious murder in Poland. On the basis of a public accusation, a trial at the front of the Sejm Commission was conducted. There is a transcript of the proceedings in a Library of Kórnik, including a speech by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Instigator Regni Szymon Kurowicz Zabistowski, in which he cited fragments of De non existentia Dei. “After recantation the culprit was conducted to the scaffold, where the executioner tore with a burning iron the tongue and the mouth, with which he had been cruel against God; after which his hands, the instruments of the abominable production, were burnt at a slow fire, the sacrilegious paper was thrown into the flames; finally himself, that monster of his century, this deicide was thrown into the expiatory flames; expiatory if such a crime may be atoned for.” The treatise itself was destroyed by the diet but the cited fragments that survived are as follows: I – we beseech you, o’ theologians, by your God, if in this manner do you not extinguish the light of Reason, do you not oust the sun from this world, do you not pull down your God from the sky, when attributing him the impossible, the characteristics and attributes contradicting themselves. II – the Man is a creator of God, and God is a concept and creation of a Man. Hence the people are architects and engineers of God and God is not a true being, but a being existing only within mind, being chimeric by its nature, because a God and a chimera are the same. III – Religion was constituted by people without religion, so they could be worshipped although the God is not existent. Piety was introduced by the unpietic. The fear of God was spread by the unafraid so that the people were afraid of them in the end. Devotion named godly is a design of Man. Doctrine, be it logical or philosophical, bragging to be teaching the truth of God, is false, and on the contrary, the one condemned as false, is the very true one. IV – simple folk are cheated by the more cunning with the fabrication of God for their own oppression; whereas the same oppression is shielded by the folk in a way, that if the wise attempted to free them by the truth, they would be quelled by the very people. V – nevertheless we do not experience within us and within any other such an imperative of reason, which would ensure us of a truth of divine revelation. Alas if they were present in us, then everyone would have to acknowledge them and would have no doubts and would not contradict the Writings of Moses and the Gospels – which is not true – and there would be no different congregations and their followers as Mahomet etc. Such an imperative is not known and there are not only doubts, but there are some who deny a revelation, and they are not fools, but wise men, who with a proper reasoning prove what? the very contrary, what I also prove here. Concluding, that God does not exist”.
  • THE CHURCH’S MURDER OF SCIENTISTS Lezinsky studied philosophy for eight years as

    THE CHURCH’S MURDER OF SCIENTISTS

    Lezinsky studied philosophy for eight years as a Jesuit, and then became a judge in legal cases against the Jesuits concerning estates.

    He wrote a treatise entitled “The non-existence of God” and was later executed on charges of atheism. His trial has been criticized and is seen as a case of legalized religious murder in Poland.

    On the basis of a public accusation, a trial at the front of the Sejm Commission was conducted.

    There is a transcript of the proceedings in a Library of Kórnik, including a speech by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Instigator Regni Szymon Kurowicz Zabistowski, in which he cited fragments of De non existentia Dei.

    “After recantation the culprit was conducted to the scaffold, where the executioner tore with a burning iron the tongue and the mouth, with which he had been cruel against God; after which his hands, the instruments of the abominable production, were burnt at a slow fire, the sacrilegious paper was thrown into the flames; finally himself, that monster of his century, this deicide was thrown into the expiatory flames; expiatory if such a crime may be atoned for.”

    The treatise itself was destroyed by the diet but the cited fragments that survived are as follows:

    I – we beseech you, o’ theologians, by your God, if in this manner do you not extinguish the light of Reason, do you not oust the sun from this world, do you not pull down your God from the sky, when attributing him the impossible, the characteristics and attributes contradicting themselves.

    II – the Man is a creator of God, and God is a concept and creation of a Man. Hence the people are architects and engineers of God and God is not a true being, but a being existing only within mind, being chimeric by its nature, because a God and a chimera are the same.

    III – Religion was constituted by people without religion, so they could be worshipped although the God is not existent. Piety was introduced by the unpietic. The fear of God was spread by the unafraid so that the people were afraid of them in the end. Devotion named godly is a design of Man. Doctrine, be it logical or philosophical, bragging to be teaching the truth of God, is false, and on the contrary, the one condemned as false, is the very true one.

    IV – simple folk are cheated by the more cunning with the fabrication of God for their own oppression; whereas the same oppression is shielded by the folk in a way, that if the wise attempted to free them by the truth, they would be quelled by the very people.

    V – nevertheless we do not experience within us and within any other such an imperative of reason, which would ensure us of a truth of divine revelation. Alas if they were present in us, then everyone would have to acknowledge them and would have no doubts and would not contradict the Writings of Moses and the Gospels – which is not true – and there would be no different congregations and their followers as Mahomet etc. Such an imperative is not known and there are not only doubts, but there are some who deny a revelation, and they are not fools, but wise men, who with a proper reasoning prove what? the very contrary, what I also prove here. Concluding, that God does not exist”.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 18:23:00 UTC

  • How Real Are You?

    Can you even speak without idealism, mysticism and conflation? You probably don’t know the extent of your infection by the language of deception. Why? Speaking existentially removes the illusion of ad therefore pretense of, knowledge. There isn’t a big difference between “feels” and “ideals”. The difference is between reals and *everything else* including ideals and feels. || Measurement > Real > Analogy > Ideal > Mysticism > Lie.
  • HOW REAL ARE YOU? Can you even speak without idealism, mysticism and conflation?

    HOW REAL ARE YOU?

    Can you even speak without idealism, mysticism and conflation? You probably don’t know the extent of your infection by the language of deception.

    Why? Speaking existentially removes the illusion of ad therefore pretense of, knowledge.

    There isn’t a big difference between “feels” and “ideals”.

    The difference is between reals and *everything else* including ideals and feels.

    || Measurement > Real > Analogy > Ideal > Mysticism > Lie.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 13:07:00 UTC

  • How Real Are You?

    Can you even speak without idealism, mysticism and conflation? You probably don’t know the extent of your infection by the language of deception. Why? Speaking existentially removes the illusion of ad therefore pretense of, knowledge. There isn’t a big difference between “feels” and “ideals”. The difference is between reals and *everything else* including ideals and feels. || Measurement > Real > Analogy > Ideal > Mysticism > Lie.
  • Solar Cycles > Climate Changes + Athro-Climate Change =/= Hurricanes. That’s *ps

    Solar Cycles > Climate Changes + Athro-Climate Change =/= Hurricanes. That’s *pseudoscience*. Sorry.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 10:32:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907190176769769472

    Reply addressees: @caraelysse

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907040164865871872


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/907040164865871872

  • One year without television and the world would be a much better place

    One year without television and the world would be a much better place.