zenforyen

I put them on humus-rich soil

(I'll show myself out)

Okay vielleicht hab ich überreagiert, weil mich das Klischee Argument getriggert hat. Tut mir leid. Will niemandem was unterstellen.

Ich versuche es mal weniger polemisch.

Wenn man beweisen wollen würde "Es gibt einen Gott', müsste man überhaupt erstmal definieren was "es gibt" und was "Gott" bedeutet.

Je nachdem wie man das betrachtet, kriegt man ganz unterschiedliche Antworten.

Wenn man 'es gibt' interpretiert im materiellen Sinn, also eine Ansammlung von Materie und Energie, die wir 'Gott' nennen, ich glaube da sind sich fast alle einig dass das für jede nicht abstruse Definition von 'Gott' (also kein Opa auf einem Berg oder Spaghetti Monster) sagen kann, was auch immer Gott ist, ist nicht Teil des materiellen Universums.

Ich finde also schon zu sagen 'es gibt' ist hier schon problematisch. Gibt es natürliche Zahlen? Wenn ja, was sind sie? Was ist ihre Essenz? Da gehen die Meinungen auch auseinander. Klar ist, genau wie Gott gibt es die Zahl 3 nicht als pure Abstraktion innerhalb der physischen Welt.

Wenn aber Gott mehr die Natur einer Zahl hat, kommen wir zu abstrakten Begriffen. Ist Gott eine Art Idee im platonischen reich der Ideen, und wir haben Zugang dazu wie zur Zahl 3 und können eine intuition entwickeln? Auch schwer zu sagen, die Zahl 3 ist definiert über ihre Beziehungen zu anderen zahlen, die Zahl 3 IST genau die Beziehung die alle Dinge die sich wie 3 verhalten instanziieren. Ist "gott" einfach das "Gute"? Aber wer definiert das ? Hier bricht sie Analogie etwas, weil spirituelle Systeme nicht die Formalität und Genauigkeit haben um sie nebeneinander zu legen und zu sagen "das ist der gemeinsame kern'". Das wäre dann aber ein möglicher weg Gott abstrakt genug zu definieren, um ihm eine Art abstrakte Realität zu zuschreiben.

Alternativ kann man sagen "Gott ist alles" damit wären wir im Pantheismus und "es gibt Gott" ist trivialerweise erfüllt.

Weitere Variante: wir postulieren Gott als etwas außerhalb von allem was wir verstehen und kennen. Da sind wir nah an klassischen Vorstellungen , und die sorgen quasi apriori für unbeweisbarkeit. Sie schieben durch die Definition von Gott diesen direkt aus dem beweisbaren Bereich hinaus. Und damit ist es aber nicht unbedingt falsch sondern einfach nicht beweisbar.

Damit wären wir aber quasi bei der parallele zu den Unvollständigkeitssätzen. Zu jedem Zeitpunkt haben wir ein endliches system mit endlich vielen annahmen und Bekannten Fakten und akzeptierten Schlussfolgerungen und Methoden, aber Gott ist etwas im unendlichen limit über alle möglichen Systeme hinweg. Vielleicht existiert dieses limit, vielleicht nicht. In etwa wie die Vorstellung von Georg Cantor - Gott als die unerreichbare und unbeweisbare "absolute Unendlichkeit" (im Gegensatz zu der unendlichen Kaskade von Unendlichkeiten, die er durch die Formalisierung der Mengenlehre bewiesen hat)

Das setzt Empirismus axiomatisch als deine einzige epistemologische Grundlage voraus.

Aber selbst in der reinen Mathematik gibt es immer Aussagen die wahr sind, aber die nicht bewiesen werden können. Man könnte meinen, in der sterilen Mathematik wo alles aus axiomen mechanisch deduktiv folgen muss, da müsste doch alles beweisbar sein?

Dachte der Hilbert auch, aber das Hilbert Programm der Mathematik ist krachend gescheitert mit dem Beweis der Gödelschen Unvollständigkeitssätze. Und die beweisen, dass jedes hinreichend komplexe logische system (vereinfacht gesagt, es reicht darin nur rechnen zu können, mehr nicht) blinde Flecken enthält - Aussagen die innerhalb des Systems nicht bewiesen werden können.

Warum glaubst du, dass unser Framework in den Naturwissenschaften vollständig ist? Empirizismus arbeitet unter den praktischen Beschränkungen von dem was wir messen können, sagt aber nichts über den ontologischen und epistemologischen Status von allen Dingen und Sachverhalten, die außerhalb der verfügbaren Werkzeuge liegen, die wir zur Verfügung haben.

Viele Grüße, Ein "überzeugter Agnostiker"

PS: die Demut zu sagen "ich weiß es nicht" oder "man kann es nicht wissen" ist heute eine leider seltene Tugend. Wäre vielleicht auch für andere Themen angebracht. Man muss nicht zu allem eine "ja/nein" Meinung haben.

PS 2: Wenn man sich mit Grundlagen der Logik und Wissenschaftstheorie intensiv genug beschäftigt, wird man fast automatisch Agnostiker.

Let's better say what I do accept. I have read Marx and accept his analysis of dynamics of capital as correct, it's hard not to see that it is spot-on. I accept the general paradigm that the foundation of all such dynamics is the underlying material conditions, i.e. wealth inequality, which leads to power inequality. He however never outlined a clear way out.

I read enough secondary literature about whatever people tried to build on Marx as ways out and have seen enough of evidence against "real existing socialism" and have first-hand family experience from this system. I know all the objections that it was state capitalism or whatever, but I am pessimistic about human nature.

Actual socialism emerging from a revolution and whatever leadership to stay uncorrupted instead of eventually seizing power seems very utopian and unlikely to me, just as utopian and naive as anarchists believe that self-organized structures will not degenerate back to capitalistic tribalism with a few extra steps that will just redistribute the power a little bit and new opportunists to win the next round.

You misunderstood my "European patriotism" (in quotes!), because I never said anything about loving or approving everything done by the organisation you criticize (EU). What I was talking about was the ethos of wanting to protect the least shitty system I see anywhere on earth right now, which is deployed most successfully around Europe-the-continent, the "real existing faulty bureaucratic democracy".

You seem to be of the opinion that it needs to be dismantled and replaced by something else. The right extremists say the same. The problem is that it's easy to call for destruction but it's difficult to build. All I see is "we need to tear it down... And then we'll somehow magically build something new from scratch".

I am a software developer by profession. You know how this works? You have to work with shitty systems other people you despise built over decades. I wish I could throw it all into the garbage and just build from scratch. But unlike politics, where talk is cheap, here I can see and quantify how much fucking work it is both technically and socially. It's just like wanting to "just build a different sky scraper" without understanding anything about engineering. You can try, and probably will end up with another flavor if ugly mess. You also need to (re)educate other developers, you need to convince people, and finally the users need to either not be bothered by your "improvements" and you cannot allow such a long down time or reconstruction phase because the outside world is not waiting for you to get your shit together.

Now, I think politics is exactly the same. Law is the code of society, and developers and users need to buy into different paradigms I.e. accept other values and standards and possibly form of organization. I don't see any proposed alternative being even close to have a clear realistic path, except of a strong faith that "it somehow will work out". I doubt that it works that way. History works incrementally, and complex systems become incrementally fucked up, does not matter where you start.

The radical left is losing against the fascists because the fascists learned how to incrementally win mind-share of the people and hide it's radical nature, while the radical left is continuing to engage in black and white thinking and pushing regular people away.

That leads me to the hypothesis that the only way to fix the system is actually good people low-key moving up in power and tweaking it from the inside, that means the reverse direction of what is happening right now.

Then I believe we need "pro-social propaganda", working in a subtle way like the capitalistic matrix, which means that you have to win back the media. If you have the media, you can win the hearts and minds of people.

The classic approach of the left only works in a society where the majority is in such distress that they are open to extreme changes and have nothing to lose. But the system we are in is a system of "good enough".

So I don't believe in the tactics of the radical left and I don't believe in the existence of a solid plan, there is at most a "concept of a plan", in the words of a well-known dictator. I doubt the practical experience and competence of radical left thinkers and intellectuals, who have never worked inside a complex system such as academia or a company and have a simplistic idea of "change management" for social, bureaucratic and technical structures. Being able to organize some demonstration or violent resistance to break something does not necessarily correlate with the ability to build something better in its place and might not justify possible damage done in between.

So what is the way forward? I have no idea. But that is why I hope for some genuine and smartly executed "reformist" movement and would not expect any good outcomes from naive "revolutionary" ambitions. The revolutionary left is ultimately also a collection of populist movements, in the sense of promising simple answers to complex problems.

What does that make me ideologically? No idea. I don't care about labels. Call it "pragmatic realistic left" or whatever.

By the way, nice username. I got some of these recently.

Are you one of those "tankies" everyone is talking about here on Lemmy?

And how do you know whether I read "some books" or not? Could it maybe just be that I just don't accept their conclusions, question the suggested alternative or the way to get there?

Do you think that either you become enlightened by reading them, or you must be dumb or the enemy?

And maybe that does say more about you thank about me?

Good Points in general. But where did you read about me wanting to destroy something? The only thing I actively think we need to destroy is fascism and imbalance of power, which is slowly corrupting everything like mold.

Pluralistic democracy in that regard is a more abstract concept than a concrete agenda and it is hard to unite people for such an abstract value. This value should only be a proxy value for other concrete outcomes/values, ideally. But let's turn it around. Only because it's free and democratic does not guarantee it is effective and doing good. But without it, there will be no chance for good outcomes.

I agree with your general message, it probably would be better to have a cause "for" something good and not against something bad. Only sadly it seems that in practice people are easier to unite against something or out of fear of something.

Oh je... Naja, der hat bei der Wahl auch seiner Basis versprochen keine neuen Schulden zu machen, man kann ja hoffen, das mit den Windrädern war jetzt auch nicht so gemeint. Muss man schon verstehen, da war halt Wahlkampf, und man sagt so ein paar wilde Dinge einfach mal, wie wird man denn sonst Kanzler ?

By authority of the central bank and the state? Checks out.

Are you mixing up some things? The only person who publicly said something about dismantling is the crazy lady from the AfD. I don't like Merz, but I've not heard anything about him shitting on wind energy directly.

However you are right that our new government will probably suck pretty much. The only option that was possible without involving fascists, sadly.

How I wish our societies could get there. Agree on a humane and empathy driven system, as you say. Maybe imperfect, but practically feasible and pragmatic. Idealistic in spirit, but not naive. Friendly, but with teeth if provoked. Something that can survive in this world and still be a good place for everyone, without illusions but also without cynicism and hypocrisy.

Yeah I also believe that good communication is key. Communication with everyone we might even strongly disagree with, as long as they are not actually beyond that in their beliefs and are just mislead or uninformed etc., but well-meaning. Such people need to be somehow included and heard and not pushed away into the arms of the extremists...