Hier kun je tips of ideeën plaatsen of een gesprek starten met andere cursisten. Het kan enige tijd duren voor je je eigen reactie ziet, omdat ik toestemming moet geven. Ik bemoei me niet met de inhoud, maar zo voorkomen we reclame en andere niet bij de cursus horende bijdragen.
Reacties bij Filosofische achtergronden/ Geest uit de fles
Is de bijdrage van Descartes niet hoofdzakelijk de introductie van een fundamentele twijfel en het zoeken naar zekerheid (kennis) via een logische (bij voorkeur wiskundige) methodische aanpak? Een startpunt voor empirische (positivistische) wetenschap.
Het lijkt alsof Groot stelt dat het dualisme (materie-geest) van Descartes meer het gevolg is van de noodzaak om zich te verhouden tot de (christelijke) religie, het bestaan van God en een “eeuwige ziel” dan een logische uitkomst van zijn “cogito ergo sum”. Of dat denken (ook) materie is of niet, maakt voor het principe niet uit. Misschien moet het hele thema “dualisme” wel geplaatst worden tegen de menselijke behoefte aan religie of een geestelijke wereld.
N.a.v. De Geest uit de Fles – pag
King Charles the Martyr, or Charles, King and Martyr, is a title of Charles I, who was King of England, Scotland and Ireland from 1625 until his execution on 30 January 1649. The title is used by high church Anglicans who regard Charles’s execution as a martyrdom. His feast day in the Anglican calendar of saints is 30 January,[1] the anniversary of his execution in 1649. The cult of Charles the Martyr was historically popular with Tories. The observance was one of several “state services” removed in 1859 from the Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England and the Church of Ireland. There remain some churches and parishes dedicated to Charles the Martyr, and his cult is maintained by some Anglo-Catholic societies, including the Society of King Charles the Martyr founded in 1894 and the Royal Martyr Church Union founded in 1906.
Charles is regarded by many members of the Church of England as a martyr because, it is said, he was offered his life if he would abandon the historic episcopacy in the Church of England. It is said he refused, however, believing that the Church of England was truly “Catholic” and should maintain the Catholic episcopate. His designation in the Church of England’s calendar is “Charles, King and Martyr, 1649”.Mandell Creighton, Bishop of London, wrote “Had Charles been willing to abandon the Church and give up episcopacy, he might have saved his throne and his life. But on this point Charles stood firm: for this he died, and by dying saved it for the future.” In fact, Charles had already made an Engagement with the Scots to introduce Presbyterianism in England for three years in return for the aid of Scots forces in the Second English Civil War.
Both high church Anglicans and royalists fashioned an image of martyrdom, and after the 1660 Restoration of the monarchy the Church of England’s Convocations of Canterbury and York added the date of Charles’s martyrdom to its liturgical calendar[7] (Lesser Festival).
Twee films genoemd in de Inleiding staan in hun geheel op You Tube
God’s not Dead -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUz6qSL5gxY – engelstalig, geen ondertiteling
L’ Anée Dernier á Marienbad – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78BtTi5H7qc – franstalig, engelse ondetiteling
Vraag n.a.v. College 1 – dia 5 Terminologie – nieuwe woorden
In een Chinese en in een Latijns-Amerikaanse contexst kwam ik in de jaren ’90 het werkwoord ‘verdwijnen’ tegen in de lijdende vorm: ’to be disappeared’ en ‘disaparecerse’.
Betekenis: niet zelf verdwijnen, maar op gewelddadige wijze door toedoen van anderen, met name de autoriteiten, verdwijnen en meestal voorgoed.
Ik ben het later ook in Nederlandse kranten tegen gekomen.
Is dit ook een voorbeeld van de filosofie die nieuwe woorden nodig heeft?
N.a.v. hoofdstuk 2 Der Mensch als Industriepalast
Op de website van Follow the Money, onder de titel ‘De ontrafeling van ons geldstelsel’ is een tekening te vinden die op industriële wijze het verloop van ons geld laat zien:
https://www.ftm.nl/waterwerk – 22 minuten visuele uitleg
N.a.v. Hoofdstuk 3 en Les Liaisons Dangereuses
Hella Haasse heeft hier een boek over geschreven:
https://literatuurmuseum.nl/nl/ontdek-online/literatuurlab/online-exposities/hella-haasse/een-gevaarlijke-verhouding-of-daal-en-bergse-brieven-1976
N.a.v. het gebruik van nieuwe woorden – een analyse van het taalgebruik in de Amerikaanse politiek:
Letters from an American October 6, 2024
Heather Cox Richardson
Oct 07, 2024
This morning began with a CNN headline story by fact checker Daniel Dale, titled “Six days of Trump lies about the Hurricane Helene response.” Dale noted that Republican nominee for president Donald Trump has been one of the chief sources of the disinformation that has badly hampered recovery efforts.
Trump has claimed that the federal government is ignoring the storm’s victims, especially ones in Republican areas, and that the government is handing out only $750 in aid (in fact, the initial emergency payment for food and groceries is $750, but there are multiple grants available for home rebuilding up to a total of $42,500, the upper limit set by Congress). He has also claimed—falsely—that the Federal Emergency Management Agency is out of money to help because the administration spent all its money on Ukraine and undocumented immigrants.
Trump’s lies are not errors. They are part of a well-documented strategy to overturn democracy by using modern media to create a false political world. Voters begin to base their political decisions on that fake image, rather than on reality, and are manipulated into giving up control of their government to an authoritarian.
Russian political theorists who were key to the rise of Russian president Vladimir Putin after the collapse of the Soviet Union called this manipulation “political technology.”
They developed a series of techniques to pervert democracy through this virtual political reality. They blackmailed opponents, abused state power to help favored candidates, sponsored “double” candidates with names similar to those of opponents in order to split the opposition vote and thus open the way for their own candidates, created false parties to further splinter the opposition, and, finally, created a false narrative around an election or other event that enabled them to control public debate.
Essentially, they perverted democracy, turning it from the concept of voters choosing their leaders into the concept of voters rubber-stamping the leaders they had been manipulated into backing.
This system made sense in former Soviet republics, where it enabled leaders to avoid the censorship that voters would recoil from by instead creating a firehose of news until people became overwhelmed by the task of trying to figure out what was real and simply tuned out.
But it has also worked in the United States, where right-wing leaders have used it to divide the American people and spread disinformation. While “misinformation” is simply false information—which we all spread innocently and correct with accurate information—“disinformation” is a deliberate lie to convince people of things that are not true.
Before the 2016 presidential election, Russian operatives working for Putin set out to tear the U.S. apart and thus undermine the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) they see as stopping the resurrection of Imperial Russia. They called for provoking “instability and separatism within the borders of the United States… encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts,… [and] support[ing] isolationist tendencies in American politics.”
But they were not the only ones operating in this disinformation sphere. In 2014, then–Breitbart chief executive Steve Bannon explained to a right-wing Catholic group meeting at the Vatican that he believed traditional western civilization was fighting a war for survival. To win, current western-style civilizations must be completely reconfigured to put a few wealthy white Christian male leaders in charge to direct and protect subordinates.
In that year, Bannon set out to dismantle the administrative state that was leveling the playing field among Americans and push Christian nationalism. With the help of funding from Republican megadonors Robert and Rebecca Mercer, he launched Cambridge Analytica, a company designed to develop profiles of individuals that would enable advertisers to group them for targeted advertising. Before the 2016 election, the company captured information from the Facebook profiles of more than 50 million users without their permission or knowledge, enabling it to flood the platform with targeted disinformation.
Bannon became the chief executive officer of Trump’s 2016 campaign. He then served as chief strategist and senior counselor for the first eight months of Trump’s term, during which he worked to put MAGAs in power across the administration and across the country.
“The Democrats don’t matter,” Bannon told a reporter in 2018. “The real opposition is the media. And the way to deal with them is to flood the zone with sh*t.” Keeping listeners constantly trying to defend what is real from what is not destroys their ability to make sense of the world. Many people turn to a strongman who promises to create order. Others will get so exhausted they simply give up. As scholar of totalitarianism Hannah Arendt noted, authoritarians use this technique to destabilize a population.
Trump’s administration began with a foundational lie about the size of the crowd at his inauguration. Recent challenges to that assertion from Vice President Kamala Harris and former president Barack Obama rankled as badly as they did for Trump because that lie allowed Trump to define the public conversation. Forcing his supporters to commit to a lie that was demonstrably untrue locked them into accepting others throughout his presidency, for backing away would become harder and harder with each lie they accepted.
Challenging that lie, as Harris and Obama did, challenged all those that came afterward, including the lie that Trump had been the true winner of the 2020 presidential election. Thanks to the October 2 filing by special counsel Jack Smith, we know that Trump was in almost daily communication with Bannon as he pushed that lie.
Scholars of authoritarianism call a lie of such magnitude a “Big Lie,” a key propaganda tool associated with Nazi Germany. It is a lie so huge that no one can believe it is false. If leaders repeat it enough times, refusing to admit that it is a lie, people come to think it is the truth because surely no one would make up anything so outrageous.
In his autobiography Mein Kampf, or “My Struggle,” Adolf Hitler wrote that people were more likely to believe a giant lie than a little one because they were willing to tell small lies in their own lives but “would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.” Since they could not conceive of telling “colossal untruths…they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” He went on: “Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.”
The U.S. Office of Strategic Services had picked up on Hitler’s manipulation of his followers when it described Hitler’s psychological profile. It said, “His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
The MAGA movement is now based in the Big Lie. Its leaders refuse to admit that Trump lost the 2020 election. Trump’s running mate, Ohio senator J.D. Vance, two days ago actually said Trump won, and as media figures more frequently ask the question of MAGA lawmakers, they continue to dodge it, as Arkansas senator Tom Cotton did today on NBC’s Meet the Press, and as House speaker Mike Johnson did on ABC News’s “This Week.”
Now, though, their lies about the federal response to Hurricane Helene show that they are completely committed to disinformation. As Will Bunch noted today in the Philadelphia Inquirer, when Vance lied again at the vice presidential debate about the legal status of the Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio, and complained when moderator Margaret Brennan corrected him, he gave up the whole game. “Margaret,” Vance said, “the rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check.” He continued to argue until the moderators cut his microphone.
Bunch points out that MAGA Republicans insist on the right to lie, considering any fact-checking “censorship,” a position to which Vance pivoted when Minnesota governor Tim Walz asked him if Trump won the 2020 election.
Just as Russian political theorists advocated to overturn democracy, MAGA Republicans have created an alternative political reality, aided in large part by the disinformation spread on social media by X owner and Trump supporter Elon Musk.
They continue to be aided by foreign operatives, as well. This morning, on CBS’s Face the Nation, Senate Intelligence Committee member Mark Kelly (D-AZ) warned, on the basis of information he has heard from the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the National Security Agency, that Russia, Iran, and China are generating about 20% to 30% of the political content and comments on social media.
But the largest purveyors of disinformation are homegrown.
Perhaps, though, the very real, immediate damage MAGA’s disinformation about Hurricane Helene is causing might finally be a step too far. In what is at least a muted rebuke to Trump, Republican governors across the damaged area have stepped up to praise President Joe Biden and the federal response to the disaster.
Rebelse genieën
De eerste romantici en de uitvinding van het ik
Auteur: Andrea Wulf
Andrea Wulf schrijft de wervelende geschiedenis van een briljant gezelschap, onder wie Goethe, Schiller, Hegel en de mysterieuze Caroline Schlegel, die in de Duitse stad Jena de Romantiek ontketenden.
In ‘Rebelse genieën’ vertelt Andrea Wulf niet alleen het verhaal van enkele van de briljantste figuren uit de geschiedenis, maar ook hoe we onszelf als middelpunt zijn gaan beschouwen, over het ontstaan van individuele vrijheden en over de dunne lijn tussen egoïsme en de vrije wil. Wulf beschrijft dat de oorsprong van ideeën zoals individualisme, zelfbeschikking en vrijheid ligt in Jena, een klein Duits universiteitsstadje. Daar begon in de laatste jaren van de achttiende eeuw een bont genootschap op een radicaal nieuwe wijze na te denken over het ‘zelf’. Onder hen bevond zich de raadselachtige Caroline Schlegel. Ze filosofeerden over het scheppend vermogen van het zelf, de eenheid van de natuur en de ware aard van vrijheid – en daarmee ontketenden ze de Romantiek, een revolutie van de geest die tot op de dag van vandaag doorwerkt.
Beste mensen,
Wanneer je mail verwacht van Maieutiek en dat niet krijgt kijk dan even in je spam. Er is steeds meer spam en dus worden de spamfilters ook strenger en dat maakt dat ook wanneer je tot nu toe wel mijn mail gewoon ontving dat nu misschien niet het geval is.
Alvast bedankt,
Petra
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X9_p5IZSkatncpUCsClw9PB2TwYg-UIV/view?usp=drive_link
De link als doorgestuurd door Coen van de film Mr Jones