Neckerchief Wear With

The ahistorical mind according to Spengler and the writing culture of the Internet

In his infamous demise of the West (Original 1917, 1922 Quoted in dtv 1972.) Writes Oswald Spengler in the introduction, was

The world consciousness of the Indian people as ahistorical, that He did not even know the appearance of the book written by an author as a time-stationary event. instead of an organic series of personal writings demarcated mass was gradually a vague text in which each wrote into what he wanted, without the concepts of individual intellectual property rights, the development of ideas, intellectual era would have played a role.

(Ibid, p. 15 , herv. v. Soph.)

It is an attractive idea, the perspective of a historian to present the more distant future, when it eventually becomes a look at the fragments of today's traditional Internet raises. Once adopted, the corpus of today's blogs would be preserved to some extent, would come of it is probably a not too different picture as that which ascribes to the ancient Spengler (in quotation Indian) mind - that of a primarily contemporary ahistorical consciousness.

Here we are always aware of the current date, however, understand the chronology to indicate the years. Each blog entry is stored with date and time and also allow links - within limits - a reconstruction of history.

Who could be in the "blogosphere " - still boast the authorship of an original idea, but because its dependence on the ideas of others is so obvious, as always cherish other very similar thoughts and write them down - the totality of all blogs. The blogosphere less a forest of a juxtaposition of trees, but more like a colony-forming organism, such as coral . Meme alternate free-floating back and forth, develop, change, disappear in the dark until they unexpectedly connect up again. (Think here of the marked by Ludwik Fleck concept of "collective thinking".)

The reason for the ahistorical great character of blogs lies in their aphoristic nature, that is in its brevity. Although the contributions of a blog are often thematically related content aligned to each other. But this connection is loose, and each post is first of all to yourself. A closed paper in the form of a series of blog posts is conceivable and technically feasible, but would still fall short of the intention of the medium and the Givenness of its technical realization ignore. Just think about the fact that the posts of a blog are usually sorted chronologically, from young to old, while the reader of a book preferably a content-building, ie reverse chronological order. (This aspect would, however slightly by technical means to oppose, by reversing the sorting order.)

The most interesting question in this case has, however, toward the viewer: I would venture to suggest that only in extremely rare cases, a willingness to on the contributions of a blog engage corresponding to the size of a normal book: about 200-400 pages. Which is expected for such a reading time to spare the attention span also interested reader not exceed negligible.

Nevertheless, it would be a very exciting experiment, a more comprehensive work effectively to develop public, and the reader immediately give the opportunity for comment. For the realization of the ideal case, namely the ability to comment on any text, the blog technology is somewhat limited, allowing the comments but only for larger units of text. To implement this experiment would require a modification of the blog so technique in which furnished the best right now the possibility of a reference of comments (which now only limited possible because every first comment refers to the main text, ie blog post is.) What would cause this, a the Talmud would be appropriate collection of related texts and commentaries.

As attractive the idea of a popularly generated text is (the idea is not really new), begs the question of which author would be willing to be working to develop in front of everyone, to unite it with the creative process more complex texts usually a some shame. How far this may be outdated concept of restraint, however, still valid today, I will put here there. It seems inconceivable that not find anyone that would be willing to do that - the only question is whether one's product would be read with profit. But it sure would find readers.

The best example of an ahistorical text, as Spengler him in describing the above quote is, without a doubt the Wikipedia : a vague text extent to which each into writing what he wants, without the notion of individual intellectual property rights, the development of a thought, the mental age played a role. It goes without saying that the history of each contribution is well documented. Even a can of anonymity will be noted in fact it is still often the case by authors and articles do not identify themselves in any case with the bourgeois identity, only one IP address in the log if necessary, to speak is limited. But this is not the essential. Far more weighty is the lack of interest in the authorship of the reader from a Wikipedia article. Who made beyond academic studies have been the trouble, the emergence of a Wikipedia article minutely track from his first to the last date version? In venerable encyclopedia, the contributions are often identified by name, such as in Historical Dictionary of Philosophy . The Wikipedia is the concept entirely strange and contrary to their basic understanding of striking.

then let it seem that we are currently seeing on the way to an ahistorical consciousness are, to the consciousness of a pure presence of humans. This would by no means based on the lack of historical records, but rather their excessive wealth. In any case, would allow the dialectical circle in the development of cultures close and move into the next iteration. It is interesting to see how this develops from the realities of today a new spirit.

What Hapens When Dogs Die

The Right and wrong on dead animal's

asks In issue 33/2010 of TIME Iris Radisch the features section "Who can kill whom and why?" (P. 41f)

So: Why do we eat animals? The reasons are as simple as banal. Because we can! Because increased ihrVerzehr in dark antiquity, perhaps as in the not too distant past, even its own survival and that of the clan. Because since that time, a culture developed around the meat, the meat of the enjoyment as well as his production. Because the companies produce, meat, a substantial economic power, are unlikely to be easy to convince of vegetarianism.

You do not like me get me wrong: I too am a (semi) vegetarian, do not eat mammals, but well and with pleasure and poultry Meeresgeschnetz. My decision to continue to renounce the use of mammalian meat - he is now 12 years ago - is due to a short film documentary (a supporting film in a local cinema) of a pig life, from litter to the hook on which it bled. These pictures were enough to bring my vague discomfort in meat consumption at last to the point - the farming of animals, which we ultimately are themselves able to support and I no longer wanted. So it has remained to this day and in this respect I agree with Mrs Radisch. Nevertheless, it is in their article, in my view a very angry.

Because that would right man animals to eat, she asks. Yes, what law? As there were such a thing beyond the realm of man. A kind of natural law well at all? A divine? If I feel this idea does not least as cured, as the slope to the dead animal? Legal has not one, you get it. It is awarded to one (in the court process). The fact that we have right to believe, is nothing but an everyday linguistic shorthand. And the human right (intermediate) result of an endless process of negotiation between the various parties. Who else sees this will inevitably come into the situation, his rights, which he says have to be divine (or whatever) to be considered legitimate to defend. What sorrow, what trouble brought this idea of humanity requires, I think no further explanation.
What follows? Man has absolutely no right to eat animals, but he also unnecessary! At least not until a sufficiently large party committed to the protection of animals. Which then in turn gets into tricky ethical questions. About how the lion eating the gazelle may so completely in violation of any animal protection conventions alive. Should not prevent him from doing this as well, like a pit bull to bite of a man threatening? Oh, one wants to hear you there, this would contradict the nature of the lion. Than would exist beyond the human imagination. And the deer will "thank" for these were dubious excuse their killing.
Who really serious about animal welfare can not help but also in the "natural" order of things to intervene to share the savanna clean in the area of the lion and the gazelle, and thwart any attempt to limit infringement carefully. A ridiculous idea? Yeah, well ...

Natural Law to leave that is, where it belongs - in the dustbin of history of philosophy. Much more attention should practical approaches: the detention damage to the farming ourselves more than we realize. Daily steak, the steak, the blood sausage (the specific formulation often referred to as "dead grandma" and is the eye of the esthetician offended's most sensitive) on the plates we screen workers will be able to ban only if the consumers of disadvantage of meat production strongly convincing. Not with pseudoromantischhippiehaftem Wohlfühlgefasel but clear statements about the overall social costs entailed in this life change with it.

secure - this is not the same every stop of his meat. For how many still enjoy the Freedom and flexibility offered us the car, prudently, that ultimately passed both man and nature to the detriment. And who considers the environmental balance of his laptop ...? But would it ever a big step in the right direction. What will it take? For example graduated tax on meat, depending on production: the lowest tax rate on the flesh of happy cows, the highest on meat from non-animal welfare. What will happen? Meat (in a transparent way) more expensive, you can choose (which many a good in itself) and possibly even the meat industry has on his side, which will however have to change. At the same time, ensure that areas for livestock production do not grow excessively in order not to cause damage on the other hand, such as deforestation and forest. And that taxation is not only for local meat, but also to imported.

We must not be naive - such a change requires considerable political reaction force. Not only is the meat lobbyists are up in arms. Also of perhaps unexpected criticism is loud, such as by representatives of the socially disadvantaged. For good meat would then return to the luxury product that it once was. Hardly likely that this (artificial) fracture in the social fabric be well-tolerated. There is less meat consumed, and it will be the highest income that do so. Unfortunately, this will probably just there to enforce the understanding of the need for reduction in meat consumption faster than income in the layers. Well, this is then another problem ...

So what's the bottom line: The meat must be scaled down production, meat consumption can be reduced. But this is achieved not with windy references to a natural law that there are so not, but by pragmatic approaches. The ethical underpinnings may be helpful, it is not necessary.

[ Update: Here is the Link to original article in TIME Online, at the time of writing this article has not been available online.]