Concerning aspects of the human being, abstracts from my lecture:
Empathy, Narcissism, Strings and Gravitation, Objective Reasons.
7. Human as an Empathic Being
"Love your next as yourself!" (Galatians
Philosopher's Gag: Doctor wanted! …
Is the human empathic enough to understand others besides himself?
This is my question. And from there the question of the psychology in the philosophy arises. Namely the thinking of the human
from his ego in connection with his superego. To be seen here as a connection to Freud. The basis for philosophical thinking is the human's consciousness of his ego. By means of this self-consciousness he can recognize and conclude. Cogito ergo sum (Descartes)
Cognosce te ipsum! Or gnoothi seauton (Greek) as inscription at the Appolo temple of Delphi: "Recognize yourself!"
The human being as a thinking being recognizes himself in his possibilities and shortcomings. It is man's self-occupation, his view of
himself and others and other things from his perspective.
The basis for psychology is the neurology, the brain structure.
Thus the human being perceives the surrounding from his perspective. This perception, however, is phenomenological, according
to Kant for example, not the perception of the actual reality, but of one's own. The human has an idea of reality, but recognizes it only according to his own patterns.
The patterns emerge from the centring on oneself, seeing oneself and others. The
human being as an individual stands for himself in the centre as the observer of what he is looking at. Nietzsche, for example, concludes that the (Christian) human believes that the world revolves around him alone. According to Nietzsche, however, this is
Without empathy for the other, the perspective remains incomplete.
Regardless of this, Goethe said: "One cannot experience early enough how expendable one is in the world."
According to Nietzsche, however, the individual sees himself
as the centre. But it is only through the detachment of the ego from himself that human, let us think further, recognizes the other and thus his perspective (of the other), the supposed reality of the other or others, which is an apparent reality, since perception
is a subjective reality or matter. Detachment means and dissolving oneself from the ego, like disperse salt, see the emblem of the Charles University. Explanation…
A simple example for illustration:
The Ice Cream Cafe
Two people sit
opposite each other at a table. For example I and a friend. One orders a ball of vanilla ice cream, the other a ball of chocolate ice cream. While both of them melt their ice cream on their tongues at the same time, both try to imagine how the ice cream of
the other one tastes. So while I am eating the vanilla ice cream I try to imagine how the other person's chocolate ice cream tastes, mentally changing places, while he or she is eating and tasting his or her chocolate icecream - and vice versa. This way, too,
one person puts himself into the other's head. This is a form of empathy.
A community can only be effective if one understands the other without only pretending or simulating the understanding. This process should not be one-sided, otherwise no mutual
understanding is possible.
If the human considers himself to be important as an individual, e.g. more important than others, he rises himself above them. He remains in egocentricity and sees only himself.
8. The Human as Narcissist
a distinction is made between narcissists and healthy people in terms of mental attitude. (See Les Carter: Eight indicators of Narcism. And Les Carter: When pleasing you is killing me, 2018.)
Myth 'Narcissus and Echo' (Ovid Metamorphoses, 3,339-510)
I present a summary of the myth (from planetenkrieger.de):
Narcissus was the son of the nymph Leiriope and the river god Kephissos. He was a beautiful young man and was coveted by women and men alike, but he rejected them all, including the nymph Echo,
who devoured herself until she had no body at all and consisted only of sound.
One of the rejected cursed Narcissus and wished him that he too would suffer all the torments of unrequited love. Aphrodite answered the prayer and made Narcissus fall in love
with his own reflection. Such love can of course never find fulfillment, and so Narcissus became very desperate. Day and night he lay at a spring and looked at his reflection. He stopped eating - and finally died.
His sisters, the nymphs, wept for him
for a long time and the gods did not want him to be forgotten either, which is why they turned him into a flower that still bears the name Narcissus today.
In psychology the name "Narcissus" is used for people who are extremely in love with themselves.
We now know why Echo no longer has a body, but what does it have to do with the "Echo" that we know from everyday life?
That's how it happened: Echo had incurred the wrath of the goddess Hera. The chatty Echo had distracted Hera, while Hera's
husband Zeus had fun with Echo's girlfriends.
Hera punished Echo by saying that from now on she was no longer able to speak for herself, but could only repeat what someone said.
Therefore the echo has its name.
In fact, however, there is a
narcissist slumbering in every human being, there are only different forms.
So narcissism begins with conscious altruism (which is not the worst kind of narcissism. Narcissism does not need to only have a negative connotation.) Man raises his value for
himself in relation to others without placing himself above others, but at the same time he satisfies his conscience.
The narcissist is exaggeratedly in love with himself. A person who is not capable of criticism is a narcissist or has narcissistic traits,
he is little or not at all capable of conflicts. He, the narcissist in full expression, feels superior to others and, for example, has no tolerance for frustration and perceives criticism, especially directed at himself, as an attack. He blocks and repels.
He takes criticism personally, the ego feels hurt.
He is someone who emotionally rejects criticism out of consternation because he is not able to recognize himself. It does not matter whether the criticism is appropriate or not. For the evaluation of
narcissistic traits, only the lack of willingness to deal with it objectively counts, unless one is accused of a crime that one has not committed.
A strong form of latent narcissism is to please oneself in one's appearance and to express this through
courtship behaviour, make-up, clothing or self-portrayal, e.g. in social networks.
This form of natural narcissism can result in sexual egocentrism, including ruthlessness about the other when it comes to cheating the partner. In this case, through the
sexual intercourse with another person outside the partnership, the cheating person rises above the awareness of the relentlessly and carelessly accepted injury of the actual partner in favour of the amusing satisfaction of his or her own instinctive behaviour
as homo animalis due to his or her lack of consideration towards the partner.
While the talented person, the extraordinary, knows how to play an instrument, for example, or devotes himself to other educational arts, or even stands out in sports in order
to pursue his passion, the ordinary person compensates his "being in the world" (Heidegger) primarily through the phased living out of his needs, as well as through the search for a relationship.
This comparison usually makes the talented person extraordinary.
The key here lies in the emphasis, not in the negation of the other aspect each.
Einstein realized in the course of his life: "Do not become dependent on things or people to be happy, but seek a higher goal."
9. The gender question in the context
Neither in Western anthropology nor among its critics, like Heidegger, nor in modern holistic anthropology is the question of the human being emphatically differentiated according to gender. In anthropology it is about man as such.
In the Old Testament man is called "ish". That means "man". In the Old Testament the woman is called "isha", which means "fe-male", "wo-man" = "female man". The concentration in anthropology on man results from the fact that in the Old Testament, i.e. in Hebrew,
man is seen as male. It is therefore assumed that the man gives his rib in the form of Adam (adama = the one made of the earth), so that the fe-male, Eve, may be created.
In this context, it is also important to take into account that there is a gender
difference in the question of the human being. In biblical anthropology and historiography, for example, and long before that, patriarchal structures predominate. The woman belongs to the man, not the man to the woman (Gabriele Uhlmann, Menschsein und Anthropologie
im Lichte der Patriachatsforschung. Patriarchy. Definition, history and symptoms 2019, gabriele-uhlmann.de)
"The Patriarchate was established about 8200 years ago (Misox climate fluctuation) with the invention of cattle nomadism in the steppe areas. The
woman was forced into marriage and she had to give birth to her husband's sons and follow him and his herd." (Uhlmann)
The man is the hunter and gatherer, the woman the mother at home stove.
Only at the beginning of the 20th century did women's rights
gradually establish themselves in Great Britain and the United States through the tireless efforts of women's rights activists, the suffragettes (English/French suffrage = right to vote).
Even today, the emancipation of women in the world is not obvious
all over. The emancipation could establish itself only predominantly in the western world.
But even today in the western world, women's emancipation does not hide the fact that, due to their physical condition, they are the penetrated ones in sexual terms,
the man the penetrating one.
Psychologically this is an expression of the "omnipotence" of the man over the woman, just as God is omnipotent, almighty, God the LORD, according to the biblical view, not God the LADY or WOMAN.
The image of man as
God's representative on earth is based on an archaic male self-image. Thus in sexual intercourse the woman herself is the subjected. The object of triumph and trophy of the penetrating at the same time.
"The ladies of today want to be subjected." (Corinna
Rückert, cultural scientist).
Yet the ideal idea that conceived and born life is the product of divine love between man and woman, which is widespread in Christianity, is only half a truth. After all, there are also pregnant prostitutes. Or medical
possibilities of in-vitro fertilization. The test tube children. Or sex without love.
The human being now, man AND woman, are defined in anthropology and also here so far as evolutionary beings on this planet. But as inhabitants of the earth we humans
are also part of the cosmos.
10. The Human as a Cosmological Being: string theory and gravitation
Already in the priestly script of the Old Testament (8th century B.C.), the first creation report, a cosmological view of the world is drafted according
to the state of knowledge of the origin of the world at that time. Therefore one speaks also of the cosmological creation report, while the 2nd creation report, the myth of the paradise, is called the anthropological creation report. This one, however, appeared
earlier than the first one, namely in the 10th century B.C. Already in biblical times man was thus seen in the context of his cosmological position. The doctrine of the human, i.e. anthropology, is in the same way also always to be assigned to the doctrine
of the cosmos, i.e. of cosmology and thus also of physics. To extend the concept of anthropology by the concept of cosmology, the new concept could be read like this: "Anthrocology".
Thus, for example, Lucretius (99 to 53 B.C.) previously recognized this
connection in his work 'De rerum natura', which means 'On the nature of things' or 'World of atoms'.
What is man's position in the cosmos? Max Scheler (1874 to 1928) said that there is a sequence of stages, the scala naturae: plant, animal, human.
The urge to feel is developed differently.
The human is a spiritual being. The human‘s competence is objectivity. Man can think about himself. An animal cannot do that. Also man is not bound to instinct (Helmuth Plessner, Die Stufen des Organischen
und der Mensch, 1924.).
Plessner speaks of eccentric positionality. Animals cannot look at themselves from the outside, unlike humans.
Man recognizes not only himself, but also what surrounds him as something special. He also recognizes the world
around him, the world in which he lives. And thus the world in the world. This also results in pre-biblical creation myths, e.g. Enuma elis, which means "when heaven was not yet named above". There the God Marduk sets the constellation, the stars in the universe,
firmly. Also in the Egyptian mythology the creation is considered also in the cosmological context. Thus there are cosmogonies and theogonies (Greek: gignomei, which means to arise).
Planck and Einstein, among others, made quantum leaps in the scientific
development of physics. New theories result from this. The physicists try to find the world formula for the origin and understanding of the universe. They devised the string theory, but have so far failed to connect it with the gravitational theory. And they
failed to emphasize the reference to the human existence which consists of matter, of particles.
The atomists already existed with the classical Greeks, e.g. with Democritus, who, like Lucretius, influences modern physics.
Einstein's theories of
relativity and Planck's quantum mechanics are no longer sufficient today to explain the world. Now there is a superordinate theory and that is the string theory. This theory says that the universe consists of strings. Universes meet and multiply. In theory,
in hypothetical theory, one tries to combine quantum theory and string theory to create the world formula. This has not yet been achieved.
Einstein has claimed that there are gravitational waves. This has been proven in recent experiments. And that in
2015 in Hanford, in Washington, at the LIGO, 'Laser Interferometer Gravitational Waves Observatorio'.
However, it is difficult to make the connection to the string theory.
Strings are the connections of quarks, which are the gluons, deriving from
the English verb "to glue". The quarks are located in the nucleons, for example in the protons and neutrons. These make up 99.9% of the atomic nucleus. The electrons are located outside. And the energetic attraction between the neutrons and protons, which
belong to the baryons, is the string effect. The subatomic particles also belong to the baryons.
The strings are tiny multi-universes that are one-dimensional, but they are folded in such a way that they divide into at least ten dimensions if you want
to follow the super-string theory.
We cannot imagine a 10 dimensional space. We can only imagine a three-dimensional space. And in quantum mechanics it was previously assumed that matter consists of point particles. However, this model could not be further
developed. And so the physicists came up with the idea of strings. These are, probably, comparable to rubber bands.
Only with this string theory (keyword: gravitation!) time travel can be represented, like through the wormhole. One can get through space
and time quickly from one time place to another, similar to a worm crawling through an apple.
The bringing together of gravitational wave confirmation, i.e. quantum mechanics and string theory, is currently a problem for the physicists. They don't really
know yet where the link is.
But, in my opinion, it is actually quite simple. Here one would have to refer to Heisenberg, who at that time presented something special with his theory on the uncertainty relation, namely that the particles, the quanta or
the quanta of the quarks, are portions and embody a status. These are not measurable in their attraction, not only because they are too small, but also because they are erratic. The strings are flexible. Both are not measurable.
This discontinuity may
also cause the gravitational waves. Because the baryons are inclined to gravity. Particles themselves make up matter and therefore also gravity. That would be, so to speak, the answer to the question in physics: How can we make a connection between the quantum
theory and the string theory?
The possible connection between quantum theory and string theory, for which the theoretical is the Big Bang theory, makes it possible to determine the cosmological nature that makes life and thus human existence possible
in the first place.
But this is not only representational, but also human psychological. For example, neurons are formed by the atomic composition of our cerebral structure. Possibly in this frame the vibrating strings are responsible for the wavelength,
e.g. for the attraction between humans. This is regarded as a prerequisite for the creation of new life, which in turn results in an evolutionary process over many generations (see Brian Green, the elegant universe. Super Strings, Hidden Dimensions and the
Search for the World Formula, Munich 2005.)
But, and this is the latest state of research, string theory would rule out the existence of Higgs particles. The Boson-Higgs particle has been perfectly proven, according to the Viennese physicist Timm Wrase
(see Physical Review De Sitter Swampland lecture and the Higgs Potential, Phys. Rev. D 98, 2018).
The Boson mass particle, named after the physicist Higgs, which was detected at the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) in 2005, is a successful step towards the
determination of the quark structure, so that the question arises: Can strings be thought of at all, despite the proven Boson-Higgs particle, when mass particles replace the imaginary strings? There are controversial discussions about this. And it will be
interesting to see how this problem is solved in favour of maintaining the string theory.
In this more recent discussion, the Japanese Cumrun Vafa questions the string theory first and foremost, although he himself was originally an advocate of the string
theory. However, the latest proven gravitational waves cannot be explained without strings.
The Boson-Higgs particle was detected in 2012. This questioned the string theory that had existed before. The gravitational waves, however,
were not detected until 2017.
This means that there is a paradox in physics. The Boson-Higgs gravitational wave paradox. This paradox has by now neither been recognized as such nor explicitly described as such by experts.
Nevertheless, Timm Wrase
recently continued his work on the string theory. He might get some new ideas.
11. Objective reasons: Learning to help
'Plea for a normative (humanistic) anthropology' is the title of Julian Nida-Rümelin's lecture on 7 May 2015 at the workshop
'Ethics and Anthropology' at the Cluster of Excellence 'Religion and Politics' at the University of Münster www.uni-muenster.de/ religion-und-politik/
Philosophical anthropology was forgotten as a branch of research. In Münster it is being dealt
with again. Nida-Rümelin, former Minister of State for Culture and Education in Germany and Professor of Philosophy in Munich, says that this is not the case in Munich.
He emphasizes Strawson's perspective in 'Reactive Moral Attitudes', Stanford
encyclopedia of philosophy, Moral Responsibility, 2001. Or Paul Russell, Strawson's way of naturalizing responsibility, free will and reactive attitudes, 155 to 168, 2016, in: content. taylorfrancis.com
That's universals anytime, anywhere. Strawson, however,
conceals from the reactive moral attitudes that they are not subjective. But, other than that, according to Nida-Rümelin, they are guided by objective reasons.
Feelings are guided by objective reasons. So, for example, I resent someone who I think
wants something evil for me. But if it turns out that this was not the case, the misunderstanding is cleared up. In both cases there are objective reasons. Reasons can be objective, but wrong. For example, a child behaves objectively badly. An adult gets upset
about it. But the child didn't know any better because he wasn't taught proper behavior. So from the child's point of view the child did nothing objectively wrong. The child acts objectively. And the adult reacts objectively. But both perspectives are different.
The child does not understand the reaction of the adult and the adult does not understand the child. Both are based on different parameters.
In order to solve the problem, it is not a question of questioning the objective reason, but rather a matter of
deliberation. There is only a solution or clarification of the situation through intrapersonal exchange, but not through blaming the other person and questioning his objective reasons for his or her situation and behavior.
With regard to the person in
need of help, this means not blaming him, but understanding him and his circumstances. This is the key to empathic help. Compassion and suffering with the other are also a form of empathy, but they alone are not helpful.
Understanding people who need
help instead of condemning or reproaching them is the basis for help. In addition, behavioural control as a rational means is an instrument for help.
The human condition to help others requires a financial framework in order to be able to provide help
beyond human understanding. Among other things, the establishment of a foundation therefor, to supplement state funds, is suitable for this purpose.