FA+
Shop
631
Views
Views
27
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 800 x 1043
File Size 773.8 kB
Report this content
More from Teivos
For a longer time I wanted to draw a picture which has some traditional architecture and unusual perspective in it.
The background, the cathedral, is a mix of french and later german gothic styles, whereas Teivos' clothing bears a loose semblance to the priests of the church of Praios from the game "The Dark Eye" (Das Schwarze Auge)
Teivos © Teivos
The background, the cathedral, is a mix of french and later german gothic styles, whereas Teivos' clothing bears a loose semblance to the priests of the church of Praios from the game "The Dark Eye" (Das Schwarze Auge)
Teivos © Teivos
Category Artwork (Digital) / Fantasy
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 800 x 1043px
File Size 773.8 kB
That is true! And if, then its very rare nowadays. But then again, the buildings were meant to be read by the people like books, now with a high literacy level the need for a typical Cathedral building is pretty much zero. Nowadays it would mean having the decorations would be just for the sake of having them.
Well, architecture nowadays is a rather difficult topic with many facettes. We gained immense knowledge of various constructions and other stuff, but we often fail to take into considerations the big picture, that many cities have become a huge resource-eating suburban sprawl, that buildings aren't built to last centuries and and and.
Being an architect nowadays and refusing to litter the plot with parking spaces is a pesky business <.<
Being an architect nowadays and refusing to litter the plot with parking spaces is a pesky business <.<
I agree. People have ceased in the West to glorify God with their buildings. Some Cathedrals took centuries to build, yet the people did build them, even though they knew that not one of the builders and masons would ever get to see the finished building. This is a mindset which has become extinct in the modern West.
I have my doubts that the builders were in any way happy about their buildings taking centuries to finish - often the reasons were rather profane in their nature. So I doubt that such a mindset was ever present - even the great pyramids of ancient Egypt were meant to be done within one generation and not take half a millenium to finish.
I think that buildings themselves do not need to glorify anything, often the more pompous the "high tier" buildings of an era are, the poorer and more oppressed the populace. Of course, I find the buildings pretty, be it gothic cathedrals or the castles and palaces of the kings and the "nobility". After all they were built to be pretty and awe-inspiring. But often at a great cost.
I think that buildings themselves do not need to glorify anything, often the more pompous the "high tier" buildings of an era are, the poorer and more oppressed the populace. Of course, I find the buildings pretty, be it gothic cathedrals or the castles and palaces of the kings and the "nobility". After all they were built to be pretty and awe-inspiring. But often at a great cost.
No, you do not understand what I meant. I meant that their act - the construction of the cathedral - was seen as a act for God, as holy work. It was more for them than "just building a house" but (to use a phrase by a medieval mason) "to build a temple which shall honor the Lord most High". There were even people who worked for free on these cathedrals, because they wanted to do something for God. I have never heard of a modern-day builder who was working for free on one of these abysmal glass towers.
Modern day architects and builders are nihilists, this is why their buildings are so extremely ugly. These building represent their empty spiritual feelings and their pessimistic outlook on the world. They view themselves as mutant monsters in a horrible universe. The works of artists and architects always represent their innermost feelings and thoughts. These modern-day buildings are so unspeakably ugly, that I could not believe my eyes when I first arrived in Europe. I had a hard time believing that anybody could hate himself and the world so deeply that he would create such concrete made monstrosities. I now know that I was wrong.
Modern day architects and builders are nihilists, this is why their buildings are so extremely ugly. These building represent their empty spiritual feelings and their pessimistic outlook on the world. They view themselves as mutant monsters in a horrible universe. The works of artists and architects always represent their innermost feelings and thoughts. These modern-day buildings are so unspeakably ugly, that I could not believe my eyes when I first arrived in Europe. I had a hard time believing that anybody could hate himself and the world so deeply that he would create such concrete made monstrosities. I now know that I was wrong.
Well, buildings for honoring a higher power, be it a monarch or a deity was usually seen as a honourable act, but I do not believe for a second that the people did it truly for "free". Be it food, or some spiritual reimbruisement, where they tried to gain a favor of their monarch or deity. It's a sort of barter one way or another and there's nothing bad on it.
I wouldn't say that. The buildings are partially a result of universities which teach modernism and minimalism as the only true way of making architecture, which it is of course not. Also, it is a reaction of other parts of the built environment - if you have a huge highway next to the building you want to design, you naturally design something which shields itself from the highway as it is a naturally hostile space. You wouldn't want to have a pompous classical entrance there. Other things result out of building codes, norms and regulations, which of course shape the built environment. I don't believe there is nihilism or hate in the game. And there are also modernist buildings which emanate a sort of grandeur and spirituality, albeit a more "sober" one. Oftentimes buildings become ugly because the architect had to adhere to certain rules, for better or worse. Oftentimes the perception of the architect is not aligned with the perception of the public. Boy it's a complicated topic we jumped into!
Then again, I agree that many modernist and minimalist buildings lack this closer layer of detailing (like many old buildings have), which makes them "clean", but on closer look extremely boring, since there's nothing to catch the eye <.<
I wouldn't say that. The buildings are partially a result of universities which teach modernism and minimalism as the only true way of making architecture, which it is of course not. Also, it is a reaction of other parts of the built environment - if you have a huge highway next to the building you want to design, you naturally design something which shields itself from the highway as it is a naturally hostile space. You wouldn't want to have a pompous classical entrance there. Other things result out of building codes, norms and regulations, which of course shape the built environment. I don't believe there is nihilism or hate in the game. And there are also modernist buildings which emanate a sort of grandeur and spirituality, albeit a more "sober" one. Oftentimes buildings become ugly because the architect had to adhere to certain rules, for better or worse. Oftentimes the perception of the architect is not aligned with the perception of the public. Boy it's a complicated topic we jumped into!
Then again, I agree that many modernist and minimalist buildings lack this closer layer of detailing (like many old buildings have), which makes them "clean", but on closer look extremely boring, since there's nothing to catch the eye <.<
You are right! I have found the wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalibela! I know that Wikipedia is generally not a very good source for information, but I greatly like the pictures of the Churches on WikiCommon.
I have traveled through Ethiopia some years ago and I have met some of these monks. They are very impressive people. They are very humble people who create these Churches with extremely primitive methods. One of the monks I have met has worked on his Church for 30 years. He used very simply methods - which reminded me of the methods of the old European medieval masons - to build his "tribute to God".
I have traveled through Ethiopia some years ago and I have met some of these monks. They are very impressive people. They are very humble people who create these Churches with extremely primitive methods. One of the monks I have met has worked on his Church for 30 years. He used very simply methods - which reminded me of the methods of the old European medieval masons - to build his "tribute to God".
Ah yes! I didn't really know there are more of them in such a close vicinity! In terms of building itself it's a pretty crazy approach to simply carve the entire structure from "a single rock", but it surely gives the building a nearly infinite lifespan.
In the end, most of the times the tools used were "primitive" by today's standards, even though often they achieved pretty much the same as now, just without the aid of oil (I was very impressed by what simple tools ancient egyptians used and yet they built structures which were huge, structurally sound and even very precise). With the right mindset and given enough time, people are capable of making pretty marvellous things - and it's also very satisfying to see something built or made by your own hands!
In the end, most of the times the tools used were "primitive" by today's standards, even though often they achieved pretty much the same as now, just without the aid of oil (I was very impressed by what simple tools ancient egyptians used and yet they built structures which were huge, structurally sound and even very precise). With the right mindset and given enough time, people are capable of making pretty marvellous things - and it's also very satisfying to see something built or made by your own hands!
I once asked one of the monks - whose name was Father Absalom - why he uses primitive methods instead of modern techniques. His response was: "I like to please God and to perform all work by hand. If I were to use machines, I feel that I would cheat God."
I am not entirely sure what he meant, but I assume that he meant that he wanted to take credit for all the hard work himself.
I agree with your statement about the usefulness of primitive methods. The pyramids are very impressive and I have no idea how they even built them in the first place. They are like small mountains in the desert.
I am not entirely sure what he meant, but I assume that he meant that he wanted to take credit for all the hard work himself.
I agree with your statement about the usefulness of primitive methods. The pyramids are very impressive and I have no idea how they even built them in the first place. They are like small mountains in the desert.
Hmm, that's quite possible. Could also be some sort of atonement? Or striving for perfection without outside aid?
On the other hand, keeping it simple is often a good thing!
Honestly, I'm quite tired of many building materials needed to be built in with near 100% perfection, otherwise they don't work. That means each slip of the planner, each slip of the worker or the producer of the material results in sometimes grave problems later in the use of the building. A little bit of ruggedness, a bit of redundancy and often keeping to simple ways of production and building results in lasting architecture, which allows for mistakes (after all, we are all but human) and doesn't rot off or release some ugly chemicals just because someone somewhere slipped >.>
On the other hand, keeping it simple is often a good thing!
Honestly, I'm quite tired of many building materials needed to be built in with near 100% perfection, otherwise they don't work. That means each slip of the planner, each slip of the worker or the producer of the material results in sometimes grave problems later in the use of the building. A little bit of ruggedness, a bit of redundancy and often keeping to simple ways of production and building results in lasting architecture, which allows for mistakes (after all, we are all but human) and doesn't rot off or release some ugly chemicals just because someone somewhere slipped >.>
Yeah, I can completely understand that!
Don't get me wrong, there are also places with very good modernistic architecture, but they tend to suffer from the car-centric urbanism of the modern era. On top of that, often when there is a modernistic addition to an already existing historical setting, it shouts "HELLO, HERE I AM NOTICE ME!" and kinda feels off. It almost never fits in - partially also because we get taught that that's the right way of addition or restoration of buildings in historical context. Which... I don't know. I thought it was right (because I got told so) but I don't think so anymore - since modernistic architecture is so much different. I don't think I would have liked it if there was a castle wrapped in a glass cube as a means of "restoration".
But hey, on a positive note, they reconstructed the historical center of Frankfurt in Germany (after they tore down the Technical Town Hall), with several houses "inspired by the historical housing in the place before 1945". Slowly the paradigm shifts, but it's just in the beginning.
Don't get me wrong, there are also places with very good modernistic architecture, but they tend to suffer from the car-centric urbanism of the modern era. On top of that, often when there is a modernistic addition to an already existing historical setting, it shouts "HELLO, HERE I AM NOTICE ME!" and kinda feels off. It almost never fits in - partially also because we get taught that that's the right way of addition or restoration of buildings in historical context. Which... I don't know. I thought it was right (because I got told so) but I don't think so anymore - since modernistic architecture is so much different. I don't think I would have liked it if there was a castle wrapped in a glass cube as a means of "restoration".
But hey, on a positive note, they reconstructed the historical center of Frankfurt in Germany (after they tore down the Technical Town Hall), with several houses "inspired by the historical housing in the place before 1945". Slowly the paradigm shifts, but it's just in the beginning.
I agree. The modern ways of restoration and preservation sometimes border on insanity. I recall seeing a castle in Switzerland, where they (the people responsible for "building conservation") ripped half of its outer walls away and replaced them with a real ugly glass dome. It was a very painful sight which made the utter disrespect - of the people who were supposed to conserve the building - very clear.
I am pleased to hear that the Germans are finally starting to change their ways. I am studying currently in Hamburg, Germany, and I have seen my fair share of "competence", when it comes to the preservation of history. The German authorities are so obsessed with the third Reich, that they started to demolish everything which stems from either the 1930s or 1940s (at least in my area). They even teared down historical artifacts. It is truly shocking how tone-deaf and irrational these "authorities" can be. Anyway, have you ever been to Germany? There is an excellent Museum for Egyptology in Berlin. I also have been to the "Filmmuseum", where they have "Maria den Maschinenmenschen" from Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" (1927) and props and set parts from "Noseferatu" (1922) on display. I think they even have stuff from American movies! I recall seeing props from sci-fi movies like "Encounters of the third kind"!
There is also the "Vorderasiatisches Museum", where you can visit the original Ishtar Gate!
I am pleased to hear that the Germans are finally starting to change their ways. I am studying currently in Hamburg, Germany, and I have seen my fair share of "competence", when it comes to the preservation of history. The German authorities are so obsessed with the third Reich, that they started to demolish everything which stems from either the 1930s or 1940s (at least in my area). They even teared down historical artifacts. It is truly shocking how tone-deaf and irrational these "authorities" can be. Anyway, have you ever been to Germany? There is an excellent Museum for Egyptology in Berlin. I also have been to the "Filmmuseum", where they have "Maria den Maschinenmenschen" from Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" (1927) and props and set parts from "Noseferatu" (1922) on display. I think they even have stuff from American movies! I recall seeing props from sci-fi movies like "Encounters of the third kind"!
There is also the "Vorderasiatisches Museum", where you can visit the original Ishtar Gate!
Oh joy... but then again, it comes down to the intended use of the building. In Carnuntum in Austria they rebuilt several of the original roman buildings - as historically correct as it was possible - and it gives a very nice appearance! On the other hand, in Halič in Slovakia they rebuilt a manor by adding a glass dome over the courtyard and turning it into a luxury hotel. So basically they just reestablished its original function with few modernisations and it still works!
Hmm, the era of Nazi Germany is still a difficult topic and I see why buildings from that time are being handled as radioactive material. But tearing them all down? That doesn't sound like the best idea to do. Often the buildings themselves are mundane enough, but because of the history they get a sour taste -e.g. the huge huge hotel Prora on Rügen. Its being reconstructed and it looks now just like any other hotel building - just that it's well, over a kilometer long.
So you have been in the famous museums in Berlin! When I was in Berlin I kinda never had the chance, or, it never occured to me. But you're right, they have a great deal of stuff there! Now with the wars in the middle east it's not such a bad thing the Ishtar gate is out of harms way, heh. I studied Architecture in Bremen where we had a very good professor of Urbanism, who was very much into classical walkable city design which in the end influenced my thinking about the entire city problematic - and that it's not just roads and cars and shiny starchitect geometrical objects. Very positive!
Hmm, the era of Nazi Germany is still a difficult topic and I see why buildings from that time are being handled as radioactive material. But tearing them all down? That doesn't sound like the best idea to do. Often the buildings themselves are mundane enough, but because of the history they get a sour taste -e.g. the huge huge hotel Prora on Rügen. Its being reconstructed and it looks now just like any other hotel building - just that it's well, over a kilometer long.
So you have been in the famous museums in Berlin! When I was in Berlin I kinda never had the chance, or, it never occured to me. But you're right, they have a great deal of stuff there! Now with the wars in the middle east it's not such a bad thing the Ishtar gate is out of harms way, heh. I studied Architecture in Bremen where we had a very good professor of Urbanism, who was very much into classical walkable city design which in the end influenced my thinking about the entire city problematic - and that it's not just roads and cars and shiny starchitect geometrical objects. Very positive!
In Austria? Nice! The idea of using a glass dome to protect old buildings has become quite popular. I would have never thought that we would ever get to see the "bubble cities" from science fiction becoming a reality. Environmental pollution forces people to come up with creative solutions. A American. Friend of mine told me that they used a glass cube to protect one of the oldest Dojos in the states to protect it from pollution.
It is rather hard to describe this, but I think that most Germans hate themselves. I have encountered no small amount of Germans who hate their German identity so deeply, that they pretend to be either Belgians, Austrians or Swiss when abroad. They hope that they are less or not hated if they travel to other countries. This extreme form of self-hatred can also be seen in the mass immigration of non-Germans. I have seen slogans such as "Weniger Deutsch ist besser" ("(Being) less German is better") and "Deutsch sein heisst fremdenfeindlich zu sein" ("Being German means to be xenophobic"). This self-hatred is in my opinion very dangerous and will lead to the demise of the Germans in the end. They require a positive identity. Anyway, as far as history goes: I have my doubts that the historians of the future will take most claims about the Third Reich seriously. What the Germans do not understand is this: historians in general do not take claims serious which cannot be underpinned through archaeological findings. This is troublesome, because they are on their way to destroy almost every evidence which ever existed.
I agree about the safety of the Ishtar-Gate in Berlin. It is truly magnificent to see this amazing Gate. It is almost magical to witness Biblical artifacts in real life. Have you ever been to the Egyptian Museum which houses the bust of Nofretete? They have a lot of amazing stuff there!
It is rather hard to describe this, but I think that most Germans hate themselves. I have encountered no small amount of Germans who hate their German identity so deeply, that they pretend to be either Belgians, Austrians or Swiss when abroad. They hope that they are less or not hated if they travel to other countries. This extreme form of self-hatred can also be seen in the mass immigration of non-Germans. I have seen slogans such as "Weniger Deutsch ist besser" ("(Being) less German is better") and "Deutsch sein heisst fremdenfeindlich zu sein" ("Being German means to be xenophobic"). This self-hatred is in my opinion very dangerous and will lead to the demise of the Germans in the end. They require a positive identity. Anyway, as far as history goes: I have my doubts that the historians of the future will take most claims about the Third Reich seriously. What the Germans do not understand is this: historians in general do not take claims serious which cannot be underpinned through archaeological findings. This is troublesome, because they are on their way to destroy almost every evidence which ever existed.
I agree about the safety of the Ishtar-Gate in Berlin. It is truly magnificent to see this amazing Gate. It is almost magical to witness Biblical artifacts in real life. Have you ever been to the Egyptian Museum which houses the bust of Nofretete? They have a lot of amazing stuff there!
Yeah, which just shows that the pollution reached levels, where we really need to do something about it (after all, when it eats the buildings, what does it do with the humans, right?).
Oh, that's a difficult topic. I think you can see the entire range of opinions there, from most egoistic through absolutely normal to self-hatred. The immigration has predominantly economic reasons, and I talk about all kinds of immigration, also within the EU, so I wouldn't consider it connected. I think the majority of the german people simply don't use their "nationality" (which is a very tricky construct on its own) to elevate themselves above others - as is often the case when other people go abroad (like certain british tourists in Slovakia who act as if they owned the place - but this is again mostly anecdotal evidence and doesn't prove much). I think, since the german country is a federation, they identify more with their Bundesland than with the whole (like Czechs and Slovaks were distinctly different even though living in Czechoslovakia back then).
Well, in 500 years people will be so detached from the happenings of the WWII (I mean, already now it's becoming like that) that it will be just a chapter in history books, like, I don't know, Witch hunts, or the Ottoman conquest.
Well, at some point I should go and take a look there ;) I know they have many interesting artifacts there :D
Oh, that's a difficult topic. I think you can see the entire range of opinions there, from most egoistic through absolutely normal to self-hatred. The immigration has predominantly economic reasons, and I talk about all kinds of immigration, also within the EU, so I wouldn't consider it connected. I think the majority of the german people simply don't use their "nationality" (which is a very tricky construct on its own) to elevate themselves above others - as is often the case when other people go abroad (like certain british tourists in Slovakia who act as if they owned the place - but this is again mostly anecdotal evidence and doesn't prove much). I think, since the german country is a federation, they identify more with their Bundesland than with the whole (like Czechs and Slovaks were distinctly different even though living in Czechoslovakia back then).
Well, in 500 years people will be so detached from the happenings of the WWII (I mean, already now it's becoming like that) that it will be just a chapter in history books, like, I don't know, Witch hunts, or the Ottoman conquest.
Well, at some point I should go and take a look there ;) I know they have many interesting artifacts there :D
Interesting viewpoints. However, it should be noted that if current immigration trends continue, it will be absurd to call a nation which is mostly made up of non-Germans "Germany" (the below average birth rates of Germans seem to imply that they are dying out). I have heard the "economic" argument, which just shows how destructive capitalism and consumerism on a large scale can be. The German people have become sterile and nihilistic. My views may be considered alien, but I don't think that my own people, the Congolese, would ever be willing to go down a route which would lead t to their own demise. We serve God, love our children and see marriage as a divinely blessed union. The Germans did this as well once, because they were (together with the Belgians and the French) the ones who brought us God's divine revelation. The Congo is the Congo because of the Congolese (people, religion and culture), we are the defining characteristic of this nation. Anyway, I assume that my perspective must be hard to understand, because I probably sound old-fashioned and foolish to you. I have seen how extremely anti-religious Germany is and how Christians are mocked on a daily basis for their faith. Religion is seen as a nuisance at best. While we are at it: do you speak German?
I see it pretty similar, George. This is just suicide on a grand scale. Not having kids and letting millions of foreigners in? Israel would be destroyed in a few short years. We are Jews and Israel is our nation. We don't mind guests and small amounts of immigration of non-Jews, but mass immigration on a German scale would absolutely destroy us. The Germans are always so radical. Everthing they do is just so absurdly extreme. They are either ultra-right or ultra-left. They either follow Nation Socialists or Communists and now capitalistic politicians. They know no golden middle ground. I cannot believe that I am saying this, but Germany was far better when it was still ruled by the Kaiser. Your solution is actually quite good, George! Give the Germans God and the Kaiser back and everything will be fine. Come to think of it: I highly doubt that the Holocaust would have happened under the Kaiser.
Thank you. We Africans wish to please the Lord, not worldly powers and philosophies. But the Europeans used to be quite similar. They just lost their ways because of the Enlightenment and modernity in general. The abolition of large parts of European culture is a testament to these changes.
I agree. The Kaiser would have not let this happen. But your views are quite far-spread among many older Germans and Austrians. They remember the old dynasties quite fondly. "Gott mit uns" ("God with us") was the proud slogan of the Prussian army. It is undeniably that the old Germans were very impressive and rightly proud people.
I still think, that "nationality" is just a made-up construct to justify the existence of nation-states. A way to distinguish between "us" and "them", in itself a very powerful and destructive tool. Of course it has become an important part of people's identity, so big, that they are willing to kill for it. We do need to have a balance in the amount of humans inhabiting this earth, so too high - or too low - birthrates are not desired, but I also think the doomsday prophets are a bit too loud in this aspect, since stagnation is not a demise (even though in economy it is, right?). I find it good to have a friendly discourse with someone, who has a different view on this topic as I do! I believe, that we (normal people, not a few academics in talkshows) have ceased to talk properly about these topics and this has lead to such a big cleft in the society - conservatives don't talk with liberals, the left doesn't talk with the right, atheists don't talk with religious people. But in the end we are all here and need to get along!
Germany might look like a secular nation, but I think we are still very far from any real clear division of state and church. The majority are either catholics (south) or evangelics (north) and I believe there are many young people there as well. Especially in smaller towns, where the church works also as a cultural hub. I saw it in northern Slovakia - the people there are die-hard catholics, but I cannot share their views on many, let's say existential, topics.
Ja, ich spreche fließend deutsch :) Falls du dich in deutsch weiter unterhalten möchtest, können wir es gerne tun!
Germany might look like a secular nation, but I think we are still very far from any real clear division of state and church. The majority are either catholics (south) or evangelics (north) and I believe there are many young people there as well. Especially in smaller towns, where the church works also as a cultural hub. I saw it in northern Slovakia - the people there are die-hard catholics, but I cannot share their views on many, let's say existential, topics.
Ja, ich spreche fließend deutsch :) Falls du dich in deutsch weiter unterhalten möchtest, können wir es gerne tun!
The literal historical definition of "nation" was quite different: The concept is defined as: "an aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages." 1250-1300; Middle English < Latin nātiōn- (stem of nātiō) birth, tribe, equivalent to nāt (us) (past participle of nāscī to be born).
You are correct of course, as there are nations which are only loosely genetically connected, such as Switzerland, the United States of America and Singapore. It should however be noticed that states such as these are rare exceptions.
I agree that discussions are not a bad thing, but simply being human just isn't enough to unify people on a large scale in a nation (the USA are a testament to this). The reason why people from different parts of the political spectrum as well as different religious convictions are not talking is that there is absolutely nothing to talk about. All views are perfectly clear. The problem is that there is nothing which could unite people who share nothing except that they are human. I am - for example - a Christian. I have zero interest in living according to an atheist world view. Atheists do not want to live after our Christian moral laws, so we have nothing to say to each other. I find it wonderful by the way, that you have visited these places in the East. Many of them are gorgeous!
I like the idea of a unified and peaceful world ala Star Trek, but the brutal truth is that this is childish fantasy. It is never going to happen. People are simply too different and seek very different lifestyles. Their moral and ethical views are also highly incompatible. I have seen a lot of intercultural violence since I came to Germany. The people hate each other and don't want to live alongside each other. Simply telling them "be kind to each other" isn't going to solve the issue. Now, some have suggested to use brutality and authoritarian governments to force people together, which just shows that people have learned nothing from history. This was tried at least since the days of the old Assyrians and Babylonians. It simply never worked. These Empires collapsed and the people parted ways and formed their own nations. The Belgians became never Congolese, despite being there for decades. The Rhaetians never became German and the Hungarians never became Austrian. I know that such views are controversial in the West, but they are not controversial at all in Africa or Asia.
Gespräche auf Deutsch können wir gerne führen, aber ich nehme an, dass dieses Thema dir aufgrund seiner politischen Brisans unangenehm ist.
You are correct of course, as there are nations which are only loosely genetically connected, such as Switzerland, the United States of America and Singapore. It should however be noticed that states such as these are rare exceptions.
I agree that discussions are not a bad thing, but simply being human just isn't enough to unify people on a large scale in a nation (the USA are a testament to this). The reason why people from different parts of the political spectrum as well as different religious convictions are not talking is that there is absolutely nothing to talk about. All views are perfectly clear. The problem is that there is nothing which could unite people who share nothing except that they are human. I am - for example - a Christian. I have zero interest in living according to an atheist world view. Atheists do not want to live after our Christian moral laws, so we have nothing to say to each other. I find it wonderful by the way, that you have visited these places in the East. Many of them are gorgeous!
I like the idea of a unified and peaceful world ala Star Trek, but the brutal truth is that this is childish fantasy. It is never going to happen. People are simply too different and seek very different lifestyles. Their moral and ethical views are also highly incompatible. I have seen a lot of intercultural violence since I came to Germany. The people hate each other and don't want to live alongside each other. Simply telling them "be kind to each other" isn't going to solve the issue. Now, some have suggested to use brutality and authoritarian governments to force people together, which just shows that people have learned nothing from history. This was tried at least since the days of the old Assyrians and Babylonians. It simply never worked. These Empires collapsed and the people parted ways and formed their own nations. The Belgians became never Congolese, despite being there for decades. The Rhaetians never became German and the Hungarians never became Austrian. I know that such views are controversial in the West, but they are not controversial at all in Africa or Asia.
Gespräche auf Deutsch können wir gerne führen, aber ich nehme an, dass dieses Thema dir aufgrund seiner politischen Brisans unangenehm ist.
I see - it's not exactly the same thing as is being implied today, when someone says "nation".
It's true that just humanity isn't enough for making a state. If it was, we might have only one state - something like the United Human State of Earth or something. However, I believe that there is always a lot to talk about, because even if we believe all views are perfectly clear, they are rarely so. Also people change their opinions based on experience and it goes both ways. We don't live in a black and white world and I'm sure quite a few moral laws of any two given groups of people overlap. Atheists also believe that it's bad to steal, have sex with another's partner (unless consensual by all parties), kill other people and so on. Of course there are certain fundamental questions over which will be discussed over and over, but for example the burning of witches also isn't a topic anymore, as it was some centuries ago.
Thank you! I have partial roots in those regions and I like to go back every once in a while!
The world is a complex system and states appear and vanish over time, some as "nation state" (usual case today) or as any other gathering of Power. The romans weren't one nation and yet their state survived for centuries. Yes, it fell apart in the end, but nothing is perfectly rigid and the reasons for decay are various. Usually, peaceful unions for a much better cooperation than enforced ones (yeah, I look at Soviet Union as a recent case). Using authoritarian governments in much worse for everybody than to say "okay guys, it kinda sucked, let's make each our own thing". Often the hate has external sources, but often also internal.
I believe that such views as you mentioned, are often a part of the whole, one cannot dismiss them just because someone says they're controverial. But I think there is more to that than just the question of implicit differences. Oh boy, difficult topic!
Ahh, alles gut, klar ist es außerhalb meiner Komfortzone, aber wie ich schon sagte, ich finde es sinnvoll darüber zu diskutieren. Wir werden die Probleme dieser Welt hier nicht lösen, aber ich lerne was neues, du lernst was neues, und wir beide werden geistig bereichert.
It's true that just humanity isn't enough for making a state. If it was, we might have only one state - something like the United Human State of Earth or something. However, I believe that there is always a lot to talk about, because even if we believe all views are perfectly clear, they are rarely so. Also people change their opinions based on experience and it goes both ways. We don't live in a black and white world and I'm sure quite a few moral laws of any two given groups of people overlap. Atheists also believe that it's bad to steal, have sex with another's partner (unless consensual by all parties), kill other people and so on. Of course there are certain fundamental questions over which will be discussed over and over, but for example the burning of witches also isn't a topic anymore, as it was some centuries ago.
Thank you! I have partial roots in those regions and I like to go back every once in a while!
The world is a complex system and states appear and vanish over time, some as "nation state" (usual case today) or as any other gathering of Power. The romans weren't one nation and yet their state survived for centuries. Yes, it fell apart in the end, but nothing is perfectly rigid and the reasons for decay are various. Usually, peaceful unions for a much better cooperation than enforced ones (yeah, I look at Soviet Union as a recent case). Using authoritarian governments in much worse for everybody than to say "okay guys, it kinda sucked, let's make each our own thing". Often the hate has external sources, but often also internal.
I believe that such views as you mentioned, are often a part of the whole, one cannot dismiss them just because someone says they're controverial. But I think there is more to that than just the question of implicit differences. Oh boy, difficult topic!
Ahh, alles gut, klar ist es außerhalb meiner Komfortzone, aber wie ich schon sagte, ich finde es sinnvoll darüber zu diskutieren. Wir werden die Probleme dieser Welt hier nicht lösen, aber ich lerne was neues, du lernst was neues, und wir beide werden geistig bereichert.
The problem is this: if one super state would be possible, it would have already been achieved, probably even centuries ago. The reason why these types of states will for all eternity remain fantasies is the fact that people are too different. There is a reason why the pan-Arabic, pan-African and even all of the pan-European plans have failed so miserably. There never will be a "united Earth", because the only thing which could remotely accomplish this, would be a ultra-authoritarian dictatorship (but even this state would eventually fall and collapse). I think what most non-Historians don't understand is this: there have been several attempts throughout history to build a one-world government. From the Assyrians to the Colonial Empires, all of these attempts have been failures in the end. This is no coincidence. There is a reason why people like Kalergi have suggested to breed a single "international race". They assumed that creating a single race could bridge the gaps. Yet, there is no evidence that this could work, I in fact strongly suspect that even this mythical "international race" would start to develop different cultures and forms of tribalism.
Atheists simply adopt the moral laws of their religious ancestors, because they know very well that they cannot have objective moral laws and duties in a godless universe (and who would be foolish enough to make up his own moral laws which he believes to be fictional?). Just listen to the new atheists: they are all basically Christians, except that they don't believe in God and that they reject the idea of the Pauline sins. There is a reason why Michael Onfray has spoken out against the hypocrisy of this. "They say that they are atheist, yet they live like Christians!" he said. I agree. If I were an atheist, I would probably cease to care about moral and ethics altogether and just indulge myself in satisfying every urge I would feel (which would include crimes). Jean-Paul Satre said it best: "If God does not exist, everything is permissible!"
It is nice to hear that you are from these regions!
I think that the issue is difference. People will always be different. There is simply nothing which can be done to change this. Even Kalergi's pan-nationalistic "international race" wouldn't be successful in uniting the world. I also don't see how one gigantic, consumerist and hedonistic super-culture is preferable to many unique and different cultures.
Hab ichs doch gewusst: ich kenne die deutsche Mentalität inzwischen ziemlich gut. Ist es nicht merkwürdig, wie sehr ihr euch von den Schweizern und den Österreichern unterscheidet, obwohl diese beiden Völker eigentlich auch aus Deutschen bestehen?
Atheists simply adopt the moral laws of their religious ancestors, because they know very well that they cannot have objective moral laws and duties in a godless universe (and who would be foolish enough to make up his own moral laws which he believes to be fictional?). Just listen to the new atheists: they are all basically Christians, except that they don't believe in God and that they reject the idea of the Pauline sins. There is a reason why Michael Onfray has spoken out against the hypocrisy of this. "They say that they are atheist, yet they live like Christians!" he said. I agree. If I were an atheist, I would probably cease to care about moral and ethics altogether and just indulge myself in satisfying every urge I would feel (which would include crimes). Jean-Paul Satre said it best: "If God does not exist, everything is permissible!"
It is nice to hear that you are from these regions!
I think that the issue is difference. People will always be different. There is simply nothing which can be done to change this. Even Kalergi's pan-nationalistic "international race" wouldn't be successful in uniting the world. I also don't see how one gigantic, consumerist and hedonistic super-culture is preferable to many unique and different cultures.
Hab ichs doch gewusst: ich kenne die deutsche Mentalität inzwischen ziemlich gut. Ist es nicht merkwürdig, wie sehr ihr euch von den Schweizern und den Österreichern unterscheidet, obwohl diese beiden Völker eigentlich auch aus Deutschen bestehen?
The unifying and dividing tendencies have always worked - the big empires never lasted (especially when built by force), but then again, small states also never lasted and coalesced into bigger units.
Ultimately, too high unification destroys variety and solutions which work best in a certain location or society. I agree on that.
Thank you! It's a tiny place, a sort of crossroads of bigger powers in Europe.
Even atheists don't exist in a vacuum. There are some behaviours, which are beneficial to the society as a whole and they also coincide with several religious teachings. How can there be any functional society or ownership if no one adheres to the "no stealing"? I don't see why atheists couldn't have morale laws which partially coincide with christian morale laws and some which don't? Also christian morale laws evolved over time.
Ich glaube, das kann man teilweise der Geographie und verschiedenen äußeren Einflüssen zuordnen. Die West- und Ostdeutschen sind mittlerweile auch etwas verschieden, obwohl sie im selben Staat leben.
Allerdings bin ich kein gebürtiger Deutscher ;)
Ultimately, too high unification destroys variety and solutions which work best in a certain location or society. I agree on that.
Thank you! It's a tiny place, a sort of crossroads of bigger powers in Europe.
Even atheists don't exist in a vacuum. There are some behaviours, which are beneficial to the society as a whole and they also coincide with several religious teachings. How can there be any functional society or ownership if no one adheres to the "no stealing"? I don't see why atheists couldn't have morale laws which partially coincide with christian morale laws and some which don't? Also christian morale laws evolved over time.
Ich glaube, das kann man teilweise der Geographie und verschiedenen äußeren Einflüssen zuordnen. Die West- und Ostdeutschen sind mittlerweile auch etwas verschieden, obwohl sie im selben Staat leben.
Allerdings bin ich kein gebürtiger Deutscher ;)
Empires - generally speaking - last vastly longer than democratic systems. We had Empires which lasted millennia, but there never existed an actual democracy which lasted longer than four hundred years. The uncomfortable truth is that democracies are not very stable, especially not in the long term. Democracies also tend to be ruled by a rich minority, not the majority. Just take a look at Germany: the state does whatever it pleases. They don't care even in the slightest about the natives.
All systems are capable of breaking down. I agree.
You are welcome!
I think that you miss the point. "Atheism" is the same as vegetarianism: it is based upon rejection of something else. In our case the rejection of Judeo-Christian values and beliefs. Atheism is an entirely negative identity, because they identify by what they are not, not by what they actually are. The reason why atheists struggle to have any moral or ethical views at all is because there can’t' be any. Most moral frameworks are religious in nature and if you take a look back in history you will see that even concepts such as human rights were argued from a religious point of view. Modern atheists would have to reject these ideas because they are purely subjective, but they don’t, because it would mean the end of any coherent form of society. This leads to such absurd positions like atheists who are technically Christians but simply reject the Pauline sins. The modern day atheist is therefore a weird creature: he laments about how evil religion is, yet his own morals are religious themselves. If I were an atheist, I would probably try to live as a warlord in Africa and have a palace filled with sex slaves and kill everybody who comes in my way. Why bother living after fictional moral values? I sure wouldn’t want to live after moral laws which are little more than a retelling of the stories of the Brothers Grimm. The reason most atheist don’t live such lives is their cowardice and fear of punishment. But why fear punishment if everything is meaningless and random? What is there to lose? The universe is a curious phenomenon which began to exist and will one day die because of its own heat death. Humans are just soulless biological machines. Nietzsche was right that if God doesn’t exist, everything is permitted, including all things we would consider crimes.
Interessant. Man lernt nie aus, haha!
All systems are capable of breaking down. I agree.
You are welcome!
I think that you miss the point. "Atheism" is the same as vegetarianism: it is based upon rejection of something else. In our case the rejection of Judeo-Christian values and beliefs. Atheism is an entirely negative identity, because they identify by what they are not, not by what they actually are. The reason why atheists struggle to have any moral or ethical views at all is because there can’t' be any. Most moral frameworks are religious in nature and if you take a look back in history you will see that even concepts such as human rights were argued from a religious point of view. Modern atheists would have to reject these ideas because they are purely subjective, but they don’t, because it would mean the end of any coherent form of society. This leads to such absurd positions like atheists who are technically Christians but simply reject the Pauline sins. The modern day atheist is therefore a weird creature: he laments about how evil religion is, yet his own morals are religious themselves. If I were an atheist, I would probably try to live as a warlord in Africa and have a palace filled with sex slaves and kill everybody who comes in my way. Why bother living after fictional moral values? I sure wouldn’t want to live after moral laws which are little more than a retelling of the stories of the Brothers Grimm. The reason most atheist don’t live such lives is their cowardice and fear of punishment. But why fear punishment if everything is meaningless and random? What is there to lose? The universe is a curious phenomenon which began to exist and will one day die because of its own heat death. Humans are just soulless biological machines. Nietzsche was right that if God doesn’t exist, everything is permitted, including all things we would consider crimes.
Interessant. Man lernt nie aus, haha!
I know that this is a bit off topic, but I just had an idea: you said that many Germans feel guilty for the Holocaust, right? Why not have those Germans who feel guilty convert to Judaism? I know, I know what you want to say, but please hear me out: everybody would win. The Germans would have done the same the Romans did to the Christians: they would have taken a once persecuted minority religion and turned it to their state religion. A Jewish Germany could be proud again. The Jews would of course also win: they would win many new adherents. Now don't get me wrong: I like Christian Germany, but there are several issues at hand. Lets be honest here: George is absolutely right, the vast majority of Germans are atheists and agnostics, not Christians. While I would appreciate a unified Christian Germany, I don't see it coming. Most Germans I have met were very hostile towards Christianity and a majority of philosophers, politicians and scientists in Germany have made it perfectly clear that they despise Jesus and his teachings. Either have a atheistic, multicultural Germany or a Jewish homogenous Germany.
While I am skeptical about the viability of the conversion method, it is certainly true that many Germans have indeed converted to Judaism:
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadp.....265132.123.pdf
So you are quite the visionary!
You are unfortunately very right, the Germans are extremely hostile to Christianity, no doubt. I too, do not see any Christian revivals in Germany. Maybe in the very far future, but certainly not in the next few decades. It is interesting to see the revival of Christianity in Russia and many other Eastern European nations, but I have not seen a similar thing occurring in either the former East Germany or West Germany. While Merkel claims to be Christian, it is quite obvious that she doesn't believe in the Bible and she constantly blasphemes divine laws. I think it logical to conclude that she is a cultural Christian at best.
https://www.degruyter.com/downloadp.....265132.123.pdf
So you are quite the visionary!
You are unfortunately very right, the Germans are extremely hostile to Christianity, no doubt. I too, do not see any Christian revivals in Germany. Maybe in the very far future, but certainly not in the next few decades. It is interesting to see the revival of Christianity in Russia and many other Eastern European nations, but I have not seen a similar thing occurring in either the former East Germany or West Germany. While Merkel claims to be Christian, it is quite obvious that she doesn't believe in the Bible and she constantly blasphemes divine laws. I think it logical to conclude that she is a cultural Christian at best.
Well, will you look at that! I am a psychic! Anyway, I am sorry for the sad state of Christianity in the West. I can't help but feel that we Jews should have done more to keep harm away from Christianity. Whatever will take its place, it isn't going to be very gentle. Many Jews hate Christianity, but I think that they miss one vital point: Christians are the only other religion on planet Earth which completely accepts the Torah and all of its teaching, rituals and laws. They are our younger cousins. I feel genuinely bad when I read about the horrible things we Jews did to the Christians in their early days. We should havecprotected them, yet we often helped the Romans hunt them down. Many Jews helped Diocletian do unspeakable things to the Christians. It really makes me sick reading how insaney brutal the persecutions were. I should mention as well that the warlord Joseph Du Nuwas and his ilk slaughtered 20.000 Christians. We should have protected our younger cousins in their infancy, yet we threw them out and trampled on their heads. This is truly shameful.
I find it difficult to find a good coping mechanism with the sins of the past. The shame has a side effect, that many ask themselves "why should we still be ashamed of what our grandparents did". Makes sense. But some turn that again into hatred against other people /ethnicities / religions / societies. In Slovakia there has been no real working out the sins of the past, since the Nazi-satellite dictatorship was quickly replaced by the communist dictatorship and after the velvet revolution there were other more pressing problems... and yet there are many (also many young) people who converge dangerously close to this ideology of hating other people. It's almost as if it was irrelevant, how we deal with the past, if the present looks bleak, the people seek a scapegoat for their misery, and what better scapegoat than a minority (known, but too small to oppose). I believe we need plurality - we need this "multi-kulti". We need peoples seeing other peoples, so they learn - we are all humans, imperfect, but all the same. Yes, cultures and opinions differ, but it's like with languages - the more you know, the richer your knowledge is. And you stop seeing enemies on every step.
Man is a fallen creature, in my humble opinion. The problem with "multi-kulti" (I don't speak German, but I assume that you are talking about multiculturalism, right?) is that different people don't go well together. Just look at us Jews: we always tried our very best to fit into different nations, but it never quite worked out. We - thank God - now have our own nation back, because this was the best of all possible solutions. A country for every religion and culture etc. I agree with George that the alternatives are endless bloodshed and ethnic violence. Brazil, India and the USA have proved beyond any doubts that these ways do not work.
Humans are imperfect creatures, yes. Interestingly enough, I had a somewhat different experience in that when various peoples, cultures and religions are geographically intermingled, they coexist just fine, until someone comes, who benefits from the separation of these peoples using the "us against them" rhetoric - and then the artificial distinction between people starts to take shape and can lead to hostilities. Also, when people live in their own small bubble, they are very susceptible to believe that other people (religions, nations, anyone else who is not "us", whatever that may be in the case) are fundamentally different and want them harm. This separation usually follows political goals of certain people in the ruling party which tends to end in war and murder. Sadly, the most visible case of this was what happened to the Jews especially in 20. century Europe, which was abominable and I believe we are all left poorer because of it.
Of course, throwing many people with different opinions and worldviews to one place and expecting they will all be best friends is at best naive. But so is separating everybody based on whatever metric and expecting that this will end hostilities.
Of course, throwing many people with different opinions and worldviews to one place and expecting they will all be best friends is at best naive. But so is separating everybody based on whatever metric and expecting that this will end hostilities.
You don't have to separate people, people segregate naturally. I went to an international school. We were often bombarded with globalist and liberal propaganda. But as soon as we went to the recreational area, we all self-segregated in our own groups. It was rather amusing to hear all of this "together forever" stuff and then see it fail mere meters away from the class room. I think that your perspective comes from a world where Whites are dominant and simply tolerate other people. It is always good to belong to the ruling race or group, because nobody wants to belong to a minority, I get this (I am Jewish after all). My problem is this: this is all fantasy at the end of the day. Like George said: human rulers have tried to unite different groups since millenia. Have we Jews ever become Germans? If almost two thousand years among the Germans have not made us German, what will? Humans are different, one of the reasons why one cannot perfectly translate other languages is the inherent difference between different languages. You Germans use terms such as "Knecht" ("servant") in your Bible translations, despite the fact that this is a very loose translation of the original hebrew term na'ar (המשרת). The problem is not a lack of will, but the impossibility of any exact version of translation itself.
People cannot be united. Nothing can and will ever unite them outside of blood and faith (don't forget that it was Christianity which united Europe, not some abstract idea of multiculturalism). Not even dictators, laws and violence can force them together. Whites tried to assimilate non-Whites in the USA for decades, just look at the miserable outcome. I also don't see why everyone shouldn't live among their own people in their own nations. What is so bad about a Jewish Israel, a German Germany and a Arabian Saudi Arabia? Isn't this better than to force people who don't like each other to live together?
People cannot be united. Nothing can and will ever unite them outside of blood and faith (don't forget that it was Christianity which united Europe, not some abstract idea of multiculturalism). Not even dictators, laws and violence can force them together. Whites tried to assimilate non-Whites in the USA for decades, just look at the miserable outcome. I also don't see why everyone shouldn't live among their own people in their own nations. What is so bad about a Jewish Israel, a German Germany and a Arabian Saudi Arabia? Isn't this better than to force people who don't like each other to live together?
People like known things and fear the unknown, so yeah, they like to separate into "known" groups. What I cannot stand is when this is used in a hostile manner. I'm absolutely fine with states (or federations or whatever body of governance is preferred for a certain location) where the majority is comprised of some main tribe (or nation). I'm not fine with throwing all people of one such tribe into one state whether they like it or not. Christianity "united" Europe (but didn't stop states within from waging wars) also partially due to conquest and partially due persuasion and partially through preaching certain moral standards which people agreed upon in the end and which allowed them to live better lives than before.
Languages are an interesting topic on itself - especially the fact that you cannot translate them exactly. The best way is to learn the original language of the book (or other medium) to get the best coherence. And then you cannot translate it perfectly either. I have my share of "fun", since there are words in German which have no equivalent in Slovak and vice versa, and it's super tricky to get the meaning through, even with large descriptions of the said word.
Languages are an interesting topic on itself - especially the fact that you cannot translate them exactly. The best way is to learn the original language of the book (or other medium) to get the best coherence. And then you cannot translate it perfectly either. I have my share of "fun", since there are words in German which have no equivalent in Slovak and vice versa, and it's super tricky to get the meaning through, even with large descriptions of the said word.
War is natural. We can debate whether or not this is good or not, but that's the way it is. If a unified world government would have been possible, it would have been built under the Greeks. Christianity certainly is much more moral than the pagan religions it replaced. What we should not do is to put pacifism on some pedestal. Pacifism is cowardice, not bravery. If we Jews wouldn't have fought, we would have been eradicated ages ago. Combat is sometimes absolutely necessary.
George made a good point a few weeks ago. "The limits of my language are the limits of my world.", like Wittgenstein said so eloquently. Language itself (like race and culture) stand in the way of a unified world government. I don't speak German, but I recall that the term "Weltschmerz" cannot be translated in any other language on this planet.
George made a good point a few weeks ago. "The limits of my language are the limits of my world.", like Wittgenstein said so eloquently. Language itself (like race and culture) stand in the way of a unified world government. I don't speak German, but I recall that the term "Weltschmerz" cannot be translated in any other language on this planet.
Yes, sometimes combat is absolutely necessary, but that's always in a defensive matter. But pretty much as the last resort. It's important to have the possibility to use force, but it's also very important to know when not to use it.
Language is a limiting factor of course, but as such can and is adapted to broaden the limits. It is always easier to have a dedicated word to use for a certain concept... yeah, like Weltschmerz. In english the concept exists as well, just not as one word (or, isn't it two? Since it's one of the nice compound words). Or Schadenfreude (which has translations in slavic languages), but I'm pretty sure this concept is known to everyone even without a dedicated word ;)
Language is a limiting factor of course, but as such can and is adapted to broaden the limits. It is always easier to have a dedicated word to use for a certain concept... yeah, like Weltschmerz. In english the concept exists as well, just not as one word (or, isn't it two? Since it's one of the nice compound words). Or Schadenfreude (which has translations in slavic languages), but I'm pretty sure this concept is known to everyone even without a dedicated word ;)
Comments