0 50jahre 1 Wind 2 Morgen 3 Sim 4 Und da 5 Komplexe 6 Lügen 7 Deppen 8 Rand 9 Links 10_Schwer 11_Gast ... and we simply have to acknowledge that even today ...

... we need to switch off. We can’t carry on like this. Not enough has changed yet. If the very foundation of our economy really is that there are rich and poor, then we simply have to rethink this economy. But I don’t even believe that this is the case.

And let’s actually assume for a moment that this is the case. Then, however, as a necessary consequence towards the complete secularisation or even abolition of the state church with its own jurisdiction. And also away from state broadcasting with its apparent independence. And then towards the worship of Mammon with all its consequences, certainly including some positive ones.

Speaking of faith: what about ChatGPT with a text like "But back to Democritus. He sees “atoms and void” as the basis of our existence. And in doing so, he touches upon the ultimate conclusion of wisdom. I sensed from this: we are one, we cannot be separated. Atomos means indivisible.”

And the answers are quite interesting; for one thing:

“I couldn’t find a reliable source for the text excerpt you mentioned

(“But back to Democritus… Atomos means indivisible.”). If you’d like, I can look further (e.g. in literary anthologies or philosophical essays) — shall we do that?

And if the answer is ‘yes’, then:

"Good news first — I’ve searched (Google/Google Books, DNB/KVK-style catalogues, articles and PDFs, the Zeit archive, etc.) and found no reliable match for exactly this wording: I found many explanations of Democritus’s principle of ‘atoms and the void’ (e.g. Wikipedia and several PDFs/lectures). Google Books lists numerous older and newer works that discuss Democritus and the concept of the atom — but not the exact quote. I also looked through academic PDFs (essays on atomism) — useful for context, but no exact match."

I find that reassuring; there are still gaps in OpenAI’s statistical multiverse. But the thing is really good, because the assumption: ‘... the text sounds very much like a literary-philosophical commentary – more likely someone who has poetically paraphrased Democritus, not an original quote. I’d guess: an essay, a radio feature or perhaps a spiritual book from the 80s ...". If it were a guessing game, I’d say ‘hot’.

but unfortunately the author hadn’t considered that it is not we, but merely wealth that is indivisible.

the wealth that the non-rich have produced!