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 stop this. We can’t go on like this. Not enough has changed yet.

If the very foundation of our economy 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 it is. Then, however, as a necessary consequence toward the complete secularization or even abolition of the state church with its own jurisdiction. And also away from state broadcasting with its apparent independence. And then toward 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 as the basis of our being: ‘Atomos and Void.’ And he thus addresses the ultimate conclusion of wisdom. I sensed from this: We are one, cannot be separated. Atomos means indivisible.”

And the answers are quite interesting; for one:

“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 deeper (e.g., in literary anthologies or philosophical essays)—is that what we want?

And if the answer is “yes,” then:

"Good news first—I searched (Google/Google Books, DNB/KVK-style catalogs, articles and PDFs, Zeit archives, etc.) and found no reliable match for exactly this wording: I found many explanations of Democritus’s principle of ‘atoms and void’ (e.g., Wikipedia and several PDFs/lectures). Google Books lists numerous older and newer works that discuss Democritus and the concept of atoms—but not the exact quote. I also reviewed 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 strongly like a literary-philosophical commentary—more likely someone who poetically paraphrased Democritus, not an original quote. I’d guess: essay, radio feature, or maybe a spiritual book from the ’80s ...". If this 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!