Roland Dürre
Wednesday October 30th, 2019

(Deutsch) Sei anders, sei Du selbst!

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Saturday August 3rd, 2019

The Art of Braking


The hyperloop secret.


Schema des Hyperloops
(from: Wikipedia)

Among other things, I also mentioned Elon Musk in my last . Let us look at another one of his topics: the . It is also one of the high-technology projects/ideas where Elon Musk invests.

The underlying idea is simply that land-oriented vehicles  are easier to move around in an evacuated  tube than in fresh air. Typically, land-oriented vehicles use wheels (railway), but sometimes they are magnetic levitation trains or hovercrafts



As I see it, the specialty about hyperloop is that it has been generated as an open source project, i.e. the findings are commonly available. There is also a competition, which is held every year in a test tube in Los Angeles. The vehicle with the maximum final speed wins. Mostly, the participants are teams from universities.

The TU München won this competition several times. This year,  they also won it. I find this quite remarkable. Consequently, I asked the question: “how can a team from a country like Germany that is no longer the leader in technology and digitally win such a competition?” 

The answer is remarkably easy:
The length of the test distance  is finite. So far, the pods pass a tube that is only 1,200 metres long. And the TUM team soon realized that the top speed correlates both with the time and the distance you can use for acceleration. So the first goal must be to minimize the brake distance, because this is how you have as many metres as possible for acceleration.

And – sorry for this cynical remark – as everybody knows, when it comes to braking, we Germany are really great. Consequently, the vehicle  WARR of TUM (note the naming) has the best braking system of all the vehicles in the competition. Thus, it can still accelerate when the competition is already braking.

For his Hyperloop contest 2020, Elon Musk plans with a distance of around ten kilometres, including a bend. Maybe the braking advantage of WARR will no longer be so pronounced then.

Regardless, it will still be true that:
if you want to be fast, you first need to learn how to brake. Because since the total path is limited, you need to find a way to use as much distance as possible for acceleration.

Here is a nice metaphor for life:
If you want to be fast, first learn how to brake! 



Roland Dürre
Thursday August 1st, 2019

The Teapot and Peace.

The video below was produced by the Schweizer Rundfunk (SRF Kultur). To me, it looks like something you might want to use as curriculum for teaching ethics in Bavarian schools. But I am afraid it will probably not be used. Except maybe if our Prime Minister Markus Söder decrees it in dictatorship manner.

My personal problem is that I actually feel like the protagonist of the video (who is called “Tea-ist”). Except that I do not believe in the teapot with its special orbit around the sun between the Mars and the Earth.

In fact, my belief is far more eccentric and consequently I am even more of an outsider: I believe that we could have PEACE world-wide (in Germany, Europe and globally) and that we could easily do without all the armament industry and its products.

I am well aware of the fact that this is a rather extreme belief and that I am lucky not to be kept between bars for it. But there is hope!

For instance, Elon Musk is said to have sent a Tesla-Cabrio into space and said vehicle has been orbiting there for some time already. To be sure, the disadvantage is that even as a space hiker, you can now be hit by a car.

But it is also possible that Elon will read my article and watch the video. And since he is a good person, he might just feel pity with the protagonist in the video and send a teapot into orbit. If it turns out that the teapot finds it hard to keep course, I am sure he will manage to design a solar-powered engine for the teapot. If anyone can do it, he can!

That would mean that the Tea-ist in the video would suddenly be correct. Perhaps said teapot in space, along with my article and the video, could even advertise a little more PEACE. And then the day will come when my vision will become reality.

Well, to be perfectly honest: I do not really believe it. I think it is more likely that AUDI will send a SUV into space. After all, they now want to teach TESLA about electric automobiles. And an AUDI is really something to be afraid of, isn’t it?


If you use the tag filosix, you will find more extremely demanding and entertaining, and, above all, short videos on philosophical topics.

Roland Dürre
Friday July 12th, 2019

(Deutsch) Glück durch Freiheit!

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Klaus Hnilica
Monday June 24th, 2019

Tina Tuner and a Democratic Common Pilosophy.

I find both Tina Turner and the US neo-pragmatist Richard Rorty with his book ”Contingency, Irony, Solidarity“

/1 / of 1989 extremely refreshing: both she – see below – and he are really concerned with things and discoveries from real life, instead of all the time seeking the Ultimate Truth that we in Germany like to set as our goal.

The important thing for Richard Rorty is that the truth is not found but made!

Incidentally, this idea was first introduced 200 years ago in Europe, but especially gained influence in the pragmatic concepts of the Americans. Currently, in a more and more digitalized world with its fake news that spread extremely fast, it will probably be hard to control the circulation of information at all.

“But for Richard Rorty, the discovery that the truth is made is like a liberation”.

All of a sudden, he can see how a truth value can be assigned to a historic state of the public perception – or at least there can be an indication of a consequence!

His idea is that, as the history of philosophy and democracy unravelled, there was suddenly the option to change yourself and the society in a positive way, instead of the domination of the metaphysical constructions which saw the truth in things.

Obviously, for the enlightened and rational citizen, his body is the ideal concept. Instead, we now have what he calles the playful and serious “ironical lady“ who understands that contingency (“contingency is something that is neither necessary nor impossible; basically it is what can be but could also be different”, see Niklas Luhmann) is a necessity because she is flooded by the understanding that both her convictions and her everyday vocabulary and the society she lives in could also be different.

And she does not think that this is a deficit!

On the contrary, she uses the new opportunities that result from this and uses innovative vocabulary in order to test new stories about herself and the world and to experience the world anew.

The female ironist leaves everything unsolved, she does not crave freedom of conflicts, but open synthesis.

The female ironist knows what life is really about and what makes contingencies possible:

“the state guarantees freedom for its citizens and the society practices solidarity with those among its members who have been violated and restricted“.

This knowledge turns the female ironist into a liberal person.

Consequently, if you pair liberalism with an ironic concept of the world, you get a mentality that is appropriate for dealing with the modern craving for fixed identities in a democratic way.

Yet, regardless of this addition of irony and solidarity, you have to note that, with a radical-democratic perspective, even though the female ironist will agree with the contingencies of life, there is still the fact that solidarity necessitates that national and religious differences between humans are considered irrelevant if compared to the similarities between pain and humiliation.

The difference between Rorty’s solidarity concept and the rational ethics of enlightenment is that he includes no general principles whatsoever.

He recommends a change towards stories in order to enable literature and the public to develop more sensitiveness towards human misery – and thus generate solidarity.

In this context, however, we need to ask how exactly pain is measured and if perhaps a scale for measuring it is in itself contingent and dependent on the respective social concepts?

And what about solidarity practices themselves perhaps providing us with a concept of what is unsurmountable misery only while they are ongoing and only step by step?

Because what a European discourse in 2019 considers pain is definitely not something you can easily generalize.

Which raises the basic question: is Rorty’s concept is a step towards the solution of the problem or perhaps a symptom for the political situation?

Or maybe Rorty’s approach is more a de-militarization approach for philosophy – just like Tina Turner‘s Popsong ”We Don‘t Need Another Hero“ of 1985 – which means that we do not need counter-heroes to replace the ancient metaphysics. Instead, we need a pragmatic approach towards solving the everyday problems of society?

Which then implies that the typical personality of humans in a liberal democracy is actually boring, calculating, miserly and un-heroic.

If you follow Rorty, then this is basically the price you pay for political freedom!

And, as opposed to Max Weber, Rorty does not fall victim to a cultural pessimism over it. Instead, in typical US fashion, he wisely says “so what?“ and recommends that the words greatness and heroism should only be used in private and never publicly, because: cravings like these will damage the liberal society!

In general, it seems that Rorty’s question of vocabulary to be used in public is stimulating in modern times.

After all, Rorty’s recommendation to leave religious and other identity-based arguments out of the public discourse because they are only conversation stoppers bought him fierce enemies both on the left and right side of the political scale – and also among the religious groups!

Because if you leave these groups out, you are in danger of losing your claim to solidarity and liberalism.

On the other hand, you will have to ask what exactly remains as a common ground for a society that polarises in terms of ideology?

And how can it find a common language – which seems absolutely necessary if it wants to unite?

Today, it seems that doing without ultimate reasons is understood less as a philosophic change but more as a political problem.

In the end, it might become something that supports a philosophy that postulates the “priority of democracy over philosophy“ and does not stubbornly use its former vocabulary, instead applying its vocabulary to the political present – and, if necessary, modifying it!


Roland Dürre
Monday June 17th, 2019

(Deutsch) Von Moskau nach Peking mit der Bahn #4 WICHTIG!

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

Roland Dürre
Friday March 15th, 2019

Freedom, Love, Power.

Three very central but also very abstract terms.

Big welcome – with baby bottle (1984).

When I was young, I mostly thought about freedom. It was very important for me. And since I am a little brain Messie, I collected definitions of freedom. I also wrote an article with eight definitions of freedom.

Be not afraid, it does not contain such a thing as “the freedom of car drivers”. However, a beautiful description of freedom is still missing. I want to add it now. It is by the German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Schelling (Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, ab 1812 Ritter von Schelling, * 27. Januar 1775 in Leonberg, Herzogtum Württemberg; † 20. August 1854 in Ragaz, Kanton St. Gallen).

Lucky is he,
who can be what he is,
who measures his way
his destination
with his own eye.

When I grew older, I was fascinated by the term LOVE. I also wrote many things about it, for instance A day of love.
Only the experiences of the last two years brought me to the realization that POWER is the central term in our social life. It influences our social life fundamentally. So now I look for definitions. Here is what I find:

As I see it, that is not good enough if you think about our lives in social systems.

I find more in Gerhard Wohland

Power is the social consensus that makes activity possible regardless of disagreement. Neither organizations nor enterprises are possible without hierarchically structured power. Romanticized ideas of new work find this connection embarrassing. But secret power is also power – it is only less useful.

Wow, that really is something I need to think about. With the exception of the usefulness in the last sentence, I actually agree.

Then I ask friends who provide me with the following two definitions:

Power is if you can lie without being punished for it.
Power is if you have the right to define things.

Well, as you can see, it is quite rewarding to think and read about POWER. That is what I will do. And as soon as I know more, I will again write about it.

(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Thursday January 17th, 2019

(Deutsch) (Null), Eins, Zwei, Drei, Vier, Fünf. (…)

Sorry, this entry is only available in German.

A short time ago, I found the following tweet:

Aebby (Dr. Eberhard Huber)

Zusammenfassung meiner Führungs- und Leitungs-Philosophie:


My leadership philosophy in a nutshell:

  • Have AND show empathy and respect!
  • Do not spread fear!

Both this statement and the tweet were from my friend Aebby (@Team_im_Projekt), also known as Dr. Eberhard Huber. I admire him very much.

? Consequently, I do not wish to weaken his message. And I would like to add three comments:

  • For me, appreciation is also part of respect. Consequently, it is all about empathy AND respect & appreciation.
  • It is difficult not to spread fear if you fear something yourself. And since I am often afraid, I often notice that I also spread fear. I find that a pity, but on the other hand, I forgive myself because it looks absolutely human to me.
  • My third comment is only that the described leadership philosophy should not be limited to leadership but also be a common life philosophy.

All this does not make it easier. Perhaps the only thing for us to do is become more mature and wiser. Which is also easier said than done.

(Translated by EG)

For more articles in my entrepreneur’s diary, click here: Drehscheibe!

Roland Dürre
Sunday January 13th, 2019


For me – and I believe for many other people as well – the secret of Eros is a huge riddle. And as always, you are well advised to look into the ancient Greek theories. On Eros, I found a little book by the poet and philosopher Platon: Symposion – or the Banquet of Love.

Roman copy of a Greek Platon portrait, probably by Silanion and put up in the Academy after Platon’s death, Glyptothek München.

In the Symposion, Platon, Socrates, Aritsophanes and their friends met for a spree. These symposions were regular events.

Each time, the symposion deals with a certain topic. Today, says Platon at the beginning of his book, the symposion is about Eros.

Who or what exactly is it?

Platon introduces us to six men who all want to win the prize for the best oratory on the great God Eros:

Phaidros, Pausanias, Eryximachos, Aristophanes, Agathon and Socrates.

Aristophanes tells the story of Eros as the power of longing between people. It is the story of the ball person, which Platon invented.



Canova: Amor and Psyche, 1793, Louvre

The ball person was a creature that was both male and female. This person was so powerful that the Gods feared it could surpass them in power and wisdom.

Consequently, they sought a way to get rid of this unwanted God-Competition. A God-like human being cannot be allowed. So they separated the two parts of the ball person by force.

Ever since then, the two separated halves of the ball person that actually used to be one creature are looking for each other.



The article contains parts of Eros. If you want to read more, just click here.

(Translated by EG)

I took both pictures from Wikipedia.