Translation of "Selbstverstaendlich nicht" in English

This understanding comes obviously not by chance in the ideologic world of the thinker.

Scheler's "objective spirit" does not obviously mean directly knowledge.

The ethical evaluation must not, in Nietzsche's eyes, obviously make immediately people happy.

Besides, it is of course not only about the theoretical side of this phenomen which became a civilizatotian one.

It means of course not, that the globalization would direct itself against the values.

But the EC could not, of course, be an identical structure.

This signifies however also that we have to do, in this comparison Fichte-Széchenyi, simultaneously also with two positions also typologically importants for the answers about the Napoleonic challenge and it must obviously not be so much about the proof of a direct reception of Fichte by Széchenyi, rather more about the realization of an important comparison, in a typological point of view, between both conceptions.

Straight because "the secret forces of the thought- and language creation" are inextricably exercising their effects in the profoundness of the mother language, it was also not given to Spinoza, that Latin was obviously not his mother language and like Alexander also add it, we do not know even today, whether his mother language was Dutch or Spanish.

Coherently, which comes back to three relevant subsystems, namely to an economic system (first of all, monetary-economic), which is not determined. Under 'monetarism', we understand an homogenous and coherent, also a political-economic system running homogeneously and largely (of course, however, not entirely) by the phenomenon of the inside and outside indebtedness of the states, t o the political system of the liberal democracy and to an hegemony of post-modern values in the human living world.

In the states of the late communism, it is well-obvious, that it was not different in the western states, over which the enthusiasm has also spread (even if today it is deliverately or not handed over to the oblivion).

Of course, the pure fact of such a coexistence is by no means completely new in the history and it is also obvious, that it is not straight easy, to do a single specific qualitative leap in the human history, which could divide clearly this process forwards and backwards in two parts.

It has no subject, or no subjects which carry it, what of course does not means, that all subjects of it have the same fate.

2. In cases where the making of the alleged mistake is not self-evident and in cases where it is not immediately evident that nothing else would have been intended than what is offered as the correction, the burden on the person requesting correction of proving the facts must be a heavy one.

Like gearwheels, these elements fit into a single chain (of course not only those that have been mentioned here, but much more, infinitely more).

It is not less determining, that a critical order of magnitude of those global functional systems must be globalized, that obviously cannot be described exactly, but that is clearly more than an arbitrary estimation of orders of magnitude of processes.

It expresses so: how the bipartition itself gave rise to the basic structure of the globalization of that time, as well as through the end of the bipartition concretized by Gorbachev (in the principle, however, of course not the single possible) the concrete form of the globalization, but however the form of globalization of our time.

This obviously does not mean that there have not been differences in social relations, communication, interest articulations, etc. between both large regions, that have had a determinant effect on the conception of the nation, that let indeed appear the "universal" solution already in an other light.

For us, of course, the matter is not of denying Schopenhauer's right to criticize Hegel, also not to declare Hegel's whole philosophy (the so-called "miracle machine") (16) as totally scientific.

Concretized with an example: the concept "essence" (Wesen) – this time obviously no longer in the speculative sense – refers to and integrates the objective sphere, without that this sphere would coincide, in terminology and ideology, somewhat with that of the physics or of the biology, what would bring every realistic philosophy, from the beginning, in multiple embarrassment (12).

Here, he touches Adorno's secrete "metaphysical" point, which detailed explanation can come later but obviously not in the course of this work (20).

This does not obviously imply, that there haven't been between both large regions any differences of social relations, communication, interest articulations, that have then decisively had an effect on the conception of the nation, that let indeed appear the 'universal' solution already in a different light.

The fact, that the theoretical basic definitions of the globalization (with or without crisis), do no touch the field of the systematically interpreted globalization, can obviously not mean, that the globalization would not dispose of imperial dimensions.

The relation between both big phenomena is obviously not direct, but the also so determinant indirect relations are worth our investigation.

Such a way points out in the direction of the adequate and optimal, very obviously not in the sense of preconceived values and objectives, but in the sense of the necessary and the inevitable.