Girl using vibrator in public

In most settings, I wash my hands. But, if I wind up in a bathroom that looks really nasty, I don’t want to touch the gross faucet handles, soap dispenser, etc I just use sanitizing wipes from my purse until I can get to a better bathroom.
Is it better to just use the sink and really wash the hands in the conventional way, or are the wipes ok? I sometimes feel nasty bc I didn’t technically wash my hands, but the alternative seemed worse.

Basically what the title says, she gave me her phone and told me to look for a certain pic in her gallery, so I did, and as I scrolled my heart sunk and I felt like shit when I saw like 7 to 10 pictures of her and her ex, in some of them the both of them were in the pic, in some of them it was just the guy, there were also like 2 o 3 other videos that I watched and it was both of them basically at a club smiling and shit and dancing, that's not all though, I scrolled even further back and she has pictures with another different dude, like 10 more pictures where they are standing in front of a mirror and kissing, I immediately dropped her phone and confronted her about, it she said that she's forgetful and hasn't deleted them yet, that she will delete them before she goes on vacation to have more space on her phone for more pictures, that those pictures don't mean anything, I chose to trust her and tell her it's alright, but the feeling of uneasiness is consuming me man, I'm not insecure at all or not even that much of a jealous guy, but shit like that feels like getting stabbed on yoir heart, if they really don't mean anything, why can't she just delete them? Why get on a relationship while still having those pictures on your phone? I don't know if I should have a serious talk with her about boundaries and respect, I'd like to hear you guys' opinion, thanks for reading all that, she also showed me how one of those guys she used to date still texts her and after our first month together invited her to go out and grab dinner and go to the club after, she refused to go to the club, but agreed to go grab food, she didn't actually go, or so I believe I forgot to ask her but what the actual fuck? Who does that? Am I being over dramatic? And even if am not? Am I in the wrong for wanting my boundaries to be respected? Also she and I went on a trip to a touristic place and she sent the same guy pictures of it and told him she went with one of her girl friends, that's after our second month together, why would she say that and not just say that she went with her boyfriend of two months? I know that shit she does isn't normal, I just know normal, healthy relationship aren't like that, I'm thinking a lot lately about having a serious talk, and even possibly breaking up... any advice, please?

I (31F) have been friends with J since grade 6. I was there for her through all her breakups and family problems. She even had a major surgery in grade 8 and I was by her bedside as often as I could during her recovery time.
I wouldn’t describe J as very smart. I have helped her a lot almost like an older sister to her. I always tried to steer her in right directions and be there for her. We had a falling out for something stupid that I can’t even remember the reason why back 6 years ago, but since then have been friends.
She is finally getting married after 15 years to the guy she met in grade 10. She had also ditched me throughout high school since then for him.
While we had times of drifting apart, when we still treated each other like friends.
J chose another girl to be her Maid of Honour for her wedding. I am confused as to why she didn’t choose me after our entire friendship. What’s odd, is she picked someone who doesn’t even live in the same province as us for this role. I tried asking her about it, and she can’t even give me any good reasons why she picked the other girl. She tells me it’s cause she has known her longer then me (maybe by 5 years more). And that I’m a “private person” in her eyes, in which I told her it didn’t matter and I would have done it all for her. This girl she chose has never been around. She comes to visit J for brunch a few times a year and that’s about it and it’s a very superficial friendship. That’s the most I could get out of her about the reasons why she didn’t pick me. I have previously said to her that I would help her with her wedding long before she even chose her Maid of Honour. She still wants me to be a bridesmaid. I had mentioned previously that she wasn’t smart, because she doesn’t seem to even understand what a maid of honor is and the what that actually means.
I am pretty offended that J didn’t chose me. I have been an amazing friend to her all her life and I feel like she definitely should have chosen me. She asked me if I still want to be a bridesmaid and at this point I don’t even want to bother going. I can see how she sees our friendship so why would I support her? Her other bridesmaid friends are strippers who use her and I just don’t want to be on that “level” with them in front of all the people we know. I don’t want to be hearing J talk about this Maid of Honor that she chose that she doesn’t have any stories with, cause they were all ours.
AITA for not wanting to be her bridesmaid or even come to the wedding?

Basically what the title says, she gave me her phone and told me to look for a certain pic in her gallery, so I did, and as I scrolled my heart sunk and I felt like shit when I saw like 7 to 10 pictures of her and her ex, in some of them the both of them were in the pic, in some of them it was just the guy, there were also like 2 o 3 other videos that I watched and it was both of them basically at a club smiling and shit and dancing, that's not all though, I scrolled even further back and she has pictures with another different dude, like 10 more pictures where they are standing in front of a mirror and kissing, I immediately dropped her phone and confronted her about, it she said that she's forgetful and hasn't deleted them yet, that she will delete them before she goes on vacation to have more space on her phone for more pictures, that those pictures don't mean anything, I chose to trust her and tell her it's alright, but the feeling of uneasiness is consuming me man, I'm not insecure at all or not even that much of a jealous guy, but shit like that feels like getting stabbed on yoir heart, if they really don't mean anything, why can't she just delete them? Why get on a relationship while still having those pictures on your phone? I don't know if I should have a serious talk with her about boundaries and respect, I'd like to hear you guys' opinion, thanks for reading all that, she also showed me how one of those guys she used to date still texts her and after our first month together invited her to go out and grab dinner and go to the club after, she refused to go to the club, but agreed to go grab food, she didn't actually go, or so I believe I forgot to ask her but what the actual fuck? Who does that? Am I being over dramatic? And even if am not? Am I in the wrong for wanting my boundaries to be respected? Also she and I went on a trip to a touristic place and she sent the same guy pictures of it and told him she went with one of her girl friends, that's after our second month together, why would she say that and not just say that she went with her boyfriend of two months? I know that shit she does isn't normal, I just know normal, healthy relationship aren't like that, I'm thinking a lot lately about having a serious talk, and even possibly breaking up... any advice, please?

"How are you feeling Mighty One?" Norman drinking a milkshake made by Virgil.
Everybody got a chocolate milkshake as Max couldn't drink one as he only drank some Sprite as his throat was sore a bit.
"OK as when my throat is no longer sore, I will get Virgil's milkshake but doctor says all I can drink is water and drinks like Sprite." Max drinking a Sprite.
"He got sick over in taking care over in all three of us Bea." Maurine as she had to be off for a few weeks. But will go to Australia for her job when Max gets better.
"Know you are not 100% well Maurine but still you will be in the Land Down Under for two weeks while Norman and I watch over the Mighty One when you are gone." Virgil now getting a milkshake.
"Ever since you Virgil and Norman came to live here, as makes me feel even comfortable knowing Max is very safe with you two. Know he was used to me traveling all around for my job and left him to his devices. But still worried a bit despite having a security system. Now you two(pointing at Norman and Virgil), are the security system." Maurine gladly exclaimed.
"We are honored to watch over the Mighty One Maurine. Really Bea helped out a lot in our trip to Transylvania and wiped out the vampires very quickly. Enjoyed her company." Virgil smiled at the girl.
"Thank you Virgil as it was fun. Messy but still fun and glad to hold down the fort over Max while he heals up. Know Max as the true Cap bearer. Still had a great time with you two. Need to do these when I have nothing to do. If Max has to do something else." added Bea loving it all the same.
"We enjoyed your company and glad you have acknowledged the Mighty One as being well, the Mighty One. But we will call upon you when Max has something else that is beyond his control." Virgil replied back.
"Yep I am the Mighty One and should be well in a few days. To go about our monthly trip to make sure evil doesn't come back. Really getting a bit bored and rusty. But this rest and napping has helped me out. Never take naps for granted. Didn't like them but now I know why needing them." Max in drinking his soda.
"Believe me Mighty One, didn't like naps either. But when I got sick really, I had to nap more than ever but glad I will never take them for granted." Norman smiled at Max.
"Normie naps are about resting and taking it easy on your body, mind, soul, and everything." Max itching to get back to normal life.
"Well Mighty One, looks like I am about to give you cap back to you but an honor to temporary hold down the fort while you get well." Bea winking at Max.
"Anytime and anything for you Bea as my BFF along with Felix, Normie, Virgil, and mom." Max in his PJ's.

I tried reposting it on another post but It wasn’t letting comment after i edited.
This is the book summary. Sorry if there are mistakes; I tried my best.
The two girls meet when Kim’s family moves next door to Wan’s family. Wan has been dreaming about a girl since she was young and realizes Kim is the girl in her dreams. Wan finds out that her dad is strangely close to Kim's dad. It happens several times, and Wan figures out they are lovers. The two Dads run away together, leaving their daughters and wives behind. Some time passes, and when they go back to school, rumors emerge about the two father run away together at their school. Wan tries to get close to Kim, but she ignores her and tries to avoid her at all costs. Wan wants to be close to someone who can understand the pain of their father leaving, and Kim is that person.
They eventually get close, but Kim and Wan makes it clear they are not friends. Wan and Kim have dreams of each other, and they do romantic things in their dreams. Some of this affects their real life because if they fight in real life, they make up in their dream world. The four friends get closer as time goes by. They have a lot of tension in their friendship. They have feelings for each other but neither of them wants to confess. Also, Kim doesn't like same-sex relationships because of her trauma of her father abandoning them for Wan's dad. This is why Wan is even more afraid to confess her feelings towards Kim. Wan, in school, one day, says that whoever is the first person to give her a gift, she will date them. After school, Wan checks the bag for the gift to see who gave it to her but cannot find it. Mon, one of the friends in their group, makes some time to talk to Wan alone. She tells Wan that another student at school saw Kim throw away the gift given to Wan on Valentine's Day! Later that day, she gifts a drawing of Wan sleeping to her ☺️ Mon (the friend questions Dawan if they like each other and asks her if Kim gave her a gift, and Dawan denies it ).
Dwan is planning to tell Kimhan her feelings. In chapter 19 of the book, as she heads home for dinner, she finds that her mom is not home. So she checks to see if she's at the neighbor's house, Aunt Aey’s (Kimhans mother). She finds an unexpected scene. She sees her mother and Aunt Aey kissing each other. She keeps it a secret. This prevents Dawan and Kim Han’s romantic relationship from progressing. Wan finds it impossible to confess now because both of their father had an affair and ran away together. Now, their moms are also in love, and Kim and Wan love each other. She finds it too much to bear and doesn't want Kim to find out and get hurt again. The four friends make a time capsule where, in 10 years, they will open the letters they wrote to each other. Kim and Wan write letters, confessing their feelings to each other, and leave them in the time capsule.
Time passes by, and Dawan becomes a famous actress. Kim works for her, and they protect each other and live together in a condo. Dawan insists they live together to prevent Kimhan from discovering the truth about their moms. Dawan knows her mom and Aunt Aey suffered after their husbands left them and doesn't want to separate them because she knows they are in love. Wan doesn't want to take her mom's happiness away. Eventually, Kimhan meets a man named Mawhin. Kim introduces Mawhin to Wan as her boyfriend. She is jealous but cannot complain because she has had boyfriends in the past as well. The difference is that when Wan went on the dates with her ex boyfriends, she takes Kimhan along with her on her dates—leaving the boyfriends as the third wheels🤣. Wan's ex-bfs always gave her an ultimatum to choose between them (Wan’s bf’s) and Kim. Dawan always chose Kim, and her boyfriends broke up with her. Wan has never slept with her ex-boyfriends, and when they tried to get her drunk to have sex with her, Kim always rescued her. Mawim Wants to marry Kim Han. Mawhin has a conversation with Dawan, asking her if he should go ahead and ask Kimhan to marry him. Mawhin wants to know if Dawan has feelings For Kim, telling her that he knows how Kim feels for her and wants to see if Dawan also feels the same for Kim. Making sure he can safely propose to Kim with out Dawan getting in the way. Mawhin asks this in an indirect way. Dawan understands, but she is still in denial or doesn't dare to confess the truth about her feelings for Kim. It's finally Time to open the time capsule. Wan goes before the friend Groups goes together to retrieve the time capsule. She secretly steals the letter she wrote, confessing her feelings for Kimhan. When all the friends go retrieve it, Kim hands the letter to Wan. Days pass, and Wan still does not dare to open the letter Kim wrote to her 10 years ago. Kim calls Dhawan and asks if she read the letter, and Wan says yes and asks what she thinks. (But Wan still has not read the letter) Kim wants to know what she thinks. Dahwan responds she has no opinion on it. So before Kimhan ends the call, she goes silent and tells Wan, “It's time for me to let go”. On Kim's wedding day, Wan finally reads the letter. It reads:
A Dahwan, If you're reading this, it means ten years have passed. I've spent a long time contemplating whether I should write to you about this. But by the time you read it, ten years will have gone by, and we will probably laugh because we will have grown and matured.
Among all my friends, you are the one I love the most. You are the best person who will always hold a special place in my heart, and no one can replace you. If I were to tell you that we were so close that I dreamt about you, would you think it's strange? I saw you even before we became friends.
In my dreams...
For as long as I can remember, I've had a friend in my dreams. It's a completely blue and white world. There's a big tree and a river, and the surroundings change over time, though I don't know why. I never knew if you truly existed. Every time I woke up, I would forget who that friend was.
Until we met in reality. That girl from my dreams turned out to be you.
We did many things... Ah, I don't know how to put it into words. Let's just say they were very good dreams. Every time I dreamt, I didn't want to wake up. But if I didn't wake up, I would regret not being able to go to school and come home to you, just like we do.
You were always with me. And now, it turns out that you're always in my thoughts and in my heart. You're a friend, a big sister, a little sister, and sometimes a pain in the ass. But I love everything about you.
I think I'm in love with you... Even though I don't like deviating from heterosexuality because of our parents, you are my exception. I love you for who you are. I don't care if you're a man or a woman. But I don't know if, after ten years, when this letter is opened, I will still feel the same.
If either of us already has a lover, read this letter and laugh awkwardly with each other.
But for now, as I write this letter, this is how I truly feel. And if what I feel in ten years is still the same, and you feel the same way, let me know.
Dhawan, I dream of you.
End of letter.
After Dhawan reads the letter, she rushes to Kim's wedding ceremony and enters when Kim is getting ready for the ceremony. Dhawan tells her, “Kim Han, I also dream of you”! They confess to each other their love. Just as the wedding is about to start, paparazzi and new stations are waiting for the couple to get married. Wan takes and escapes with Kim together. They run away to a hotel, And Kim and Wan spend the wedding night together. News goes out to the public that a famous actress took the bride and escaped with her, embarrassing the rich groom.
There is more to the story, but they have a happy ending

I've been actively keeping up with all the recent drama, not even because I personally have any stakes in it; more so I've been absolutely fascinated by the community response. As the situation seems to be cooling down, I have a few questions for the community at large on their opinions regarding it; specifically in relation to the community's response to the drama.
The first, and biggest thing I've noticed is where the hate is being directed. Now, by all means, correct me if I'm wrong regarding this, but I've been noticing that more so than any other player involved, Zylice seems to be catching the most flak from the community (you can see this in posts related to him in this sub massively outscoring any others related to the discussion), and I'm wondering, why do people think this is the case? Personally, based on the accounts of the people involved (zylice himself, Grandmaster, and forum), its indicated that zylice played a significantly smaller role in the creation of the document than either Badeu or grandmaster (feel free to debate this claim on my part if you have reason to believe otherwise!). So that leads me to question, why did Zylice end up becoming the biggest target within the group? The two main things I can see is simply that he's more well known than the other two, and that the act of using a cheat client, even within this context, was considered bad enough on its own to being comparable to the act of actually writing the doc.
on the flipside, its interesting to me how all the attention has gone pretty exclusively to these 3 players. To me, its consistently seemed to imply that this group was actually a pretty decent size, in my mind at least 10 people in the discord at least, but pure speculation on my part. But there hasn't been any push for those individuals not named in the doc itself to come forward, and I'm curious whether you believe there should be more of that, or if the current view by the community is valid. (though thinking this over, I suppose its an unrealistic thought, given the backlash everyone who was public received I doubt anyone else would want to expose themselves to that, however involved they may have been)
Basically, this post is just a meta examination not of the controversy itself, but the community's response to it. If you have anything else you've noticed that's been interesting in a similar vein, I'd be super interested in hearing. and also just curious as to other people's thoughts on some of the stuff I've mentioned above too, haven't really seen it talked about and I'm curious to other peoples thoughts!

hi everyone, I'm just curious if there are any public fire pits in the area that are free to use in the evening/night. If not, what are some good campgrounds with fire pits/rings?

i’m mainly thinking of ones like 28 days later, Once, miami vice, public enemies, inland empire etc
interested in any suggestions of other ones that use similar cameras in creative ways ? can also include short films too

What is decisive is not that man frees himself to himself from previous obligations, but that the very essence of man itself changes, in that man becomes subject. We must understand this word subiectum, however, as the translation of the Greek hypokeimenon. The word names that-which-lies-before, which, as ground, gathers everything onto itself. This metaphysical meaning of the concept of subject has first of all no special relationship to man and none at all to the I. However, when man becomes the primary and only real subiectum, that means: Man becomes that being upon which all that is, is grounded as regards the manner of its Being and its truth. Man becomes the relational center of that which is as such. But this is possible only when the comprehension of what is as a whole changes. In what does this change manifest itself? What, in keeping with it, is the essence of the modern age?
When we reflect on the modern age, we are questioning concerned the modern world picture [Weltbild] *12. We characterize the latter by throwing it into relief over against the medieval and the ancient world pictures. But why do we ask concerning a world picture in our interpreting of a historical age? Does every period of history have its world picture, and indeed in such a way as to concern itself from time to time about that world picture? Or is this, after all, only a modern kind of representing, this asking concerning a world picture?
What is the world picture? Obviously a picture of the world. But what does “World” mean here? What does “picture” mean? “World” serves here as a name for what is, in its entirety. The name is not limited to the cosmos, to nature. History also belongs to the world. Yet even nature and history, and both interpenetrating in their underlying and transcending of one another, do not exhaust the world. In this designation the ground of the world is meant also, no matter how its relation to the world is thought (Appendix 5).
With the word “picture” we think first of all of a copy of something. Accordingly, the world picture would be a painting, so to speak, of what is as a whole. But “world picture” means more than this. We mean by it the world itself, the world as such, what is, in its entirety, just as it is normative and binding for us. “To get into the picture” [literally, to put oneself into the picture] with respect to something means to set whatever is, itself, in place before oneself just in the way that it stands with it, and to have it fixedly before oneself as set up in this way. But a decisive determinant in the essence of the picture is still missing. “We get the picture” concerning something does not mean only that what is stands before us - in all that belongs to it and all that stands together in it - as a system. “To get the picture” throbs with being acquainted with something, with being equipped and prepared for it. Where the world becomes picture, what is, in its entirety, is juxtaposed as that for which man is prepared and which, correspondingly, he therefore intends to bring before himself and have before himself, and consequently intends in a decisive sense to set in place before himself (Appendix 6). Hence world picture, when understood essentially, does not mean a picture of the world but the world conceived and grasped as picture. What is, in its entirety, is now taken in such a way that it first is in being and only is in being to the extend that it is set up by man, who represents and sets forth. Wherever we have the world picture, an essential decision takes place regarding what is, in its entirety. The Being of whatever is, is sought and found in the representedness of the latter.
However, everywhere that whatever is, is not interpreted in this way, the world also cannot enter into a picture; there can be no world picture. The fact that whatever is comes into being in and through representedness transforms the age in which this occurs into a new age in contrast with the preceding one. The expressions "world picture of the modern age" and "modern world picture" both mean the same thing and both assume something that never could have been before, namely, a medieval and an ancient world picture. The world picture does not change from an earlier medieval one into a modern one, but rather the fact that the world becomes picture at all is what distinguishes the essence of the modern age [der Neuzeit]. For the Middle Ages, in contrast, that which is, is the ens creatum, that which is created by the personal Creator-God as the highest cause. Here, to be in being means to belong within a specific rank of the order of what has been created - a rank appointed from the beginning - and as thus caused, to correspond to the cause of creation (analogia entis) (Appendix 7). But never does the Being of that which is consist here in the fact that it is brought before man as the objective, in the fact that it is placed in the realm of man's knowing and of his having disposal, and that it is in being only in this way.
The modern interpretation of that which is, is even further from the interpretation characteristic of the Greeks. One of the oldest pronouncements of Greek thinking regarding the Being of that which is runs: To gar auto noein estin te kai einai.*15 This sentence of Parmenides means: The apprehending of whatever is belongs to Being because it is demanded and determined by Being. That which is, is that which arises and opens itself, which, as what presences, comes upon man as the one who presences, i.e., comes upon the one who himself opens himself to what presences in that he apprehends it. That which is does not come into being at all through the fact that man first looks upon it, in the sense of a representing that has the character of subjective perception. Rather, man is the one who is looked upon by that which is; he is the one who is - in company with itself - gathered toward presencing, by that which opens itself. To be beheld by what is, to be included and maintained within its openness and in that way to be borne along by it, to be driven about by its oppositions and marked by its discord - that is the essence of man in the great age of the Greeks. Therefore, in order to fulfill his essence, Greek man must gather (legein) and save (sozein), catch up and preserve, what opens itself in its openness, and he must remain exposed (aletheuein) to all its sundering confusions. Greek man is as the one who apprehends [der Vernehmer] that which is, and this is why in the age of the Greeks the world cannot become picture. Yet, on the other hand, that the beingness of whatever is, is defined for Plato as eidos [aspect, view] is the presupposition, destined far in advance and long ruling indirectly in concealment, for the world's having to become picture (Appendix 8).
[*12. The conventional translation of Weltbild would be “conception of the world” or “philosophy of life.” The more literal translation, “world picture,” is needed for the following of Heidegger’s discussion; but it is worth noting that “conception of the world” bears a close relation to Heidegger’s theme of man’s representing of the world as picture.
*15. The accepted English translation of this fragment is, “For thought and being are the same thing” (Nahm).]
In distinction from Greek apprehending, modern representing, whose meaning the word repraesentatio first brings to its earliest expression, intends something quite different. Here to represent [vorstel-len] means to bring what is present at hand [das Vorhandene] before oneself as something standing over against, to relate it to oneself, to the one representing it, and to force it back into this relationship to oneself as the normative realm. Wherever this happens, man "gets into the picture" in precedence over whatever is. But in that man puts himself into the picture in this way, he puts himself into the scene, i.e., into the open sphere of that which is generally and publicly represented. Therewith man sets himself up as the setting in which whatever is must henceforth set itself forth, must present itself [sich ... prasentieren], i.e., be picture. Man becomes the representative [der Reprasentant] of that which is, in the sense of that which has the character of object.
But the newness in this event by no means consists in the fact that now the position of man in the midst of what is, is an entirely different one in contrast to that of medieval and ancient man. What is decisive is that man himself expressly takes up this position as one constituted by himself, that he intentionally maintains it as that taken up by himself, and that he makes it secure as the solid footing for a possible development of humanity. Now for the first time is there any such thing as a 'position' of man. Man makes depend upon himself the way in which he must take his stand in relation to whatever is as the objective. There begins that way of being human which mans the realm of human capability as a domain given over to measuring and executing, for the purpose of gaining mastery over that which is as a whole. The age that is determined from out of this event is, when viewed in retrospect, not only a new one in contrast with the one that is past, but it settles itself firmly in place expressly as the new. To be new is peculiar to the world that has become picture.
When, accordingly, the picture character of the world is made clear as the representedness of that which is, then in order fully to grasp the modern essence of representedness we must track out and expose the original naming power of the worn-out word and concept "to represent" [vorstellen]: to set out before oneself and to set forth in relation to oneself. Through this, whatever is comes to a stand as object and in that way alone receives the seal of Being. That the world becomes picture is one and the same event with the event of man's becoming subiectum in the midst of that which is.
Only because and insofar as man actually and essentially has become subject is it necessary for him, as a consequence, to confront the explicit question: Is it as an "I" confined to its own preferences and freed into its own arbitrary choosing or as the "we" of society; is it as an individual or as a community; is it as a personality within the community or as a mere group member in the corporate body; is it as a state and nation and as a people or as the common humanity of modern man, that man will and ought to be the subject that in his modern essence he already is! Only where man is essentially already subject does there exist the possibility of his slipping into the aberration of subjectivism in the sense of individualism. But also, only where man remains subject does the positive struggle against individualism and for the community as the sphere of those goals that govern all achievement and usefulness have any meaning.
The interweaving of these two events, which for the modern age is decisive - that the world is transformed into picture and man into subiectum - throws light at the same time on the grounding event of modern history, an event that at first glance seems almost absurd. Namely, the more extensively and the more effectually the world stands at man’s disposal as conquered, and, the more objectively the object appears, all the more subjectively, i.e., the more importunately, does the subiectum rise up, and all the more impetuously, too, do observation of and teaching about the world change into a doctrine of man, into anthropology. It is no wonder that humanism first arises where the world becomes picture. It would have been just as impossible for a humanism to have gained currency in the great age of the Greeks as it would have been impossible to have had anything like a world picture in that age. Humanism, therefore, in the more strict historiographical sense, is nothing, but a moral-aesthetic anthropology. The name “anthropology” as used here does not mean just some investigation of man by a natural science. Nor does it mean the doctrine established within Christian theology of man created, fallen, and redeemed. It designates that philosophical interpretation of man which explains and evaluates whatever is, in its entirety, from the standpoint of man and in relation to man (Appendix 10).
The increasingly exclusive rooting of the interpretation of the world in anthropology, which has set in since the end of the eighteenth century, finds its expression in the fact that the fundamental stance of man in relation to what is, in its entirety, is defined as a world view (Weltanschauung). Since that time this word has been admitted into common usage. As soon as the world becomes picture, the position of man is conceived as a world view. To be sure, the phrase “world view” is open to misunderstanding, as though it were merely a matter here of a passive contemplation of the world. For this reason, already in the nineteenth century it was emphasized with justification that “world view” also meant and even meant primarily “view of life.” The fact that, despite this, the phrase “world view” asserts itself as the name for the position of man in the midst of all that is, is proof of how decisively the world became picture as soon as man brought his life as subiectum into precedence over other centers of relationship. This means: whatever is, is considered to be in being only to the degree and to the extent that it is taken into and referred back to this life, i.e., is lived out, and becomes life-experience. Just as unsuited to the Greek spirit as every humanism had to be, just so impossible was a medieval world view, and just as absurd is a Catholic world view. Just as necessarily and legitimately as everything must change into life-experience for modern man the more unlimitedly he takes charge of the shaping of his essence, just so certainly could the Greeks at the Olympian festivals never have had life-experiences.
The fundamental event of the modern age is the conquest of the world as picture. The word "picture" [Bild] now means the structured image [Gebild] that is the creature of man's producing which represents and sets before. In such producing, man contends for the position in which he can be that particular being who gives the measure and draws up the guidelines for everything that is. Because this position secures, organizes, and articulates itself as a world view, the modern relationship to that which is, is one that becomes, in its decisive unfolding, a confrontation of world views; and indeed not of random world views, but only of those that have already taken up the fundamental position of man that is most extreme, and have done so with the utmost resoluteness. For the sake of this struggle of world views and in keeping with its meaning, man brings into play his unlimited power for the calculating, planning, and molding of all things. Science as research is an absolutely necessary form of this establishing of self in the world; it is one of the pathways upon which the modern age rages toward fulfillment of its essence, with a velocity unknown to the participants. With this struggle of world views the modern age first enters into the part of its history that is the most decisive and probably the most capable of enduring (Appendix 11).
A sign of this event is that everywhere and in the most varied forms and disguises the gigantic is making its appearance. In so doing, it evidences itself simultaneously in the tendency toward the increasingly small. We have only to think of numbers in atomic physics. The gigantic presses forward in a form that actually seems to make it disappear - in the annihilation of great distances by the airplane, in the setting before us of foreign and remote worlds in their everydayness, which is produced at random through radio by a flick of the hand Yet we think too superficially if we suppose that the gigantic is only the endlessly extended emptiness of the purely quantitative. We think too little if we find that the gigantic, in the form of continual not-ever-having-been-here-yet, originates only in a blind mania for exaggerating and excelling. We do not think at all if we believe we have explained this phenomenon of the gigantic with the catchword “Americanism" (Appendix 12).
The gigantic is rather that through which the quantitative becomes a special quality and thus a remarkable kind of greatness. Each historical age is not only great in a distinctive way in contrast to others; it also has, in each instance, its own concept of greatness. But as soon as the gigantic in planning and calculating and adjusting and making secure shifts over out of the quantitative and becomes a special quality, then what is gigantic, and what can seemingly always be calculated completely, becomes, precisely through this, incalculable. This becoming incalculable remains the invisible shadow that is cast around all things everywhere when mas has been transformed in subiectum and the world into picture (Appendix 13).
By means of this shadow the modern world extends itself out into a space withdrawn from representation, and so lends to the incalculable the determinateness peculiar to it, as well as a historical uniqueness. This shadow, however, points to something else, which it is denied to us of today to know (Appendix 14). But man will never be able to experience and ponder this that is denied so long as he dawdles about in the mere negating of the age. The flight into tradition, out of a combination of humility and presumption, can bring about nothing in itself other than self-deception and blindness in relation to the historical moment.
Man will know, i.e., carefully safeguard into its truth, that which is incalculable, only in creative questioning and shaping out of the power of genuine reflection. Reflection transports the man of the future into that “between” in which he belongs to Being and yet remains a stranger amid that which is (Appendix 15). Hölderlin knew of this. His poem, which bears the superscription “To the German,” closes:
How narrowly bounded is our lifetime,
We see and count the number of our years.
But have the years of nations
Been seen by mortal eye?
If your soul throbs in longing
Over its own time, mourning, then
You linger on the cold shore
Among your own and never know them.

The Age of the World Picture
In metaphysics reflection is accomplished concerning the essence of what is and a decision takes place regarding the essence of truth*1. Metaphysics grounds an age, in that through a specific interpretation of what is and through a specific comprehension of truth it gives to that age the basis upon which it is essentially formed*2. This basis holds complete dominion over all the phenomena that distinguish the age. Conversely, in order that there may be an adequate reflection upon these phenomena themselves, the metaphysical basis for them must let itself be apprehended in them. Reflection is the courage to make the troth of our own presuppositions and the realm of our own goals into the things that most deserve to be called in question Appendix 1).
One of the essential phenomena of the modern age is its science. A phenomenon of no less importance is machine technology. We must not, however, misinterpret that technology as the mere application of modern mathematical physical science to praxis. Machine technology is itself an autonomous transformation of praxis, a type of transformation wherein praxis first demands the employment of mathematical physical science. Machine technology remains up to now the most visible outgrowth of the essence of modern technology, which is identical with the essence of modern metaphysics.
A third equally essential phenomenon of the modern period lies in the event of art's moving into the purview of aesthetics. That means that the art work becomes the object of mere subjective experience, and that consequently art is considered to be an expression of human life*4.
A fourth modern phenomenon manifests itself in the fact that human activity is conceived and consummated as culture. Thus culture is the realization of the highest values, through the nurture and cultivation of the highest goods of man. It lies in the essence of culture, as such nurturing, to nurture itself in its turn and thus to become the politics of culture.
A fifth phenomenon of the modern age is the loss of the gods*5. This expression does not mean the mere doing away with the gods, gross atheism. The loss of the gods is a twofold process. On the one hand, the world picture is Christianized inasmuch as the cause of the world is posited as infinite, unconditional, absolute. On the other hand, Christendom transforms Christian doctrine into a world view (the Christian world view), and in that way makes itself modern and up to date. The loss of the gods is the situation of indecision regarding God and the gods. Christendom has the greatest share in bringing it about. But the loss of the gods is so far from excluding religiosity that rather only through that loss is the relation to the gods changed into mere experience." When this occurs, then the gods have fled. The resultant void is compensated for by means of historiographical and psychological investigation of myth.
What understanding of what is, what interpretation of truth, lies at the foundation of these phenomena?
We shall limit the question to the phenomenon mentioned first, to science [Wissenschaft].
In what does the essence of modern science lie?
What understanding of what is and of truth provides the basis for that essence? If we succeed in reaching the metaphysical ground that provides the foundation for science as a modern phenomenon, then the entire essence of the modern age will have to let itself be apprehended from out of that ground.
When we use the word "science" today, it means something essentially different from the doctrina and scientia of the Middle Ages, and also from the Greek episteme. Greek science was never exact, precisely because, in keeping with its essence, it could not be exact and did not need to be exact. Hence it makes no sense whatever to suppose that modern science is more exact than that of antiquity. Neither can we say that the Galilean doctrine of freely falling bodies is true and that Aristotle's teaching, that light bodies strive upward, is false; for the Greek understanding of the essence of body and place and of the relation between the two rests upon a different interpretation of beings and hence conditions a correspondingly different kind of seeing and questioning of natural events. No one would presume to maintain that Shakespeare's poetry is more advanced than that of Aeschylus. It is still more impossible to say that the modern understanding of whatever is, is more correct than that of the Greeks. Therefore, if we want to grasp the essence of modern science, we must first free ourselves from the habit of comparing the new science with the old solely in terms of degree, from the point of view of progress.
The essence of what we today call science is research. In what does the essence of research consist?
In the fact that knowing [das Erkennen] establishes itself as a procedure within some realm of what is, in nature or in history. Procedure does not mean here merely method or methodology. For every procedure already requires an open sphere in which it moves. And it is precisely the opening up of such a sphere that is the fundamental event in research. This is accomplished through the projection within some realm of what is-in nature, for example-of a fixed ground plan*6 of natural events. The projection sketches out in advance the manner in which the knowing procedure must bind itself and adhere to the sphere opened up. This binding adherence is the rigor of research*7. Through the projecting of the ground plan and the prescribing of rigor, procedure makes secure for itself its sphere of objects within the realm of Being . A look at that earliest science, which is at the same time the normative one in the modern age, namely, mathematical physics, will make clear what we mean. Inasmuch as modern atomic physics still remains physics, what is essential - and only the essential is aimed at here- will hold for it also.
Modern physics is called mathematical because, in a remarkable way, it makes use of a quite specific mathematics. But it can proceed mathematically in this way only because, in a deeper sense, it is already itself mathematical. Ta mathemata means for the Greeks that which man knows in advance in his observation of whatever is and in his intercourse with things ; the corporeality of bodies, the vegetable character of plants, the animality of animals, the humanness of man. Alongside these, belonging also to that which is already-known, i.e., to the mathematical, are numbers. If we come upon three apples on the table, we recognize that there are three of them. But the number three, threeness, we already know. This means that number is something mathematical. Only because numbers represent, as it were, the most striking of always-already-knowns, and thus offer the most familiar instance of the mathematical, is "mathematical" promptly reserved as a name for the numerical. In no way, however, is the essence of the mathematical defined by numberness, Physics is, in general, the knowledge of nature, and, in particular, the knowledge of material corporeality in its motion; for that corporeality manifests itself immediately and universally in everything natural, even if in a variety of ways, If physics takes shape explicitly, then, as something mathematical, this means that, in an especially pronounced way, through it and for it something is stipulated in advance as what is already-known. That stipulating has to do with nothing less than the plan or projection of that which must henceforth, for the knowing of nature that is sought after, be nature: the self-contained system of motion of units of mass related spatiotemporally. Into this ground plan of nature, as supplied in keeping with its prior stipulation, the following definitions among others have been incorporated: Motion means change of place. No motion or direction of motion is superior to any other. Every place is equal to every other. No point in time has preference over any other. Every force is defined according to - i.e., is only - its consequences in motion, and that means in magnitude of change of place in the unity of time. Every event must be seen so as to be fitted into this ground plan of nature. Only within the perspective of this ground plan does an event in nature become visible as such an event. This projected plan of nature finds its guarantee in the fact that physical research, in every one of its questioning steps, is bound in advance to adhere to it. This binding adherence, the rigor of research, has its own character at any given time in keeping with the projected plan. The rigor of mathematical physical science is exactitude. Here all events, if they are to enter at all into representation as events of nature, must be defined beforehand as spatiotemporal magnitudes of motion. Such defining is accomplished through measuring, with the help of number and calculation. But mathematical research into nature is not exact because it calculates with precision; rather it must calculate in this way because its adherence to its object-sphere has the character of exactitude. The humanistic sciences, in contrast, indeed all the sciences concerned with life, must necessarily be inexact just in order to remain rigorous. A living thing can indeed also be grasped as spatiotemporal magnitude of motion, but then it is no longer apprehended as living. The inexactitude of the historical humanistic sciences is not a deficiency, but is only the fulfillment of a demand essential to this type of research. It is true, also, that the projecting and securing of the object-sphere of the historical sciences is not only of another kind, but is much more difficult of execution than is the achieving of rigor in the exact sciences.
Science becomes research through the projected plan and through the securing of that plan in the rigor of procedure. Projection and rigor, however, first develop into what they are in methodology. The latter constitutes the second essential characteristic of research. If the sphere that is projected is to become objective, then it is a matter of bringing it to encounter us in the complete diversity of its levels and interweavings. Therefore procedure must be free to view the changeableness in whatever encounters it. Only within the horizon of the incessant-otherness of change does the plenitude of particularity - of facts - show itself. -But the facts must become objective [gegenstiindlich]. Hence procedure must represent [vorstellen] the changeable in its changing, must bring it to a stand and let the motion be a motion nevertheless. The fixedness of facts and the constantness of their change as such is "rule." The constancy of change in the necessity of its course is "law." It is only within the purview of rule and law that facts become clear as the facts that they are. Research into facts in the realm of nature is intrinsically the establishing and verifying of rule and law. Methodology, through which a sphere of objects comes into representation, has the character of clarifying on the basis of what is clear - of explanation. Explanation is always twofold. It accounts for an unknown by means of a known, and at the same time it verifies that known by means of that unknown. Explanation takes place in investigation. In the physical sciences investigation takes place by means of experiment, always according to the kind of field of investigation and according to the type of explanation aimed at. But physical science does not first become research through experiment; rather, on the contrary, experiment first becomes possible where and only where the knowledge of nature has been transformed into research. Only because modern physics is a physics that is essentially mathematical can it be experimental. Because neither medieval doctrina nor Greek episteme is science in the sense of research, for these it is never a question of experiment. To be sure, it was Aristotle who first understood what empeiria (experientia) means; the observation of things themselves, their qualities and modifications under changing conditions, and consequently the knowledge of the way in which things as a rule behave. But an observation that aims at such knowledge, the experimentum, remains essentially different from the observation that belongs to science as research, from the research experiment; it remains essentially different even when ancient and medieval observation also works with number and measure, and even when that observation makes use of specific apparatus and instruments. For in all this, that which is decisive about the experiment is completely missing. Experiment begins with the laying down of a law as a basis. To set up an experiment means to represent or conceive [vorstellen] the conditions under which a specific series of motions can be made susceptible of being followed in its necessary progression, i.e., of being controlled in advance by calculation. But the establishing of a law is accomplished with reference to the ground plan of the object-sphere. That ground plan furnishes a criterion and constrains the anticipatory representing of the conditions. Such representing in and through which the experiment begins is no random imagining. that is why Newton said, hypothesis non fingo, “the bases that are laid down are not arbitrarily invented.” They are developed out of the ground plan of nature and are sketched into it. Experiment is that methodology which, in its planning and execution, is supported and guided on the basis of the fundamental law laid down, in order to adduce the facts that either verify and confirm the law or deny it confirmation. The more exactly the ground plan of nature is projected, the more exact becomes the possibility of experiment. Hence the much cited medieval Schoolman Roger Bacon can never be the forerunner of the modern experimental research scientist; rather he remains merely a successor of Aristotle. For in the meantime, the real locus of truth has been transferred by Christendom to faith - to the infallibility of the written word and to the doctrine of the Church. The highest knowledge and teaching is theology as the interpretation of the divine word of revelation, which is set down in Scripture and proclaimed by the Church. Here, to know is not to search out; rather it is to understand rightly the authoritative Word and the authorities proclaiming it. Therefore, the discussion of the words and doctrinal opinions of the various authorities take precedence in the acquiring of knowledge in the Middle Ages. The componere scripta et sermones, the argumentum ex verbo, is decisive and at the same time is the reason why the accepted Platonic and Aristotelian philosophy that had been taken over had to be transformed into scholastic dialectic. If, now, Roger Bacon demands the experimentum - and he does demand it - he does not mean the experiment of science as research; rather he wants the argumentum ex re instead of the argumentum ex verbo, the careful observing of things themselves, i.e., Aristotelian empeiria, instead of the discussion of doctrines.
The modern research experiment, however, is not only an observation more precise in degree and scope, but is a methodology essentially different in kind, related to the verification of law in the framework, and at the service, of an exact plan of nature. Source criticism in the historical humanistic sciences corresponds to experiment in physical research. Here the name “source criticism” designates the whole gamut of the discovery, examination, verification, evaluation, preservation, and interpretation of sources. Historiographical explanation, which is based on source criticism, does not, it is true, trace facts back to laws and rules. But neither does it confine itself to the mere reporting of facts. In the historical sciences, just as in the natural sciences, the methodology aims at representing what is fixed and stable and at making history an object. History can become objective openly when it is past. What is stable in what is past, that on the basis of which historiographical explanation reckons up the solitary and the diverse in history, is the always-has-been-once-already, the comparable. Through the constant comparing of everything with everything, what is intelligible is found by calculation and is certified and established as the ground plan of history. The sphere of histriographical research extends only so far as historiographical explanation reaches. The unique, the rare, the simple - in short, the great - in history is never self-evident and hence remains inexplicable. It is not that historical research denies what is great in history; rather it explains it as the exception. In this explaining, the great is measured against the ordinary and the average. And there is no other historiographical explanation so long as explaining means reduction to what is intelligible and so long as historiographical explanation so long as explaining means reduction to what is intelligible and so long as historiography remains research, i.e., an explaining. Because historiography as research projects and objectifies the past in the sense of an explicable and surveyable nexus of actions and consequences, it requires source criticism as its instrument of objectification. The standards of this criticism alter to the degree that historiography approaches journalism.
Every science is, as research, grounded upon the projection of a circumscribed object-sphere and is therefore necessarily a science of individualized character. Every individualized science must, moreover, in the development of its projected plan by means of its methodology, particularize itself into specific fields of investigation. This particularizing (specialization) is, however, by no means simply an irksome concomitant of the increasing unsurveyability of the results of research. It is not a necessary evil, but is rather an essential necessity of science as research. Specialization is not the consequence but the foundation of the progress of all research. Research does not, through its methodology, become dispersed into random investigations, so as to lose itself in them; for modern science is determined by a third fundamental event: ongoing activity (Appendix 2).*10
By this is to be understood first of all the phenomenon that a science today, whether physical or humanistic, attains to the respect due a science only when it has become capable of being institutionalized. However, research is not ongoing activity because its work is accomplished in institutions, but rather institutions are necessary because science, intrinsically as research, has the character of ongoing activity. The methodology through which individual object-spheres are conquered does not simply amass results. Rather, with the help of its results it adapts [richtet sich ... ein] itself for a new procedure. Within the complex of machinery that is necessary to physics in order to carry out the smashing of the atom lies hidden the whole of physics up to now. Correspondingly, in historiographical research, funds of source materials become usable for explanation only if those sources are themselves guaranteed on the basis of historiographical explanation. In the course of these processes, the methodology of the science becomes circumscribed by means of its results. More and more the methodology adapts itself to the possibilities of procedure opened up through itself. This having-to-adapt-itself to its own results as the ways and means of an advancing methodology is the essence of research's character as ongoing activity. And it is that character that is the intrinsic basis for the necessity of the institutional nature of research. In ongoing activity the plan of an object-sphere is, for the first time, built into whatever is. All adjustments that facilitate a plannable conjoining of types of methodology, that further the reciprocal checking and communication of results, and that regulate the exchange of talents are measures that are by no means only the external consequences of the fact that research work is expanding and proliferating. Rather, research work becomes the distant sign, still far from being understood, that modern science is beginning to enter upon the decisive phase of its history. Only now is it beginning to take possession of its own complete essence.
What is taking place in this extending and consolidating of the institutional character of the sciences? Nothing less than the making secure of the precedence of methodology over whatever is (nature and history), which at any given time becomes objective in research. On the foundation of their character as ongoing activity, the sciences are creating for themselves the solidarity and unity appropriate to them. Therefore historiographical or archeological research that is carried forward in an institutionalized way is essentially closer to research in physics that is similarly organized than it is to a discipline belonging to its own faculty in the humanistic sciences that still remains mired in mere erudition. Hence the decisive development of the modern character of science as ongoing activity also forms men of a different stamp. The scholar disappears. He is succeeded by the research man who is engaged in research projects. These, rather than the cultivating of erudition, lend to his work its atmosphere of incisiveness. The research man no longer needs a library at home. Moreover, he is constantly on the move. He negotiates at meetings and collects information at congresses. He contracts for commissions with publishers. The latter now determines along with him which books must be written (Appendix 3).
The research worker necessarily presses forward of himself into the sphere characteristic of the technologist in the essential sense. Only in this way is he capable of acting effectively, and only thus, after the manner of his age, is he real. Alongside him, the increasingly thin and empty Romanticism of scholarship and the university will still be able to persist for some time in a few places. However, the effective unity characteristic of the university, and hence the latter's reality, does not lie in some intellectual power belonging to an original unification of the sciences and emanating from the university because nourished by it and preserved in it. The university is real as an orderly establishment that, in a form still unique because it is administratively self-contained, makes possible and visible the striving apart of the sciences into the particularization and peculiar unity that belong to ongoing activity. Because the forces intrinsic to the essence of modern science come immediately and unequivocally to effective working in ongoing activity, therefore, also, it is only the spontaneous ongoing activities of research that can sketch out and establish the internal unity with other like activities that is commensurate with themselves.
The real system of science consists in a solidarity of procedure and attitude with respect to the objectification of whatever is - a solidarity that is brought about appropriately at any given time on the basis of planning. The excellence demanded of this system is not some contrived and rigid unity of the relationships among object-spheres, having to do with content, but is rather the greatest possible free, though regulated, flexibility in the shifting about and introducing of research apropos of the leading tasks at any given time. The more exclusively science individualizes itself with a view to the total carrying on and mastering of its work process, and the more realistically these ongoing activities are shifted into separate research institutes and professional schools, the more irresistibly do the sciences achieve the consummation of their modern essence. But the more unconditionally science and the man of research take seriously the modern form of their essence, the more unequivocally and the more immediately will they be able to offer themselves for the common good, and the more unreservedly too will they have to return to the public anonymity of all work useful to society.
Modern science simultaneously establishes itself and differentiates itself in its projections of specific object-spheres. These projection-plans are developed by means of a corresponding methodology, which is made secure through rigor. Methodology adapts and establishes itself at any given time in ongoing activity. Projection and rigor, methodology and ongoing activity, mutually requiring one another, constitute the essence of modern science, transform science into research.
We are reflecting on the essence of modern science in order that we may apprehend in it its metaphysical ground What understanding of what is and what concept of truth provide the basis for the fact that science is being transformed into research?
Knowing, as research, calls whatever is to account with regard to the way in which and the extent to which it lets itself be put at the disposal of representation. Research has disposal over anything that is when it can either calculate it in its future course in advance or verify a calculation about it as past. Nature, in being calculated in advance, and history, in being historiographically verified as past, become, as it were, "set in place" [gestellt]. Nature and history become the objects of a representing that explains. Such representing counts on nature and takes account of history. Only that which becomes object in this way is - is considered to be in being. We first arrive at science as research when the Being of whatever is, is sought in such objectiveness.
This objectifying of whatever is, is accomplished in a setting-before, a representing, that aims at bringing each particular being before it in such a way that man who calculates can be sure, and that means be certain, of that being. We first arrive at science as research when and only when truth has been transformed into the certainty of representation. What it is to be is for the first time defined as the objectiveness of representing, and truth is first defined as the certainty of representing, in the metaphysics of Descartes. The title of Descartes's principal work reads: Meditationes de prima philosophia [Meditations on First Philosophy]. Prote philosophia is the designation coined by Aristotle for what is later called metaphysics. The whole of modern metaphysics taken together, Nietzsche included, maintains itself within the interpretation of what it is to be and of truth that was prepared by Descartes (Appendix 4).
Now if science as research is an essential phenomenon of the modern age, it must be that that which constitutes the metaphysical ground of research determines first and long beforehand the essence of that age generally. The essence of the modern age can be seen in the fact that man frees himself from the bonds of the Middle Ages in freeing himself to himself. But this correct characterization remains, nevertheless, superficial. It leads to those errors that prevent us from comprehending the essential foundation of the modern age and, from there, judging the scope of the age's essence. Certainly the modern age has, as a consequence of the liberation of man, introduced subjectivism and individualism. But it remains just as certain that no age before this one has produced a comparable objectivism and that in no age before this has the non-individual, in the form of the collective, come to acceptance as having worth. Essential here is the necessary interplay between subjectivism and objectivism. It is precisely this reciprocal conditioning of one by the other that points back to events more profound.
[*1. "Reflection" translates Besinnung. On the meaning of the latter, see SR 155 n. 1. "'Essence" will be the translation of the noun Wesen in most instances of its occurrence in this essay. Occasionally the translation "coming to presence" will be used. Wesen must always be understood to allude, for Heidegger, not to any mere "whatness," but to the manner in which anything, as what it is, takes its course and "holds sway" in its ongoing presence, i.e., the manner in which it endures in its presencing. See QT 30, 3 n. 1. "What is" renders the present participle seiend used as a noun, das Seiende. On the translation of the latter, see T 40 n. 6.
*2. der Grund seines Wesensgestalt. Heidegger exemplifies the statement that he makes here in his discussion of the metaphysics of Descartes as providing the necessary interpretive ground for the manner in which, in the subjectness of man as self-conscious subject, Being and all that is and man - in their immediate and indissoluble relation - come to presence in the modern age. See Appendix 9, pp. 150 ff.
*4. Erlebnis, translated here as "subjective experience" and later as "life-experience," is a term much used by life philosophers such as Dilthey and generally connotes adventure and event. It is employed somewhat pejoratively here. The term Erfahrung, which is regularly translated in this volume as "experience," connotes discovery and learning, and also suffering and undergoing. Here and subsequently (i.e., "mere religious experience"), "mere" is inserted to maintain the distinction between Erlebnis and Erfahrung.
*5. Entgotterung, here inadequately rendered as "loss of the gods," actually means something more like "degodization".
*6. Grundriss. The verb reissen means to tear, to rend, to sketch, to design, and the noun Riss means tear, gap, outline. Hence the noun Grundiss, first sketch, ground plan, design, connotes a fundamental sketching out that is an opening up as well.
*7. "Binding adherence" here translates the noun Bindung. The noun could also be rendered "obligation." It could thus be said that rigor is the obligation to remain within the realm opened up.
*10. “Ongoing activity” is the rendering of Betrieb, which is difficult to translate adequately. It means the act of driving on, or industry, activity, as well as undertaking, pursuit, business. It can also mean management, or workshop or factory.]
To be continued...

I’ve been talking to this girl at my church for about a month. We are both 15. One day she told me that she liked me for around 2 years. I knew that she liked me a long time ago but back then I didn’t really like her. But after time went by I started to think she was a nice girl. But as I got to know her more by talking to her I started to like her a lot. So I told her that I liked her too. We decided to hang out at the mall together. Everything seemed fine but after hanging out it seemed like she was keeping distance from me. We used Snapchat a lot and her snap backs have been a lot slower and dry lately. She even used to text me first all time but for some reason she didn’t text me at all. I asked her if this wasn’t going to work out and she told me that she still liked me but wasn’t ready for a relationship yet and wanted to see if something happens in the future but wanted to be on the pause for now. I told her I understood and we decided to just stay as friends. Few weeks later I decided to text her again just as friends. She replied very quickly but it didn’t seem like she wanted to talk to me. Even at church she used to always come up to me to talk with me but now she just minds her own business. Does she need some time or did she just lose feelings for me?

Hello all. I’m a 21 year old currently in my junior year of college. This event happened a couple weeks ago, but I still think about it sometimes and it irks me, so I want to clear my conscience.
A couple weeks ago was midterms. I was really stressed out because I had ALOT of work to do. On top of that I had had 3 deaths in the family in a span of months. Needless to say, I was extremely stressed. I also suffer from multiple anxiety disorders so I struggle greatly with managing my stress, but I still manage to keep it to myself so as not to stress others. I also have ADHD, which definitely makes my academics harder, which adds to this stress.
Well, with all this pent up stress, I finally broke. I was in the computer lab in my dorm common area. It’s a small room with 7- 6 computers, so not very big. I was working on my midterm assignments there while my bf was sitting next to me. Well unfortunately, the pent up stress made me have a panic attack. It was really bad and the hyperventilating was loud, but I attempted to calm myself down by taking deep breaths and saying words (something that helps me calm down is saying certain words repeatedly, idk why.)
Well, there was a girl at the computer behind me. I noticed she kept loudly heavy sighing but I was obviously too preoccupied to pay too much attention since I was trying my best to quickly calm down so I wouldn’t be loud. I desperately wanted to just leave the room and go somewhere that was more private, but I was very dizzy and my legs were shaky, so I was worried I’d fall over.
While I was attempting to calm myself down, eventually this girl had enough. She bolted up and slammed her chair against the table. She started yelling at me which ultimately made my panicking worse. She told me that nothing was worth stressing out this much and being so loud and that I was a spoiled and melodramatic baby to even be acting like this. I couldn’t believe this, she doesn’t even know me. Some more really hurtful things were said, but I really don’t wanna revisit that because it makes me feel awful. She continued to yell at me and make loud noises while I was attempting to calm down, but to no avail because the screaming wasn’t helping and was only making my panic attack worse. Finally after about 10 minutes, she stormed out of the room, leaving me in tears.
I felt awful and still do. I feel so awful to know I was disturbing someone and distracting someone. But I feel even worse because I was being a loud and annoying distraction when I try my absolute hardest not to have these panic attacks in public, but I failed and ultimately made other people pay the price. Idk I haven’t told a soul about his because it’s extremely embarrassing, but I need to get it off my chest. I just really need to know, what do you guys think? AITA for overreacting?

Timestamp: https://imgur.com/a/fKbQbTg
More cute mini USPSA cardboard targets!
These are 72mm wide and 120mm tall. Super cute and fun to use for dry fire around the house or write your number on the back and give it to a girl.
BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE!
Have you ever seen those pictures of premature babies that fit in the palm of your hand? Now look at this. Little babies 🥹
If you buy a set of targets today I’ll throw in a baby target for free. Are they practical? Maybe not, but there’s just something about them that I love.
I have 30 sets of 10 targets. Each set is $10 shipped and comes with a baby target today.
PayPal only. Dibs then pm me, I will not pm you.

o me (22F) and my boyfriend (26M) have been dating for just about 3 months. He originally was just one of my roomates in the house i'm renting a room in. He seemed interested in me from the start. We started going out pretty quickly, started dating after 2 weeks. That's when i told him about Tinder, and that i don't want him to have it on his phone (he was using it before we met). He said okay and showed me that he deleted it, right before my eyes. Cool. I thought that's it. He had been very caring and attentive to me all this time, said he loves me and is thinking about a future together. We went out on a date yesterday and i thought i saw the Tinder app on his phone. But i didn't say anything at that time. But the thought of it started messing with my mind, and i couldn't sleep. So i brought it up in the morning. I asked him if he has Tinder app on his phone, he laughed and said no. I told him to show me his phone, and that's when he started getting serious and weird. He showed me Tinder on the App store, said it's deleted. But i caught on the fact that on the App it said "update" and not "install". So he had it on his phone all this time. That's finally when he deleted it (i actually saw him click the delete button and the app disappeared) and came forward that the first time i brought it up (3 months ago) he never actually deleted the app. Just put it in a different folder. I asked him why and he said that he didn't think it would be such a big deal to me & and that he likes having it on his phone. Said he doesn't use it tho. Said a whole speech how i'm the most important to him and that he doesn't even have time to cheat, or text other girls. For me it just seems suspicious. He told me i'm overthinking and making it seem like a bigger deal than it actually is. He said sorry 50 times now, after i let a few tears slip out. Said it'll never happen again, gave me forehead kisses and assured me i'm the most important to him. He admitted his fault. I keep thinking about it tho.
TLDR: my(22F) boyfriend (26M) told me he had deleted Tinder while in reality he put it in a different folder and lied about it when i asked. He said sorry, but i'm losing my trust.
What do u guys think about having Tinder while in relationship?

Hey guys. I'm the girl who told you about my story with an ex boyfriend that turned into a stalker 5 months prior. In case you didn't read it, here's the first part and the context of this update: https://www.reddit.com/self/s/xl7gc5FC0A
First, I'll clarify some things that I didn't say in the first post and I posted in comments.

• All my accounts are private, and he's blocked even in Telegram. Not only him, also his family is blocked in every single social media I have. It wasn't the first time that my ex- sister in law left a like in my posts, she even commented in a video I posted 1 year ago to cope with the stalk her brother did to me once, saying that I didn't get over her brother even with a bf.

-I don't check his Instagram account. Since I left him, his life is not interesting to me, but my loved ones (friends, family...) pay special attention to his content just in case he could show something related to Josh or to me (my house, his sudden travel to my boyfriend's city...) just for mine and Josh wellbeing. Which means that all my info is from friends and family that showed me the pics censoring his face just for me not having another panic attack.
-I don't usually post Instagram stories that could be seen by everyone. I upload them in close friends, but when I upload to be seen by everyone, Matt copied that content.
-Josh doesn't usually post pics of us, or even his in Instagram, he does reposts of mine. You can rarely see that he uploads a pic by himself (the last one he uploaded by himself was an anniversary pic, and the least serious one was a meme 2 days ago)
-Josh has also his accounts on private, the only thing he has in public is his CS:GO inventory. But somehow some things that Josh posts, are shown to Matt. For example in one pic, Josh wears a fanny pack and days later Matt uploaded a pic with the same one.
Now to the update itself.
Talking with a friend in Christmas break, they told me that Matt was travelling to the city where my boyfriend is. They showed me the pictures and I recognised something in the background of a picture uploaded in November.
In December, I went to spend New Year's Eve at my boyfriend's house and he took me to the shopping centre that it's at aproximately 15 minute walk from his house to eat KFC. In that place, there was a big Christmas tree that you could walk across because it had a little door.
The same tree was in Matt's photo with his girlfriend. That makes me think that Matt wants tp get the exact direction of my boyfriend since he's getting closer to his house location.
Plus, Matt is still trying to copy Josh. Style, "details" (like changing the piercing everytime Josh changes his), way to talk, his Instagram profile to make it as similar to Josh's as possible, the photo poses, IG stories... He even did a makeup trend with his actual girlfriend and he did the makeup style I had when I was dating him (green eyeshadow, eyeliner, red lipstick). For an unknown reason he can't copy the exact photos again, just some spare poses or some details.
Another thing is that I met his father and his little brother again since the breakup. His father was working close to my house and his brother was having a date in a restaurant where I go every 2-3 months to get take away food. The thing is that, while I leave as if I don't know who they are, the can't stop looking at me and when I leave or take a bus, they instantly take their phones out. 2 weeks after someone didn't stop calling me in private number jerking off at the phone. It can be a coincidence and I know that it can be a little paranoid but the thing that made me type this again comes now.
Josh usually asks me if I know people from my city or the nearby one, in case I know that person or if I follow them. Today, he received a request from an account of a girl from a nearby city that "studies English" at the University, without a photo on her profile, private profile, only one follower and 54 following. I told him I didn't know who she was, and I spoke to friends in that city in case they knew her. The answer is no.
Then I rememebered I had a friend who studies that and I called them to ask them if they knew this girl. And guess what, again no. She doesn't even figure on the lists, and she only requested my boyfriend, not everyone else that surrounds us. And this also times up with the sudden stop at the copycat photos that Matt takes with his gf.
I don't know what to think now, but I told my boyfriend to not accept "her" because I'm a 96% sure it's Matt's newest fake account. I want to hear a third opinion so please let me read u.

This is a sci-fi short story I wrote the other day, hoping to get some constructive criticism as its the first thing I have properly written, it is quite short even for a short short story but I just wanted to get something finished. I have had one piece of advice already which was that the repeated sentence seemed a bit out of place the first time round which I get but I was wondering what other people thought about it.
At some point in the not so distant future, despite the warnings of the media and general populace, scientists create a device that allows people to see their alternate lives and temporarily view the results of alternate past choices. Initially the device and its use was reserved for the most successful and important people in society due to the extortionate cost of the technology. Those with access were those whose choices in life hadn’t been half bad, good financial decisions and a reputation of charisma and skill that brought them to the very top of their respective fields. For them, the technology was a chance to feel good about how far they’d come and get a good laugh out of those of their alternate selves who had neglected to read the fine print on a dodgy business proposal or to check for toilet paper before unzipping their fly. All while tactfully avoiding those of their possibilities who had achieved more.
But as the technology developed and became more affordable it filtered down through the social ranks. Down through those abundant middle classes who could not help but notice the difference between their own lot and those of their more successful alternate selves. A funnier you with a slightly bigger house, maybe a smarter you who landed that extra $10,000 signing bonus you dreamed of. But for every self who was better off there existed a pitiful alteration of themselves to mock, those who had succeeded in neither career nor hobbies, academics nor lovemaking. One who struggled to keep it up in the bedroom or suffered an addiction the users of the device found laughable.
This is when the technology took a turn for the worse, when it fell into the hands of those with nothing. Those who had been taken advantage of, abused, tricked and left in the very worst of situations gained access to it. Those who were homeless, trapped in prostitution, drowning in debt, loveless and alone.
And so the true downfall began.
For them, life had been a depressing series of twists and turns, each darker than the last. For them it was near impossible to find a worse future. For them every alternate version experienced was a pisstake, happiness and fortune greater than they could ever dream of in the hands of someone fundamentally the same. They saw the joy each unlucky streak and every unfortunate decision had wrenched them away from and they were broken. This was where the problems started to arise. Suicide, rampant depression and a sudden but not entirely unjustified rise in the publication of books promoting nihilism. Life seemed to lose that tiny amount of purpose it still had when compared to the successes of alternate selves and their happy lives.
Several years later, the next great advancement in the technology arose, scientists managed to reach further into those other worlds and take more than just the photons needed for a video feed. A new headset designed to take something more, the brainwaves of those other selves could be copied and transferred into the brains of the user. This allows for more than just watching alternate lives but for experiencing them too. The greatest advancement in technology since fire, the ability to reach across dimensions and take something tangible.
And so the true downfall began.
Why put effort into your own life when you could experience the excitement and fulfilment you’ve already gained? Why progress in your own career when you could experience the excitement of getting a promotion without any of the hard work and disappointment? Why find yourself a spouse and risk rejection when you’ve done it infinite times already?
Within only a few months, most of the working population were addicted; leaving their unhappy, dead end jobs to parasite on the lives of their infinite other selves. Piggybacking on alternate neurochemicals. Entire industries collapsed under the loss of workforce. Globally, the economy came crashing down, more people turned to the new technology to cope, the cold steel of the headsets offered an escape to a world, infinite worlds, where everything worked out better. This caused an exponential decay in every aspect of life, the more people fled to the bliss of the headsets, the more were doomed to follow.
Collapse on a global scale, food shortages led to mass starvation and death, with no one to maintain the very systems causing the collapse, bugs started to occur, glitches spread like wildfire, destroying the safety mechanisms in the headset designed to wake up the user for food, sleep and other necessities. The population wasted away, their consciousnesses stuck in their headsets, falling silently into endless existence as a parasite living someone else’s life. Those that escaped the prison of the headsets saw the state of the world that was left and quietly gave up, placing the cold steel back on their heads and surrendering.
Across the multiverse, other worlds started to stumble on rips in the fabric of spacetime, starting their first tentative explorations of the immaterium between dimensions. Scientists found the first alternate dimensions floating through the space between space, infinite bubbles floating in an infinite sea, endless possibilities. Eventually, they manage to copy photons from these other worlds and transport them back to their own dimension to take the first glimpse at alternate selves.
And so the true downfall began…

As you're aware from the numerous daily posts we get about housing, traffic and requests for help etc., many people are doing it tough in Brisbane.
In an effort to reduce the amount of repetitive posts in /Brisbane**, we are trialing a daily thread for the following topics:**

• Renting and moving house
• Rent rises
• Landlord/real estate/property manager complaints
• Moving to Brisbane
• Requests for financial assistance resources
• Traffic and public transport complaints
• Stuff for sale

We don’t want to discourage people from posting and reaching out for help, however, we want to maintain the quality of /Brisbane content. If you have questions about any of these topics, we encourage you to use the search function or to Google your question and tack on reddit to the end of your search first.
The mods will be removing low-effort posts related to these topics and redirecting users to the daily thread. If a post is popular, we will consider leaving it up on a case by case basis.
We’ll be doing our best to encourage users to abide by this rule and keep on top of it. However, we're a small team, so please bear with us.
This sub belongs to the people of Brisbane, and the users of /Brisbane, so we’d like your thoughts and feedback. Thanks 🙏