Block the option of further answers for this discussion. Thank you. @Baden

However, it may be going the other way and perhaps the philosophers have fallen in love with the words and ideas which they speak, a bit like Narcissus gazing at himself in the water. — Jack Cummins

The problem is to express and/or project them effectively in the physical world. It is not enough to envision the ideal, the perfect, the absolute, the metaphysical. We must try with all our strength, to achieve it. Currently, the "Inteligência" - the intellectual "elite" - seems to be working daily to transform the metaphysical world into a condemning hope, where the purpose will always exist, but can never be achieved. This is first applied to words - George Orwell has already said: "If you control the words, you consequently control the thoughts" -.

Legitimacy, therefore, remains - in my interpretation - a mechanism for the exercise of power, which has a useful capacity to be used for both good and evil. And people are focused only on the second characteristic.

"Your Narcissus is selling his reflection as the ideal who should be achieved, while he bars the way to it...."

Your asking 'what makes legitimacy legimate' is roughly like asking 'why does 1 + 1 equal 2? — Wayfarer

You forget that what makes this "fact" "real" is pure human communal interpretation and perception. Nothing guarantees that 1 + 1 = 2, other than our finding that "1 + 1 = 2". What you and many others do not realize is that what is real, is only real because we shape it in a way that suits us best.

Not wasting any more time on this. — Wayfarer

If you were aware of yourself and your inner wills, this phrase would have been your first response, and we could then, have avoided this long and useless dialogue. Good day/night.

Perhaps the problem is that sex has been repressed and suppressed area of discussion within philosophy, while being the centre of many other aspects of culture. Perhaps this tension is arising in the cracks, as part of cultural collapse. Perhaps the unconscious is bursting through like a raging fire. — Jack Cummins

Sexuality is a topic I'm not willing to enter - at least not in this forum -.

Did he think first we should achieve happiness which then will make us virtuous? — deusidex

Nietzsche is a philosopher of contradiction in his most intimate and true essence. Does that make him hypocritical? No, because it is his awareness of this fact that would make him write and be "worshiped" as one of the greatest representatives of postmodern philosophy.

In "The Gay Science" - 1882 - Nietzsche would state:

“To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering!"

and in the same book, he would say:

“And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh.”

Nietzsche affirms with these passages that life is, in one last analysis, malignant, painful, and full of suffering, however, when we make sense of this suffering, we can get through the falling, dancing - aka, your answer to your greatest pains and sufferings, shouldn't be one of defeat and regret, and yes, one of happiness, because, what better way to fight against the angst of life, than through happiness in the worst of hells that it had caused to you? -.

But do not mistaken his words about "virtue" and its meaning. Nietzsche refers - when he uses "virtue" - to the long-lost virtues of the "nobles", and that over the millennia - more recently, thanks to Christianity - was supplanted by that of the "slaves".

Wrong. The original, «What it's "Legitimacy"», is nonsense. — jamalrob

It was not in a legitimate grammatical form. — Wayfarer

I sincerely believe that you missed the point of the whole discussion Please, correct the title.

I would say that the term 'legitimacy' could be used and abused politically as an idea of entitlement, backed up within a legal framework. — Jack Cummins

Legitimation traditionally consisted of actions aligning with social and ethical norms, hence conformity with accepted religious interpretation and authority. — Pantagruel

If each individual can choose to have his own interpretation of what is legitimate and what in essence is legitimacy, this only strengthens the view that (1) or legitimacy is not based on any natural, conceptual norm, in short, in any existent precept, (2) or its substance lies in the concept and physical expression of "power". If in this case the correct view is the second one, where the perception of "legitimacy" could be found diluted on several faces of the same concept - power - it still lacks a true "absolute" basis.

Therefore, the concept of "legitimacy" is yet another one of the thousands of human ideas that could be considered to be "egoistic" - that is, based on the total subjective existence and individual will of the self -.

The discussion on this thread is a beautiful portrait of how intellectual totalitarianism has already established itself in society.

"Until when, so that the Theodosius of our time decrees his Edict of Thessalonica? - I wonder."

"Blinded
I feel the images
And much more
Because ?"

I haven't read him, so I'm sure you know better than I. But as God is described as "nada" according to this version of the Lord's Prayer in Hemingway's story, "nada" is God", and so "nada" is the creator of all. So, from nothing comes something--creatio ex nihilo. That of course isn't necessarily what Hemingway intended to express, but it's an interesting inference from the substitution of nothing for God in the prayer — Ciceronianus the White

The point is that Novatore is against this. It is not enough to have the freedom to substitute one word, one sense, for another, but the total and absolute freedom of any concept, and/or interpretation of all doctrinal and totalitarian traditions.

You can, for example, take this as a search for the psyche that existed in the minds of people who lived in Classical Antiquity - pre-Christianity -.

Thread title makes no sense and is grammatically broken — Wayfarer

The title was not broken. It was written in that way on purpose.

Fixed, thanks — jamalrob

You broke it.

More broadly, means 'fixed in law' or 'recognised within a legal framework'. It can therefore be both a moral topic, and a political tool. To claim that something is illegitimate is to denigrate it, conversely, something 'legitimate' is authentic, genuine, or real. — Wayfarer

And yet, you did not answer the topic's question:

What makes "legitimacy" legitimate?

I think that this reminds us of our limited human view. — Jack Cummins

Well, I affirm that our human perception, in this case, the individual one - egoism - is what makes us unique and is what makes our conscious existence within the Universe possible. Limitation is the way of acting that has been applied for thousands of years in the human psyche, where the human nature has been opressed and in its place, empty third objects have been placed - such as religion, the State, Group, Community, etc ... - to to be worshiped, and that same doctrine that persists until today is what makes you think that "the human vision is limiting". What is limiting is the doctrine that it is necessary to see the world through the eyes of another...

I don't say that is not possible to exist "other higher states of cousciousness", but that trying to reach them without the human egocentric view is impossible.

"Our Nada who art in Nada, Nada be thy name." — Ciceronianus the White

The idea of Novatore is to use nothing to create something, not to turn nothing into something. Therefore, this quote, in the context of this discussion is wrong.

But is it selfish to want to be young again? — TiredThinker

"To live, is to continually remove something that wants to die.
To live is to be cruel and unforgiving with everything that becomes weak and old in us." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"To live is to struggle against yourself" - Gus Lamarch

The very lack of clarity of thought could lead to an unconscious mass destruction. — Jack Cummins

I believe this phrase summarizes well what Novatore believed to be the reason why we should adopt "nothing" as purpose.

Obviously, the "clarity" of what the "purpose" would be for individuals if this "Creative Nothing" were adopted, would be as vague as the Christian metaphysics - which is the point that Renzo criticizes -. The difference between the two lies in the fact that with nothing as purpose, you at least have the creative freedom to build your own "Christianity" - for the sake of understanding -.

Religions, create a whole cosmogony, theology, and even history - concepts like "Translatio Imperii" and "Translatio Studii" - that must be followed by their followers. This kills the individual sense and therefore, all human capacity.

The problem I find in Renzo's philosophy, is that we live in times where the establishment of nihilism has already been completely accomplished - in the West - and his philosophy - of Novatore - is one that has its maximum value "during" the process. Therefore, implementing it now would simply make this intellectual chaos that afflicts the contemporary world, worse.

I believe that the best option would be to register these same thoughts so that future generations - after the collapse - can, eventually, be illuminated again by the grace of knowledge that, comically, was the same that had destroyed their own world...

The implication is that the mind can survive beyond death as an independent entity in its own right. — Jack Cummins

If we take into account the statement that "philosophically, something must exist after death" without considering the existence of egoism, it is possible to say that yes, something must exist after death in order for existence to continue to be witnessed and "Being" continue to be, for existence needs something or someone to witness it constantly so that it can be.

However, if the concept of egoism is applied to that same thought, consciousness - or mind, as you refer - can indeed have a finite existence thanks to the eternalization of individuality through the ego, - such as, for example, the legacy - even if it be it for some finite time, the influences, therefore, its essence, still endure indefinitely - - and therefore, cease to be.

I affirm: - Many of the issues discussed here will never come to a conclusion if the concept of egoism is not applied to them.

Another perspective I endorse is systems philosophy, which doesn't contradict the symbiosis of the metaphysical and the physical you describe. — Pantagruel

My observation is that your philosophical position in relation to the question discussed, only affirms my central position that the ego is the basis of every individuality.

Not even a refutation is capable of being made without the expression of egoism being made present.

whether the material world is the most absolute form of reality — Jack Cummins

If you are using "absolute" in an empiricist way, where the "maximum to be reached would be the absolute of sensations" - aka the material world - and "reality" as "what is not imaginary" then yes, the material world is the most absolute form of what is "real".

However, if we take into account the complex and totally subjective human experience and existence, with its "wish" for the absolute other than the physical - metaphysical -, then the material world is not the most absolute form of "reality".

The point is that both scenarios lack something - their counterpart - because if you discuss a totality, it must necessarily contain all the probabilities and options. There cannot be just a metaphysical world and not just a materialistic world, because ideas without a projection mechanism do not exist, and matter without purpose and/or essence does not covet existence.

It is necessary that "reality" be idealized, contemplated, projected and expressed so that it is "real". The only force capable of being its own motivation, means and ends, without needing any stimulus, is the human ego. Egoism is the craving for craving - It "IS", therefore, "absolute" -.

Not even reality is capable of being real without the participation of third parties...

I am a "melioristic optimist." — Pantagruel

And that - I suppose - makes you better than an egoist such as myself.

The thing is: In adopting an unique "mentality" or "school of thought", you're only proving my point.

It seems as though you are stuck in a materialist metaphysic? — Pantagruel

A physical world - composed of matter - is deconstructed and recreated individually, being shaped according to the wishes, desires, wants, etc... - metaphysics - of the individual in question. That is, it seems to me that your affirmation that I'm "stuck in a materialist metaphysic" is mistaken, because what I affirm in the discussion is a "symbiosis" between the absolute - metaphysical world - with the finite mundane - "material" - world.

equates 'Being' or 'reality' with matter." — Pantagruel

"Being or reality are not "matter", but the way in which matter expresses itself upon existence"

it's just I feel like they foresaw something in him. — thewonder

They both resented Stirner and his philosophy for expressing what the individual most covets: The total freedom of the concept of "group". — Gus Lamarch

Gus, have you ever thought about giving the answer, "Neutral Evil", to the question as to what you Dungeons and Dragons alignment would be, but thought twice about it? I'd, in good faith, take you for a chaotic neutral — thewonder

It's in these moments when you must realize that you did not understand a single word of my comment.
You want to talk about trivia? Ther's the "Inbox" for that.

there's just this aspect of Egoism that I've never been able not to let unnerve me. — thewonder

Yes, I know, it's disturbing isn't it? To realize that the most egoistic person is the one who is first willing to die for your individuality?

How unselfish I am!

"why is there something rather than nothing" — Wheatley

Nothing craves everything.

I can see why an Egoist, such as yourself, would take both a disliking and fascination to the most notable detractors of "Saint Max". Marxism-Leninism really does have almost nothing to do with the theories of Marx and Engels, though. — thewonder

Of course an egoist individual would be interested in and abhor the scriptures of Marx and Engels. Both described perfectly what a egoist life is - and should be -, but transvested with a false altruism worthy of repudiation. Marx and Engels: The greatest examples of how the shame of Being can destroy the individuality external to the Unique.

A strange aside: I'm pretty sure that the section of The German Ideology, a text that I don't really at all like, critiquing the philosophy of Max Stirner is actually longer than The Ego and Its Own. — thewonder

Another example of their intellectual immaturity. They both resented Stirner and his philosophy for expressing what the individual most covets: The total freedom of the concept of "group".

Their resentment towards the truth that Stirner spat with his manuscripts was so great that Engels had felt obliged to write down his paranoid thoughts in one of his poems - now considered comic -, The Triumph of Faith:

"Look at Stirner, look at him,
the peaceful enemy of all constraint.
For the moment, he is still drinking beer,
soon he will be drinking blood
as though it were water.
When others cry savagely
«Down with the kings»
Stirner immediately supplements
«Down with the laws too».
Stirner full of dignity proclaims;
you bend your will power,
and you dare to call yourselves free,
You become accustomed to slavery;
Down with dogmatism, down with law."

Here it is, the truest face of Marx and Engels' ideology. Enjoy - the resentment!

I realise that you are probably not suicidal — Jack Cummins

No, I am not, but the masses are...

I think that nihilism needs to engage with despair rather than simply stating it as a conclusion. — Jack Cummins

Yes, that's what I said in my last comment.

Nihilism should be used as a force to push foward the individual will, as a vision of rebirth, reinvention, reproposite the mind. But as the ego, they - the negative ones - distort and turn into a monster everything that could be good and new.

only one of possible conclusions to come to. — Jack Cummins

it is based on the way in which you see truth, which is a fair measure. — Jack Cummins

Nihilism at its very best.

Karl Marx's — thewonder

The first step is the vilification of critical thinking, the second, the complete submission of truth, and the third, only the party knows...

I don't know if I consider him a monster, or a genius for having created the best ideology of power so far in human history.

Peace, Love, Unity, and Respect — thewonder

What a beautiful allegory to the four knights of apocalypse.

Isn't this just a prosaic way of saying "nothing really matters"? — Pantagruel

The point is not that "nothing matters", but that the only real purpose of humanity is to cause "nothing to matter".

So the goal of going for a walk is to sit down, because every walk ends in a rest? — unenlightened

The objective - within the thought that progressing the entropy of the Universe is the only purpose for humanity - would be to make your body, by consuming oxygen, die a little more, and with each step you take, create microscopic wounds on the ground where you walk. When sitting on the bench, your weight would bend - even if minimally - the material that made up the bench, causing it to decay just alittle more, and thus, sooner than later, cause the total end of existence - death in its absolute -.

What do you think of Nietzsche's idea of eternal recurrence? It is something that I do wonder about at times. Perhaps in aeons of time I will be writing this post once again, if everything is repeated in cycles.

The only problem I would see with the idea is, would it be exactly the same? Any slight difference would alter everything. Would the exact same individuals exist or not? For that reason, I think that the idea of eternal recurrence may be more of a symbolic truth, rather than a literal one. But it does give scope for speculation as we look into the abyss. Perhaps the idea of the eternal recurrence symbolises possibilities, and seeing beyond the moment into eternity. — Jack Cummins

Nietzsche in his journals, made it clear to himself that the concept of "Eternal Return" had been different in different parts of his life.

Between 1872 - the year in which he published "The Birth of Tragedy" - and 1882 - where he published "The Gay Science", the first work where the idea of "Eternal Return" would appear in his philosophical discourse -, Nietzsche saw the Eternal Return as a possible hypothesis, not only philosophical, but scientific, to the point where he thought of leaving philology and entering cosmology - finally, in 1873, he decided to go to philosophy -. And on the one hand, this concept is applicable in contemporary theories about time - very complex and long theories that are not the subject of a philosophy forum - where, really, on a scale of xxxlions of years, it would not even be a possibility to your life to occur again, but a certainty - as the saying goes: "if given time, everything will occur -. Obviously this is impossible in a "mortal" - human - reality - to be physically perceived and proven true - because it is something completely removed from our existence - we can "prove" theoretically that idea, but not in practice -.

After 1882 - coincidentally, the year Nietzsche would become addicted to opium, and would find himself in almost total social exclusion - he kept in touch only with Richard Wagner during the period from 1882 - 1883 - -, the concept of the Eternal Return would become something much more symbolic and personal to Nietzsche. He would register in his journals that "the Eternal Return seems to be much more an intrinsically lover of the past", and that "it delights in making the people of the future suffer". With that phrase, it is noticeable that the Eternal Return has now become an object of motivation. One, which motivates in the fact that the perception that the Eternal Return exists, thus making the individual more likely to fulfill his desires and anxieties before regret takes over his being - this applies to Nietzsche himself, who probably already had greatly regretted not having fulfilled desires that still afflicted him, and which now - in 1882 - were more distant than ever -. What are these desires, wishes of Nietzsche? Only he could say, and he is dead, as is his god.

Therefore, the Eternal Return can be taken as merely allegorical and symbolic, as something that is real and physical. It depends on each reader's will...

My view is that both interpretations can be applied to the individual's critical-reflective thinking:

"Oh, if I will regret "NOT" having done this in the future, and again, and countless times after that, may this very reflection be the driving force for me to realize this will and to annihilate with any regret in the future."

One point which I would make here is that you speak of the lack of purpose in the universe and I would say how can we know? Really, we all probably project our fantasised views of how life works onto the universe. It is much bigger than us and the concerns of our human egoism. — Jack Cummins

If my view tended to fully agree with Mainlander's philosophy, your claim that "Man has no way of knowing whether or not there is a purpose for its existence" would simply defend even more the idea that we - humanity - do not have a future on the grand scale of reality. However, I am not a pessimist - unically pessimist - therefore, I still believe that there may be an objective and/or purpose for the individuals that make up our species, but one that is the foundation, means, and ends of Being - you, for already being well accustomed to my school of thought, must know what it is -.

What I do think though, is that while we are not likely to know the answers fully, the biggest danger is the route of nihilism because then we become just like the people who are indifferent. We would just give up. Personally, I read and question deeply but my ideas shift around quite a bit. — Jack Cummins

Nihilism is not completely harmful, because in its eventual absolute future - theoretical maximum where the regression of our current cycle will meet - we - humanity - will have a brand new soil just waiting to be sown again. We - speaking of both of us - only had the misfortune to be born and to be able to witness the death of this same soil. Does this mean that it is not worth going on? Obviously not, but your main purpose should be to know how to dance while falling into the abyss. In this case, to project yourself through your own legacy to the next generations, that of course will be less fortunate than us... Much less fortunate...

Your starting point was the question of utopia vs. dystopia. I believe that it is not possible to create an actual utopia but I still believe that it is better to focus on what possible changes can be made for the better rather than collapse into nihilism. — Jack Cummins

The ancient Greeks already knew that holding on to hope is the worst of choices - in certain cases -. It is not by chance that it - hope - was in the deepest pits of Pandora's Box. I believe that giving ourselves on to the positive side of nihilism today is our best choice - and only choice -. Stirner, Nietzsche, and Bauer are cases where the potential of the positive nihilism was seen as a driving force for the remains of an societal collapse. I believe that even those who use the concept of nihilism to put their philosophies into practice -Marx, Engels, Sartre, etc... - subconsciously know that this nihilistic force can be used because it is useful - in theory, it appears to be -.

Perhaps the only salvation of humanity is to be found in the worst of its nightmares.

"Only by passing through the abyss will paradise be found."

but ideally, articles should be accessible to intelligent and curious lay-people, those who aren't familiar with the literature — jamalrob

Could you expatiate on why my article was rejected - simply for a better assessment if it was my demerit during the development process, or if it was something from the administration -?

What you call here as "communication" is nothing more than the simple mechanics developed by us, to project the characteristics of our own ego - sensations, feelings, wills, desires, fears, peculiarities, tastes, etc ... -. And we are great at creating the transvestment of this characteristics before expressing them.

This is my observation — Harry Kaethler

Your own "communication" proves me right.

It was read. We decided no. Sorry for the delay. — fdrake

Thanks for the answer.

But the whole question of annihilation as a goal that is a good question. — Jack Cummins

It seems to me that if the purpose of the entire Universe - in this case, of the things that exist in it - is not the complete apotheosis to the absolute of self-realization - egoism -, only non-purpose remains, which in this case, is completely placed in the hands of the entropy of time - death -.

I used to believe in life after death. — Jack Cummins

Philosophically, it does not make sense not to have something after death for the simple fact that death is something exponential - it goes into infinity - the infinite of time, as death is completely out of it - - and infinite things, in a finite existence, are impossible. I repeat, not having something after death does not make "philosophically" sense. Physically, things die all the time - just in this minute, 1000 people worldwide died -.

Honestly, reality and existence contradict each moment, so it is not surprising that perhaps the fact that existence does not have a purpose could be its only purpose.

The idea of egoism is extremely compelling - for it cannot be denied that the individual often finds his egoistic (hedonistic?) interests second to those of society, until one remembers that he was not always able to wipe his own arse, let alone feed himself, wash his clothes, make his bed — counterpunch

You have not been able to realize that when you are part of another organism - in the case of your gestation: your mother - you still are your own absolute property. This is nothing more than another proof that the individual ego is still superior and primary in all matters.

You, your essence - your egoism - could simply be molecules in the organism of "another" being. However, your maximum individual property obviously could not be what you currently call "I", but, in the case discussed, your mother - "Yours". The use of this word already demonstrates the egoistic nature of Man -.

To be, you only need the "I".

He would have to be a complete psychopath to forget that his egoistic self was born helpless, ignorant and dependent, and was nurtured at the bosom of his mother, in the schoolroom, and at an apprenticeship, where others put their egoistic desires second to his development. Do you suggest the individual just soak up all that social benefit and then declare himself owing nothing to anyone but his own egoistic purposes? — counterpunch

I do not deny that there are influences from third parties in the creation and development of the individual. I never stated otherwise in my article and in any of my publications.

What I say is that all this same development - consciously or unconsciously - is done in favor of the realization of someone's egoism - in this case, of its parents, or of its relatives, friends, teachers, etc... - There is no man-made action that is not self-biased.

Even in his prime man is dependent on others, and the social division of labour. Either he will be constantly occupied building himself a house, making his own cloth and pots, raising crops (and not be able to do any of those things as well as a specialist) or, to pursue his own egoistic purposes he must necessarily outsource all kinds of needs. — counterpunch

It is obvious your perception that "needs" are things that are not based on the individual's egoism and will to power.

I affirm that the nature of Man is "Egoism", therefore, any and all his actions, from his first inspiration of the oxygen that permeates the planet we call home, was, is and will be based on irrational - or, on many times, rational - will to realize itself in existence. Leave this view of egoism as a sin to the past. The Ego is the starting point of all humanity, its own motivation, and its goal. A perfect cycle: Created, moved and completed by the same essence.

He could live in squalor, I suppose - like Diogenes, but what kind of egoistic purposes can a squalid individual pursue? He eats scraps with the dogs, but he is free? It's compelling, but it fails. It's not honest. — counterpunch

I'll use Stirner as an answer for this one:

"Do I write out of love to men? No, I write because I want to procure for my thoughts an existence in the world; and, even if I foresaw that these thoughts would deprive you of your rest and your peace, even if I saw the bloodiest wars and the fall of many generations springing up from this seed of thought — I would nevertheless scatter it. Do with it what you will and can, that is your affair and does not trouble me. You will perhaps have only trouble, combat, and death from it, very few will draw joy from it."

No. That's not right. Human beings lived as hunter gatherers, in tribal groups of around 40-120. Then, these tribal groups joined together to form civilisations. To join together, to prevent any little dispute splitting society along tribal lines, they needed laws, and so needed to justify law and order in society. They made God the objective authority for law and order. It was a convenience - not a lie, and civilisation has conferred huge benefits.

I'm getting a heavy Nietzsche vibe from you, but Nietzsche was wrong. Primitive man was not an amoral individualist. He was a tribal animal, and could not have survived unless he were also a moral animal that shared food, and protected the women and the young. Man has a moral sense - that was made explicit when tribes joined together, and needed God to justify law and order in society.

That was the 'inversion of values' of which Nietzsche wrote - not from individual to social, not the strong fooled by the weak, but an implicit tribal morality made explicit in a multi-tribal society. This is the "lie" - but there was never an individual, amoral freedom to call truth. We are, and have always been constrained by the moral requirements of society - tribal, and later, multi-tribal. — counterpunch

Read my article here in the forum called "Egoism: Humanity's Lost Virtue"

Ah yeah, I remember him now. Could be. Although email and IP are different. — Baden

The guy - Paulo Kogos - is not a dumb one, but he appears more to be a conspiracy theorist than a philosopher. I think that if he was invested in the forum, he probably would create a different e-mail and maybe hide his IP (?).

Well, if it was him or not, both are banned, so yeah. It's a win to me.

Don't remember that guy. Was that the username? — Baden

It was @Scott the Woz

We probably would not be able to reknit an unraveled civilization. — Bitter Crank

Some of my friends are still optimistic to the point of saying:

"Even if humanity, dependent on oil, collapses completely. In the future, the survivors, in a few hundred years, will develop new methods of technology that will have made them more advanced than even us today!"

Perhaps. But the likelihood of this is minimal. The Middle Ages lasted for a 1000 years. What guarantees that we will not have a 1000 years of stable stagnation in the future as we had in the past?

I can assure you that the current "overpopulation" concern will not materialize. We will probably go back to the 1 billion mark in the next 300 years - for comparison, Rome, in 117 AD, had 1 million inhabitants - the equivalent of a city today having more than 300 million people - and in 200 years, this population dropped to 50 thousand - the equivalent of the 300 million dropping to almost 500 thousand people - -.