THE NEEDS OF THE SPIRITUALLY WEAK (answering criticisms) I agree with JOHNDOE on

THE NEEDS OF THE SPIRITUALLY WEAK

(answering criticisms)

I agree with JOHNDOE on pretty much everything he says here, including his criticisms of me. (And honestly, sometimes I think he understands my work better than I do.) Unfortunately, I am writing philosophy as a scientist in order to construct *law* necessary to preserve liberty, by ending pseudoscience, loading, framing, conflating and overloading that have been used to destroy rule of law, and aristocratic egalitarian law during the post-religious era.

This approach, like law, and like science, is a NEGATIVE philosophy to prevent immorality, rather than a positive philosophy to inspire morality, given that inspiration may fail to compete with alternative forms of inspiration, but law does not inspire, it REQUIRES, demands, or forces behavior be limited to the legal. And in the case of propertarianism, legal is identical with moral.

Now, just as in science I can use Metaphor to convey meaning, in literature I can use Metaphor to convey meaning. The question is not whether once I am using metaphor I can speak spiritually or to inspire. The question is whether I still speak MORALLY when I am speaking metaphorically. And what I have tried to show is that statements are reducible to objectively moral and objectively immoral propositions. And that metaphors produce intended and unintended results. And that unintended results may be moral or immoral.

I seriously doubt that Icarus and Daedalus existed. However it is impossible to find immorality in this parable. But under the mythos’ of Democracy, Democratic secular humanism/Neo-puritanism, Socialism, Libertarianism, and NeoConservatism, immorality is contained in the entire corpus.

Users of Mythical and historical figures from heroic do not make the same claims as gods, prophets, saints, philosophers, and pseudoscientists. They do not claim divine omniscience and authority, logical necessity or inscrutability by which to compel us to political action. They merely advise us how to be sovereign individuals. They seek to improve us as individual actors, not compel us into collective action. They seek to tell us truths by analogy. They do not seek to *trick us* as have religions, philosophers, and pseudoscientists.

So if any metaphor, analogy, literary narrative, parable, seeks to trick us, I want to give people both the logical means of demonstrating so, and the legal means of punishing tricksters (liars). If it cannot be said truthfully, or by truthful analogy, then it cannot be said to be created by aristocracy: rule by the best. Because only the ignorant, weak, and incompetent would rely upon trickery. The strong need only speak the truth.

And so as far as I know, that logic is inescapable, and I leave the need for verbalisms, trickery and shortcut reasoning to those who need such things. If I am right that our ancestors’ uniqueness was in the discovery of truth, then transcendence (evolution) of superiority is identical with the expansion of truth.

This is a criticism of the other fellow here who claims I am not arguing as an aristocrat. And I disagree. As far as I know aristocracy and martial aristocracy is the most empirical of thought. And that inspiration is something we use to gain the support of the soldiery from the lower castes who are not able to wield truth necessary to obtain power by force, build a judiciary, a market, an economy, and to hold territory with the proceeds of having done so. This is paternalism’s function.

So if you need parables to inspire you, my objective opinion is that you are weak. If you need a new church, then you need a proletarian priest, or a middle class philosopher, because the philosophy of the upper class is contract, law and testimony necessary for warriors to commit to battle plans. And war is intolerant of inspiration, and instead rewards courage and planning.

So I view inspirational narratives as necessary pedagogical devices for the incremental improvement of those youth who seek to be able to some day wield truth. Hence why I advocate the matter of greece, rome, france, germany, england and scandinavia.

And this argument as far as I know makes the criticisms hollow; and demonstrates that pretenders are not aristocrats but petulant youth with unmet ambitions, claiming achievement before having achieved. One does not make claims one is enlightened. One demonstrates achievement that proves he is. And in all cases truth is a competitive advantage. That’s why we all gathering information ‘intelligence’ gathering.

Rule the weak.