THE CATALOG OF ERRORS AND LIARS – INSTEAD, TRUTH IS ENOUGH. I tend to treat argu

THE CATALOG OF ERRORS AND LIARS – INSTEAD, TRUTH IS ENOUGH.

I tend to treat argumentative methods as sets of technologies differentiated by their methods of decidability (testing): whether they produce truth or falsehood.

Mythology (explanatory)

Reasonableness (The Pre-Socratics: justifiable)

Reason (The Greeks: Critical)

Religious Reasoning (The Monotheists: Mythically Correspondent)

Rationalism (Kant: Internally Consistent)

Ratio-Empiricism (Hume, Smith, Locke: Empirically Consistent)

Scientific (Darwin, Einstein, Spencer: Deterministically consistent)

Pseudoscientific (Boaz, Freud, Marx, Cantor, Keynes)

Pseudo-logical (the analytic philosophers of language)

Pseudo Rationalism (Postmodernists)

Testimonialism (what I do:

– categorically consistent

– internally consistent

– externally correspondent (empirically consistent)

– existentially possible (operationally stated)

– Limited and Parsimonious (falsified limits)

– Fully Accounted (against selection bias)

– Objectively Moral (consisting only of fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer consisting only of externalities of the same.)

German philosophers tend to treat argumentative methods as methods of teaching: whether they are successful at conveyance or not.

As far as I Know Kant was trying to restate germanic christianity by justificationary means. He was remarkably successful. But it’s not ‘true’ in the sense that it’s correspondent. It’s just very well structured wisdom.

As far as I know the entire continental, cosmopolitan, and anglo-liberal programs were dead ends for different reasons. The german possessed the correct vision of man, but an unscientific method of argument insufficiently divorced from religion. The cosmopolitans merely creates series of elaborate lies with which to justify predation on the west. The anglos were so enamored of their wealth and power they assumed all men desired and were capable of

Man was not ‘kept down and oppressed’. He was not peaceful in the state of nature. He was a rapidly reproducing super predator happily competing with and killing off his own kind. Man was forcibly civilized against his will and against his desire for combating other sets of genes using malthusian reproduction. The entire enlightenment project was predicated on this fallacy. And the Germans, French, Cosmopolitan Jews, Anglo Liberals, and Anglo European neo-liberals were all wrong either in their method of argument, or their group evolutionary strategy, or their fantasy of the nature of man.

Man is trivially simple: he does what is in his interests at all times. We civilize man by prohibiting parasitism in all forms so that the only method of survival left to him is productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, limited externality of the same in the market for goods and services.

Man was not oppressed. He was forcibly domesticated. And the enlightenment errors of the europeans set free the barbarians. The most serious of which was pandora. Who, once she could open the ballot box, let loose all the ills in the world, that man through his incremental evolution of property rights as a means of suppressing parasitism, unwound within decades.

So that said, the OP’s question is a matter of angels on the heads of pins. The entire germanic corpus, like the french and the cosmopolitan jewish, and all but the scientific of the anglo, is nothing but a second attempt at imposing christian mysticism upon us with a new argumentative technology that is a mere minor improvement upon the last.

Truth is enough. If you cannot manage truth, then the question is why you fear it? Is it because one lacks the courage? Is it because the universe is hostile to man? Is it because it would eliminate our ability to act parasitically upon others? Or is it all of the above?

Truth is enough.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine