ON CRITICISM BY THE LESS-THAN-HUMAN ANIMAL, MAN. I love it when some f–king idi

ON CRITICISM BY THE LESS-THAN-HUMAN ANIMAL, MAN.

I love it when some f–king idiot criticizes me because (a) I”m not finished with a scope of work that has stumped thinkers for 2500 years, (b) I can’t reduce that scope of work to a powerpoint presentation that some idiot can make use of in restating all history with ten minutes of investment of his time, and (c) that the said idiots can’t understand it, or much of it, given the limits of their current knowledge, and limits of their cognitive abilities. (d) especially when there ARE people who grasp various components of it and understand the consequence of the work.

I mean, WTH? I’ve spent the majority of my life trying to solve a single problem – avoidance of human conflict – and hundreds if not thousands of other men before me have tried to solve this problem, and some of the greatest thinkers in modern history century couldn’t solve it – in particular – among them non-trivial thinkers like Durkheim, Hayek, and the great synthetic historians. And while I feel an intellectual kinship with Hayek, I am fully aware that the only reason I have solved a problem that they didn’t is that I lived a life made possible by Turing, and identified the pattern that they, and specifically Hayek, didn’t.

So if I spent my life on it, and am still working on simplifying it, and applying it to the infinite little eddies of human thought; and if great minds from Aristotle to Hayek, Livy to Spengler could make progress but not solve it, then what the H— makes John Doe Baseball-Cap think he’s going to grasp it with any less effort than say, learning to program operating systems, or learn the law sufficiently to write and argue contracts, or learn mathematics well enough to use calculus to solve problems of inter-dependent motion.

I mean, just ’cause you can live life while avoiding those problems, and you can’t live life avoiding cooperation, conflict, law, and war, doesn’t mean the means of understanding cooperation, resolution, and war, are any less complicated than those forms of logic that you CAN avoid. In fact, if you have to learn any one of those skills the most important to learn is that of cooperation, conflict, resolution, and war: natural law.

I mean, I suppose if you can’t grasp this rather obvious statement, and still expect some simpleton’s shortcut (like The N’A’P’) or your own moral intuition, as if your moral intuition is sufficient for learning history, law, programming, and mathematics, then that failure in and of itself probably disqualifies you from participation in rational debate on matters of cooperation, conflict, resolution and war: natural law.

And in fact, probably disqualifies you from discourse in general. So please be a good domesticated animal and go back to your amusements and enjoy them, and let humans and adults get back to the business of civilization.

(Exasperated).

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine