ARGUMENT: CIRCUMVENTING METHODOLOGICAL FRAMING (argumentative methods)(advanced

ARGUMENT: CIRCUMVENTING METHODOLOGICAL FRAMING

(argumentative methods)(advanced followers)(must read)

THE EXAMPLE: RATIONALISM

Lets use this excellent question to illustrate how to circumvent the problem of argumentative framing within philosophy, and why I hold such disdain for ‘rationalist’ and ‘literary’ philosophy.

—“How do you connect platonism to post-structuralism?”–Arthur Calloni

Do you mean, how do I connect platonic idealism > kant, >post structuralism with aristotelian descriptivism > hume > cognitive science?

See? I just did connect platonism to post-structuralism. How? a requirement for operations (actions) rather than meanings (imaginations)

THE TECHNIQUE: INCREASE THE PRECISION OF ARGUMENT

I view trying to validate philosophy with philosophy as the same as trying to validate religion with religion: ridiculous nonsense: an attempt at fraud.

One of the techniques I use is to test philosophy by increasing the demand for knowledge avoid the fallacy of relying on philosophy for anything -particularly self criticism. Instead, I criticize philosophy with science, law, economics, and history.

I test all claims in the social sciences, by natural law, and outside of natural law by evolutionary constraints.

You need a lot more knowledge to speak testimonially (operational literature) than you need to speak scientifically (empirical[correspondent] literature)

You need a lot more knowledge to speak Scientifically (empirical literature), than you do philosophically (rational literature).

You need a lot more knowledge to speak philosophically(rational literature) than you do religiously (wisdom literature).

You need a lot more knowledge to speak religiously (wisdom literature) than you do colloquially (experiential literature).

So when someone asks you to defend a position within a context, increase the demand for knowledge by increasing the precision of the method of measurement (analogy) that you are employing.

And recognize that any question requires a certain degree of information, and any truth proposition requires a great deal of information, if not *complete* information.

And that in common discourse, most coercion in this world is conducted by loading (ridicule, shaming, rallying).

In common argument most deception is conducted by moral framing.

And that most frauds in this world are constructed by methodological framing.

And that in politics, moral(ideological), religious, philosophical, and legislative framing. But that all of these frames are decidable by operational testing under natural law within cooperation, and evolutionary demand outside of cooperation.

Language was invented to negotiate, and most methods of argument were invented to lie.

There is only one method of speaking truthfully: the testimony, in operational grammar, of that which has survived tests of categorical, logical, empirical, existential, moral consistency, and scope completeness – and your warranty that you have done so, upon pain of restitution, punishment, or death.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine