Author: Curt Doolittle

  • An assessment of kissinger that was non-trivial and insightful would take me mor

    An assessment of kissinger that was non-trivial and insightful would take me more time than I have at the moment. I would say that at the time, his diplomatic skill was extremely useful. I would say conversely, that in retrospect, he advanced the feminine-Jewish-abrahamic presumption of self-good and power to use it: an overconfidence not in the western mind. His moral pragmatism especially in his extraction of morality from legitimacy, was seminal in creating the impression of an immoral american empire – in fact I would argue he’s the demarcation that ended the anglo moral imperative in international relations; he was part of the postwar destruction of western ethics, particularly anglo ethics, and a progenitor of the neocon movement to accumulate and expand power – popwer upon which the postmodern, cultural marxist, feminist, and now woke movements used as a ‘transport’ system.
    If you ask me instead how he handled various crisis during the cold war, I think his intellectual fortitude, tendency to work alone and take initiative, and ‘want of power’ was useful in containing the soviets and the chinese.
    We won so to speak, but every time we win we lose a bit too.. Germany should have won WWI and WWII. We we should have helped theg ermans defeat the soviets. And america and the anglosphere should have maintained our naval tradition of world trade and order. And america our insularity. Even with china we won just to lose. So, our ‘power’ to create trade was a gift to mankind. Yet our strategic power, absent our moral past foundations… that’s not a good thing.

    Reply addressees: @AmirBrandon7290


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 22:40:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732530381151211520

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732484125867573279

  • You’re mistaken. Poetry of course, is in fact, an act of systematizing. I’m not

    You’re mistaken. Poetry of course, is in fact, an act of systematizing. I’m not even sure how you made that leap. I suspect you do not grasp the incentives to make art nor the process of making it.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 22:24:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732526551336386834

    Reply addressees: @Airmanareiks @Alexanderistalt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732473537389052282

  • (Modern Ironies) I pay more in various technology fees, like hosting, code hosti

    (Modern Ironies)
    I pay more in various technology fees, like hosting, code hosting, various licenses, access to certain apps and services than I do the rest of my household.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 22:22:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732526074209120389

  • It’s just not true. Males systematize and philosophy is a systematic method of t

    It’s just not true. Males systematize and philosophy is a systematic method of thought. women fictionalize.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 18:00:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732459919175991459

    Reply addressees: @Alexanderistalt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732436643611566247

  • I just upgraded to X-Premium (16 per month). I don’t know who can do it or not.

    I just upgraded to X-Premium (16 per month). I don’t know who can do it or not. But I saw the option and elected it.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 17:25:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732451229672824878

  • Possibly. But I think it’s necessary but insufficient

    Possibly. But I think it’s necessary but insufficient.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 17:17:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732449146819297627

    Reply addressees: @BOB37702515

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732440153354879402

  • RT @LukeWeinhagen: Choice represents the demarcation between science and philoso

    RT @LukeWeinhagen: Choice represents the demarcation between science and philosophy.

    Map vs Directions


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 17:16:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732448894783545840

  • A Discussion with GPT4+ On Science vs Philosophy CURTD What is the difference be

    A Discussion with GPT4+ On Science vs Philosophy

    CURTD
    What is the difference between science and philosophy, and scientist and philosopher. My understanding is that the difference is science=true, and philosophy=good.

    ChatGPT
    The distinction between science and philosophy and between a scientist and a philosopher is more nuanced than a simple binary of “true” versus “good.” Here’s a more detailed comparison:

    Science vs. Philosophy:

    Science: Focuses on empirical methods to understand the natural world. It relies on experimentation, observation, and testing hypotheses. Science seeks to establish truths about the physical universe and its phenomena.

    Philosophy: Concerns itself with fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. While it can inform scientific inquiry, philosophy is more abstract and includes normative and conceptual analysis.

    Scientist vs. Philosopher:

    Scientist: A professional engaged in the systematic activity of acquiring knowledge through experimentation and methodology. Scientists often specialize in specific fields and focus on empirical evidence.

    Philosopher: Someone who practices philosophy, which includes a broader scope of inquiry, often involving critical thinking and argumentation about abstract concepts such as ethics, logic, metaphysics, and epistemology.

    The distinction isn’t as simple as science being about “truth” and philosophy about “good.” While science aims to uncover factual truths about the natural world, philosophy explores broader existential and ethical questions, some of which may not be empirically testable. Both disciplines, however, contribute significantly to our understanding of the world and our place in it.

    CURTD
    Hmm… I think the results you have provided are normative but that they are not necessarily true – since as far as I know we have demarcated philosophy and science into the good and the true.

    That said, in my work I have found that the science (research) produces a set of logics (first principles) which then inform applied science (philosophy), consisting of sets of choices that are not false and no irreciprocal – in other words, both true and good.

    I am fairly certain I am correct in this analysis because science does result in (converge on) first principles, and first principles in a coherent logic of what is and what is possible. But the decision of what to do with those principles is one of choice of ‘goods’: philosophy.

    ChatGPT
    Your perspective on the demarcation between science and philosophy aligns with a more functional and integrative view.

    In this framework:

    Science: Produces a set of first principles or fundamental truths about what is and what is possible. This encompasses empirical research and the establishment of foundational concepts.

    Philosophy: Applies these first principles in making choices about ‘goods’ or ethical, moral, and practical decisions. It interprets and utilizes scientific findings to inform decisions that are not just true (in a factual sense) but also good (in a normative or ethical sense).

    In this model, science provides the foundational knowledge, while philosophy bridges the gap between this knowledge and its application in making value-based choices.

    This perspective acknowledges the interdependence of empirical truths and ethical considerations, suggesting a more holistic understanding of knowledge and decision-making.

    CURTD
    😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 15:02:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732415284185534464

  • @SRCHicks Followup. 😉 Listening to you tonight I felt a bit envious. 😉 The wor

    @SRCHicks
    Followup. 😉
    Listening to you tonight I felt a bit envious. 😉 The work of a philosopher most often appears to consist of the pursuit of the good, while the work of the logician, and especially jurisprudence – even more so than the scientist – appears to be the true. I suspect this is why there are so many philosophers and works by philosophers pursuing the good, versus so few works (a handful) of jurisprudence pursuing the true: no one wants to hear a decidable truth (narrowing our options) while everyone wants to hear a choice of goods (expanding our options).
    Always enjoy your work and your presentations.
    Cheers. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 00:43:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732199130422738944

  • @SRCHicks RE: Atlas Society Live Stream Question: What is the incentive, in the

    @SRCHicks
    RE: Atlas Society Live Stream
    Question: What is the incentive, in the anglosphere, in academia, to advance CRT, rather than our tradition of truth before face (across the spectrum of military reporting, testimony before the jury, confession before a priest)?
    thanks.


    Source date (UTC): 2023-12-06 00:36:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1732197353266786597