Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Owen Flanagan’s Test of A Philosophical Psychology


    [A] philosophical psychology ought to answer questions such as these:

    • What, if anything, are humans like deep down inside beneath the clothes of culture?

    • What, if any, features of mind-world interaction, and thus of the human predicament, are universal?

    • Is there any end state or goal(s) that all humans seek because they are wired to seek it (or them), or what is different, ought to seek because it is—or, they are—worthy?

    • If there is a common natural orientation toward some end state(s), for example, pleasure, friendship, community, truth, beauty, goodness, intellectual contemplation, are these ends mutually consistent? If not, must one choose a single dominant end? Does our nature not only provide the end(s), but also a way of ordering and prioritizing them, as well as a preferred ratio among them that produces some sort of equilibrium?

    • How conducive is following our nature to actually producing what we naturally seek, or what is different, sensibly ought to seek? Could it be that not everything we seek—not even pleasant experiences or truth—is good for us?

    • What is the relation between our first nature, our given human nature, and our second nature, our cultured nature?

    • Does first nature continue in contemporary worlds, in new ecologies, to achieve its original ends? If so, is first nature also well suited to achieving new, culturally discovered, or what is different, created ends

    • Is second nature constructed precisely for the achievement of variable, culturally discovered or created ends that first nature is ill-equipped to achieve?

    • Do different societies construct/develop second nature in order to enhance first nature and/or to moderate and modify, possibly to eliminate, certain seeds in our first nature that can work against that very (first) nature and/or against our second nature and our cultured ends, which our second nature is intended to help us achieve?

    Errors in these questions of the city state or class:

    • The Problem Of Universalism: One Ness vs Individual, Family, tribe, race and corporation.(Doolittle) Which is reducible to a hierarchy of desires (needs). And they cannot be equally met.

    Eudemonia (Aristotle)


  • Owen Flanagan’s Test of A Philosophical Psychology


    [A] philosophical psychology ought to answer questions such as these:

    • What, if anything, are humans like deep down inside beneath the clothes of culture?

    • What, if any, features of mind-world interaction, and thus of the human predicament, are universal?

    • Is there any end state or goal(s) that all humans seek because they are wired to seek it (or them), or what is different, ought to seek because it is—or, they are—worthy?

    • If there is a common natural orientation toward some end state(s), for example, pleasure, friendship, community, truth, beauty, goodness, intellectual contemplation, are these ends mutually consistent? If not, must one choose a single dominant end? Does our nature not only provide the end(s), but also a way of ordering and prioritizing them, as well as a preferred ratio among them that produces some sort of equilibrium?

    • How conducive is following our nature to actually producing what we naturally seek, or what is different, sensibly ought to seek? Could it be that not everything we seek—not even pleasant experiences or truth—is good for us?

    • What is the relation between our first nature, our given human nature, and our second nature, our cultured nature?

    • Does first nature continue in contemporary worlds, in new ecologies, to achieve its original ends? If so, is first nature also well suited to achieving new, culturally discovered, or what is different, created ends

    • Is second nature constructed precisely for the achievement of variable, culturally discovered or created ends that first nature is ill-equipped to achieve?

    • Do different societies construct/develop second nature in order to enhance first nature and/or to moderate and modify, possibly to eliminate, certain seeds in our first nature that can work against that very (first) nature and/or against our second nature and our cultured ends, which our second nature is intended to help us achieve?

    Errors in these questions of the city state or class:

    • The Problem Of Universalism: One Ness vs Individual, Family, tribe, race and corporation.(Doolittle) Which is reducible to a hierarchy of desires (needs). And they cannot be equally met.

    Eudemonia (Aristotle)


  • Don’t Confuse Cheating On Your Normative Taxes With Tolerance And Love.

    [I]t is irrelevant what you think of other cultures, and the people in them – unless they ignore you, it is only relevant what they think of you. Thinking is no counter to competition. It is merely self-congratulatory discounting to confuse conviction with convenience, and tolerance with letting the boat sink because bailing is someone else’s job.

    Tolerance and submission are no more intrinsic goods than violence and domination. The question is only whether one is suppressing parasitism and forcing each other into the market, or one is permitting parasitism and allowing others to escape the transformationary struggle to enter the market.

    So before you congratulate yourself on your tolerance and morality you must determine if you are expanding parasitism or suppressing it.

    Curt Doolittle ( All – This is the propertarian analysis of the problem – the only answer is what we will obtain in exchange. The only viable material anotehr has to exchange is his adoption of norms and higher trust so that he does not increase transaction costs.)

  • Don’t Confuse Cheating On Your Normative Taxes With Tolerance And Love.

    [I]t is irrelevant what you think of other cultures, and the people in them – unless they ignore you, it is only relevant what they think of you. Thinking is no counter to competition. It is merely self-congratulatory discounting to confuse conviction with convenience, and tolerance with letting the boat sink because bailing is someone else’s job.

    Tolerance and submission are no more intrinsic goods than violence and domination. The question is only whether one is suppressing parasitism and forcing each other into the market, or one is permitting parasitism and allowing others to escape the transformationary struggle to enter the market.

    So before you congratulate yourself on your tolerance and morality you must determine if you are expanding parasitism or suppressing it.

    Curt Doolittle ( All – This is the propertarian analysis of the problem – the only answer is what we will obtain in exchange. The only viable material anotehr has to exchange is his adoption of norms and higher trust so that he does not increase transaction costs.)

  • COMING OUT OF THE STEALTH-CLOSET – Reality By Chanting, and our product, Oversin

    COMING OUT OF THE STEALTH-CLOSET – Reality By Chanting, and our product, Oversing.

    –“We are the first company …http://lnkd.in/dFbtqAV

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 13:15:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/531435024868859905

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo

    Curt Doolittle shared a photo.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 12:33:00 UTC

  • Curt, since you and I are on the opposite sides of the right-left spectrum,what

    Curt, since you and I are on the opposite sides of the right-left spectrum,what do your think about this new up-down spectrum? It seems rather relevant to the long-term goals of your work.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 09:16:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM Propertarianism refers to a logical methodology that evolved fir

    PROPERTARIANISM

    Propertarianism refers to a logical methodology that evolved first from John Locke, and then through the American libertarian movement, that attempts to express all ethical, moral, and political questions as consisting of various forms of property that can be voluntarily exchanged. This technique reduces all moral propositions to testable statements: if something is ethical, moral, right and just, then what was exchanged?

    USAGE

    The term is used casually to suggest that all questions of liberty are reducible to a statements of property and its voluntary transfer; then more accurately, that property rights are deontologically constructed necessities of human existence under natural law; and lastly, formally, the term is used to refer to a complete system of philosophy named ‘Propertarianism’ developed by Curt Doolittle for the analysis and criticism of all political moral and ethical questions, whether libertarian or not. (Where complete means that it both answers metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and aesthetic questions and satisfies Owen Flanagan’s test of a sufficient moral psychology.)

    Usage: Propertarianism, (capitalized) for the explicit philosophy; and lower case for ‘propertarian’, which is used to refer to all three senses: “Locke was the first to state a propertarian argument.”

    In grammatically correct usage, one makes a propertarian argument; one ‘is’ a propertarian if he merely holds ideological bias in favor of its use; one relies upon propertarian reasoning if he can make use of it, or one advocates propertarianism in some manner or other; and the name of the formal philosophy is Propertarianism.

    DIFFERENCES FROM LIBERTARIANISM

    Apples and oranges: Propertarianism is a logical system for the rational comparison of human moral propositions across all possible moral codes. Libertarianism is an ideological system of thought for the purpose of either obtaining political power, denying others political power, or bringing about a particular social and ethical system.

    So while libertarianism may make use of Propertarianism and propertarian reasoning, because perhaps it best suits libertarian preferences, and because it evolved out of the libertarian movement, Propertarianism is a system of logical analysis of human cooperation, and not an advocacy of any particular political bias. It is just as easy to construct conservative and progressive arguments using Propertarianism as it is libertarian. It’s just that propertarianism, as a method of argument, makes it extremely difficult to ‘cheat’ and deceive others (or mislead yourself) when conducting a political argument or negotiation.

    To the contrary, Doolittle uses Propertarianism to specifically criticize those libertarians who attempt to escape paying for the behavioral costs that make a libertarian society under the rule of law possible. Instead Doolittle argues that conservatives are more right than other groups in their moral preferences, they merely haven’t developed a rational language for discussion of their ideas, advocacy of their ideas, or, most importantly, the reformation of their ideas when we obtain sufficient knowledge via science to reform those ideas.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 08:44:00 UTC

  • OUT OF THE STEALTH CLOSET – Reality By Chanting and Oversing on Crunchbase. I wa

    http://shar.es/10DBuXCOMING OUT OF THE STEALTH CLOSET – Reality By Chanting and Oversing on Crunchbase.

    I wanted to have zero attention until we were close. So now that we’re close…

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 08:13:00 UTC

  • DON’T CONFUSE CHEATING ON YOUR TAXES WITH TOLERANCE AND LOVE. It is irrelevant w

    DON’T CONFUSE CHEATING ON YOUR TAXES WITH TOLERANCE AND LOVE.

    It is irrelevant what you think of other cultures, and the people in them – unless they ignore you, it is only relevant what they think of you. Thinking is no counter to competition. It is merely self-congratulatory discounting to confuse conviction with convenience, and tolerance with letting the boat sink because bailing is someone else’s job.

    Tolerance and submission are no more intrinsic goods than violence and domination. The question is only whether one is suppressing parasitism and forcing each other into the market, or one is permitting parasitism and allowing others to escape the transformationary struggle to enter the market.

    So before you congratulate yourself on your tolerance and morality you must determine if you are expanding parasitism or suppressing it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 08:08:00 UTC