(sketch) [I]s following the scientific method like honest testimony? An honest statement may be true or not. We may speak truthfully (honestly) but, we may still err. So is a scientist who does not follow the scientific method dishonest? I think so. He does not speak the truth. Because in science we have established the moral rule of the scientific method. Is a politician or public intellectual arguing for taxation with postmodern language dishonest? I don’t know. It depends upon whether we apply the scientific method as a criteria for honesty, and he avoids it. If so. Yes. We cannot ever know the truth, but one can speak ethically, which is the best that we have. Is a mathematician advocating a mathematical reality dishonest? I don’t know. It depends if we apply the scientific method as a criteria for honesty, and he avoids it. If so. Yes. But are each of these people’s statements false if they put forth their arguments dishonestly? Or is honesty in each discipline unrelated to truth and falsehood? Can I make dishonest but true statements? I think so. I certainly can make honest but false statements. Is there any relationship between testimony and truth? I don’t think so. But since we can never know the objective truth, we must abide by the best criteria at our disposal, yes? Isn’t that what ethics require of us? That is why we have established ethical norms. Because when it is impossible to know, following the norms means we are blameless if we err. But can I know if I speak the truth? Well, I’m kind of after the inverse concern. Popper is terribly concerned about error and overly optimistic claims. I’m terribly concerned about self deception, and the deception of others. If we can’t know the truth, then what constitutes moral speech? It is one thing to fall victim to bias, another to fall victim to error, another to avoid operational language in order to justify to one’s self or others that which one does not truly understand, and yet another to engage in obfuscation for the purpose of self, or other, deception. I think that if I, as a speaker, reduce my statements to operational language, and that I can construct any abstraction I refer to in operational language, that I can attest to the truth of my statements in the original sense of the term: honesty. Conversely if I cannot so so, then I cannot make that claim. I think that if I follow the rules of the scientific method that this is the same as speaking honestly with the promise of having followed that method. This is honesty. I am speaking the truth or am I speaking honestly? Because the original meaning of ‘truth’ is ‘speaking honestly’ about events. I think that if I follow rules of operations in the logics this is the same as speaking honestly and with the promise of not committing an error. Since the logics are imperfect, the rules are a contract for communication. If I follow those rules then I have acted honestly. I think that if I observe that the snow is white, that if I state to you that the snow is white, it is a promise to you that the snow is white. This is I think, a description of truth in ethics. I think all other versions of the word ‘truth’ are analogies to these statements.
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
Worth Repeating: The Choice Of Nobility
WORTH REPEATING : THE CHOICE OF Nobility “Nobility is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.” Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Worth Repeating: The Choice Of Nobility
WORTH REPEATING : THE CHOICE OF Nobility “Nobility is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.” Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Enlightenment Aristocracy Of Everybody Vs The Dark Enlightenment Aristocracy Of The Willing
(Edited and Reposted) [T]he intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone. The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions. But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive. It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state. [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintain their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange. Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk. [W]e are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth. [A]ristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Enlightenment Aristocracy Of Everybody Vs The Dark Enlightenment Aristocracy Of The Willing
(Edited and Reposted) [T]he intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone. The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions. But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive. It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state. [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintain their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange. Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk. [W]e are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth. [A]ristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Violence Represents A Conclusive Refutation
—“Violence represents both a conclusive refutation of argumentation ethics and — quite often — a cheaper means of accomplishing the same ends.”— Eli Harman (Eli seems to frequently manage to reduce what takes me 750 words into twenty.) Curt
COMMENTS Carolynn Smith, David Mondrus and 2 others like this. Tammey Grable-Newton “I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one.” -Twain Shorter is harder. April 23 at 1:47pm Don Stacy How is violence “a conclusive refutation of argumentation ethics”? April 23 at 4:48pm Curt Doolittle I won’t speak for Eli Harman. But this might help. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-first-question-of…/The First Question Of Politics: Ternary Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics Vs Binary Ghetto Ethics… You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and vio… April 23 at 4:51pm Eli Harman Arguments and ideas are not reality. They are useful to the extent that they help us navigate and make sense of reality. Objectively, AE does not do this, as evidenced by the fact that the use of violence — even aggressive violence — can be adaptive; as evidenced by its ubiquity. Kill the adherents of AE and the argument is refuted. Reality doesn’t care about your arguments. But your arguments should probably take note of reality. April 23 at 5:08pm
-
Violence Represents A Conclusive Refutation
—“Violence represents both a conclusive refutation of argumentation ethics and — quite often — a cheaper means of accomplishing the same ends.”— Eli Harman (Eli seems to frequently manage to reduce what takes me 750 words into twenty.) Curt
COMMENTS Carolynn Smith, David Mondrus and 2 others like this. Tammey Grable-Newton “I didn’t have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one.” -Twain Shorter is harder. April 23 at 1:47pm Don Stacy How is violence “a conclusive refutation of argumentation ethics”? April 23 at 4:48pm Curt Doolittle I won’t speak for Eli Harman. But this might help. http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-first-question-of…/The First Question Of Politics: Ternary Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics Vs Binary Ghetto Ethics… You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and vio… April 23 at 4:51pm Eli Harman Arguments and ideas are not reality. They are useful to the extent that they help us navigate and make sense of reality. Objectively, AE does not do this, as evidenced by the fact that the use of violence — even aggressive violence — can be adaptive; as evidenced by its ubiquity. Kill the adherents of AE and the argument is refuted. Reality doesn’t care about your arguments. But your arguments should probably take note of reality. April 23 at 5:08pm
-
"Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights"
–“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights. He who shall exchange the defense of property with me, I shall treated as my kin.”– (I think that’s the most reductive statement that I can make.)
-
“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights”
–“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights. He who shall exchange the defense of property with me, I shall treated as my kin.”– (I think that’s the most reductive statement that I can make.)
-
"Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights"
–“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights. He who shall exchange the defense of property with me, I shall treated as my kin.”– (I think that’s the most reductive statement that I can make.)