—“he cannot escape the Christianity and moralism he works so hard to overcome”—
Refers to his method of argument, and method only.
How does one separate the western methods of argument: literary(parable), mythical(allegorical), religious(authoritarian/naturalistic), historical(allegorical), philosophical(internally consistent), scientific(empirical) and testimonial(totally objective)?
If you organize western works of intellectual history into those categories, then place Nietzsche’s it’s certainly not compatible with either machiavellie/smith/hume/pareto/weber (scientific) or Kant (internally consistent), but continues the german post-christian tradition of attempting to create inspirational scripture without reliance upon appeals to the supernatural, but the natural: shopenhauer and the other near-mystics.
I keep coming back to his statement that morality differs for different abilities and I think this is an incorrect definition of the word morality. It is that the philosophies that we rely upon for inspirational pedagogy differ between the classes while the law we rely upon to decide conflicts is invariant across the classes. And this would reflect what I have seen in all civilizations except the failures of islam and judaism: a lower, middle, and upper class philosophy.
This is as far as my criticism goes: method.
And the reason I make the criticism is that I am still struggling with the problem of the pedagogical and inspirational “positive-ying” and the decidable and critical “negative-yang”, and how to combine them, when it seems that the germans have been more successful with their ‘nonsense literature’ than we anglos have been with failed ‘attempts at science’.
I prefer however to separate them rather than conflate them. In other words, I think literature and law need not be conflated. That we can create literature and law as separate devices for separate purposes and like the riddles of lao tzu leave man to evolve in the contrast between the two.
This was my original thinking in 2006, and I have come full circle, but with a greater understanding of why my intuitions suggested we continue our ancient tradition of the ‘separatness’ of existential truth in cooperation and imaginary spirit in personal inspiration. The true, the good, the beautiful. Or as Renee Macintosh stated in the last century: have nothing that is not both functional and beautiful. This theme stays with us throughout all our excellences through our history, throughout our eras. Truth, Excellence, Beauty.
This tells me that truth is enough to restore us, but what is required to inspire us to persistent greatness regardless of our class? Especially when we NEED each class – at least each above IQ90.
I actually can’t find any other thinker that has tried to solve this problem in the same way.
So maybe instead of asian “balance” we seek excellence through the SunWheel of constant motion, between the inspirational, mythic, literary, and the decidable, legal, truth. One wheel inside the other. Turning in opposite directions.
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.
I always respond to attacks when I find out about them. I just wish some of them were worth responding to. (the nietzcheans have provided the only meaningful criticism to date).
NOTES ON AUDIO
1) It is irrelevant how many people listen, it’s only relevant who listens. There is a large audience for astrology. 2) There is a vast difference between the set (pedagogical, useful, meaningful) on the one hand, and the set (true, necessary, decidable) on the other. The first consists of literature and informs on a strategy, the second consists of law and decides conflicts regardless of strategy. 3) Ideologies and World-views (Excuses for evolutionary strategies). We seek justification for our strategies. that is all. 4) The french revolution provides an exception not a rule: it was the most backward government in Europe. The British had revolutions frequently, because the never had as much asymmetry as the french. The Russian and British and Chinese are far better examples since they are frequent and less reductio out of extremity. 5) the american experiment comes closest to creating formal, strictly constructed law as a social science of cooperation: natural law as a peer to physical law. 6) Democracy in the ancient and in the modern world was an excuse by which to transfer power from the landed aristocracy to the commercial aristocracy using the families of the soldiery necessary to hold territory. Bribe with political power rather than enfranchisement into property rights. 7) (35:00 So far nothing jay says is causal its all justificationary – life is much more rich, more to experience, more to philosophy. this is despite the fact that he does not say why these things have any import other than taking a carnival ride is more interesting than studying the structure of the ride. I am sitting through literary excuse making, straw man arguments, and self congratulatory use of critique. It’s painful. This is an example ‘mumbo-jumbo’ if there is any. Critique is NOT science (truth). ) 8) I (curt doolittle) am a social scientists who attempts to construct law. I use the language of philosophy at the indirect advice of Hoppe. if i seek to unite truth, philosophy, science, and law, then I use the ancient disciplinary tree. 9) That you don’t think I”m that good isn’t a measure of anything. That you think its bad and laughable is (humorous). OMG it’s embarrassing to listen to this name calling and marxist critique rather than refuting ideas (that you are not intellectually capable or informed sufficiently to understand) 10) Decidability is the end of the road for law. Just as it is for science. You would need to refute that statement. 11) Stephan is a public intellectual, engaged in the use of reason. whether he is a philosopher or not, is a question. He has tried and failed to produce a theory. (Just as you seem to be trying to produce some theory, although all I see is marxist critique: criticizing what you don’t agree with but providing no theory that is equally open to criticism. This is a common method of deceit. It is how marxism attack the west: through pseudo-scientific critique. 12) The rule of law is what we are investigating in libertarianism. Is law enough? can we make law into a sufficient social science so that all ethical and political statements are decidable ‘moral’ (non-parasitic). 13) Aristotle uses reason, which is different from rationalism, which is different from logic, is different from science. (OMG this podcast is embarrassing to listen to.) 14) Use the word ‘True’ without understanding what it might, can, and must mean. Critique, critique, critique, critique… all I hear. No argument yet. nothing. completely vacuous empty verbalisms. 15) Reason is the process by which we launder imaginary relations, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception, overloading, from our free associations, where those free associations are provided by our intuition, and where that intuition is biased heavily by our genetics, gender, and experiences. 16) omg… reason, energy, senses. omfg. this is …. embarrassing. I really have to spend time on this empty verbalism? On this Marxist Critique? This guy uses a bunch of postmodern nonsense words. 17) We can say that experiential relations are a preference, not a truth. But then we have to ask where do the wights we assign to those experiential relations come from? It comes from chemical rewards provided by our evolutionary history and encoded in our genes. 18) TRUTH: if you cannot construct an operational description of your terms and fully account for the information present in your statements then you are not able to make a truth claim. This is simply true. Period. 19) The scientific method is a set of steps by which we eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit from your utterances. Science is the method of by which we produce testimony. 20) Empiricism means that all knowledge that survives criticism by reason originates in senses. (Observation). We say that MEASUREMENT is a method of insuring that our senses contain the least error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. 21) We (scientists) dont make knowledge claims (only justifications do that and they all error). We give testimony. Meaning that we testify that we have eliminated error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from our statements to the best of our ability. 22) The purpose of experientially loaded literature is to EDUCATE, INFORM, AND ASSIST IN HYPOTHESIS. The purpose of science is to remove experiential loading, framing, obscuring, imaginary content, error, bias, and deceit from those hypotheses. 23) The error is in that one or the other survives exclusively (I don’t make this error). It is that pedagogy and experience are individual matters, and decidability and truth are interpersonal matters. In other words you are welcome to your experiences as long as we are not in conflict. If we are in conflict then only truth renders conflicts decidable. 24) Why must conflict be decidable? Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding and we cannot cooperate if our contractual relations are not decidable by objective (true) means.
CONCLUSION This is the answer you are failing to grasp: the dual need for both individual experience VS interpersonal decidability.
CRITICISM AND REFRAMING 1) You are an excuse-maker. What I have seen in this discourse is nothing other than a) a failure to articulate a theory, b) the constant demonstration of seeking confirmation bias in analogies and c) the use of critique to criticize the opposition, and d) the use of ridicule.
You have a lot of viewers because there are a lot of idiots who need similar justification for their incomprehension. (Dunning-Kruger at Work). It is a desperate attempt to find will-to-power by finding a way to excuse one’s inability to grasp abstract relations independent of intuitionistic weightings. This ability is what separates less intelligent from more intelligent people.
2) Molyneux is a communicator. He has a lot of viewers because even if imperfect, he is an educator. He educates. And honestly he is great at it.
3) I am a scientist. I don’t care about the number of viewers, I just care about whether I advance the discipline of truth telling. So far I have made more progress than anyone other than Popper and Hume. The purpose of public discourse is to attempt to falsify my theories: to see if they survive criticism.
THE SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITY This is a waste of my time. I made it through 1:12:00 before I tired of the mental equivalent of conspiracy theory. There is a very clear relationship between mental illness (schizotypal thinking) and this desperate need to feel confidence in one’s thinking despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
So Jay earns the Curt Doolittle Stamp of Schizotypal Personality by attempting to use selection bias and loose analogy absent causal relations in order to justify his in ability to alter his framing to that of the universal language of truth: science. Why? Because confronting that reality would force him to recognize his lower status and abandon the self deception of mental superiority. This is again, evidence of Schizotypal personality traits. Judgement rendered. It is how it is.
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
I always respond to attacks when I find out about them. I just wish some of them were worth responding to. (the nietzcheans have provided the only meaningful criticism to date).
NOTES ON AUDIO
1) It is irrelevant how many people listen, it’s only relevant who listens. There is a large audience for astrology. 2) There is a vast difference between the set (pedagogical, useful, meaningful) on the one hand, and the set (true, necessary, decidable) on the other. The first consists of literature and informs on a strategy, the second consists of law and decides conflicts regardless of strategy. 3) Ideologies and World-views (Excuses for evolutionary strategies). We seek justification for our strategies. that is all. 4) The french revolution provides an exception not a rule: it was the most backward government in Europe. The British had revolutions frequently, because the never had as much asymmetry as the french. The Russian and British and Chinese are far better examples since they are frequent and less reductio out of extremity. 5) the american experiment comes closest to creating formal, strictly constructed law as a social science of cooperation: natural law as a peer to physical law. 6) Democracy in the ancient and in the modern world was an excuse by which to transfer power from the landed aristocracy to the commercial aristocracy using the families of the soldiery necessary to hold territory. Bribe with political power rather than enfranchisement into property rights. 7) (35:00 So far nothing jay says is causal its all justificationary – life is much more rich, more to experience, more to philosophy. this is despite the fact that he does not say why these things have any import other than taking a carnival ride is more interesting than studying the structure of the ride. I am sitting through literary excuse making, straw man arguments, and self congratulatory use of critique. It’s painful. This is an example ‘mumbo-jumbo’ if there is any. Critique is NOT science (truth). ) 8) I (curt doolittle) am a social scientists who attempts to construct law. I use the language of philosophy at the indirect advice of Hoppe. if i seek to unite truth, philosophy, science, and law, then I use the ancient disciplinary tree. 9) That you don’t think I”m that good isn’t a measure of anything. That you think its bad and laughable is (humorous). OMG it’s embarrassing to listen to this name calling and marxist critique rather than refuting ideas (that you are not intellectually capable or informed sufficiently to understand) 10) Decidability is the end of the road for law. Just as it is for science. You would need to refute that statement. 11) Stephan is a public intellectual, engaged in the use of reason. whether he is a philosopher or not, is a question. He has tried and failed to produce a theory. (Just as you seem to be trying to produce some theory, although all I see is marxist critique: criticizing what you don’t agree with but providing no theory that is equally open to criticism. This is a common method of deceit. It is how marxism attack the west: through pseudo-scientific critique. 12) The rule of law is what we are investigating in libertarianism. Is law enough? can we make law into a sufficient social science so that all ethical and political statements are decidable ‘moral’ (non-parasitic). 13) Aristotle uses reason, which is different from rationalism, which is different from logic, is different from science. (OMG this podcast is embarrassing to listen to.) 14) Use the word ‘True’ without understanding what it might, can, and must mean. Critique, critique, critique, critique… all I hear. No argument yet. nothing. completely vacuous empty verbalisms. 15) Reason is the process by which we launder imaginary relations, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception, overloading, from our free associations, where those free associations are provided by our intuition, and where that intuition is biased heavily by our genetics, gender, and experiences. 16) omg… reason, energy, senses. omfg. this is …. embarrassing. I really have to spend time on this empty verbalism? On this Marxist Critique? This guy uses a bunch of postmodern nonsense words. 17) We can say that experiential relations are a preference, not a truth. But then we have to ask where do the wights we assign to those experiential relations come from? It comes from chemical rewards provided by our evolutionary history and encoded in our genes. 18) TRUTH: if you cannot construct an operational description of your terms and fully account for the information present in your statements then you are not able to make a truth claim. This is simply true. Period. 19) The scientific method is a set of steps by which we eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit from your utterances. Science is the method of by which we produce testimony. 20) Empiricism means that all knowledge that survives criticism by reason originates in senses. (Observation). We say that MEASUREMENT is a method of insuring that our senses contain the least error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. 21) We (scientists) dont make knowledge claims (only justifications do that and they all error). We give testimony. Meaning that we testify that we have eliminated error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit from our statements to the best of our ability. 22) The purpose of experientially loaded literature is to EDUCATE, INFORM, AND ASSIST IN HYPOTHESIS. The purpose of science is to remove experiential loading, framing, obscuring, imaginary content, error, bias, and deceit from those hypotheses. 23) The error is in that one or the other survives exclusively (I don’t make this error). It is that pedagogy and experience are individual matters, and decidability and truth are interpersonal matters. In other words you are welcome to your experiences as long as we are not in conflict. If we are in conflict then only truth renders conflicts decidable. 24) Why must conflict be decidable? Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding and we cannot cooperate if our contractual relations are not decidable by objective (true) means.
CONCLUSION This is the answer you are failing to grasp: the dual need for both individual experience VS interpersonal decidability.
CRITICISM AND REFRAMING 1) You are an excuse-maker. What I have seen in this discourse is nothing other than a) a failure to articulate a theory, b) the constant demonstration of seeking confirmation bias in analogies and c) the use of critique to criticize the opposition, and d) the use of ridicule.
You have a lot of viewers because there are a lot of idiots who need similar justification for their incomprehension. (Dunning-Kruger at Work). It is a desperate attempt to find will-to-power by finding a way to excuse one’s inability to grasp abstract relations independent of intuitionistic weightings. This ability is what separates less intelligent from more intelligent people.
2) Molyneux is a communicator. He has a lot of viewers because even if imperfect, he is an educator. He educates. And honestly he is great at it.
3) I am a scientist. I don’t care about the number of viewers, I just care about whether I advance the discipline of truth telling. So far I have made more progress than anyone other than Popper and Hume. The purpose of public discourse is to attempt to falsify my theories: to see if they survive criticism.
THE SCHIZOTYPAL PERSONALITY This is a waste of my time. I made it through 1:12:00 before I tired of the mental equivalent of conspiracy theory. There is a very clear relationship between mental illness (schizotypal thinking) and this desperate need to feel confidence in one’s thinking despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
So Jay earns the Curt Doolittle Stamp of Schizotypal Personality by attempting to use selection bias and loose analogy absent causal relations in order to justify his in ability to alter his framing to that of the universal language of truth: science. Why? Because confronting that reality would force him to recognize his lower status and abandon the self deception of mental superiority. This is again, evidence of Schizotypal personality traits. Judgement rendered. It is how it is.
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
[A]TTACK ON PROFIT SEEKING USING VIRTUE SIGNALING BY AN EX PROSTITUTE (choice quotes for your rhetorical armory)
a) Author’s article is nothing but an act of personal promotion for drumming up business by yet another western example of pretentious virtue signaling. It is another kind of whoring. But in the end whoring none the less. The selling of false-virtue lies, rather than false-sex lies.
b) People sell all forms of entertainment that are contrary to life’s evidence. People pay for all forms of entertainment that is contrary to life’s evidence. Sex is just one more of them. alcohol, drugs, movies, literature, media narratives, and pretentious virtue signaling are but a few examples of them.
c) People buy, sell, and tell themselves and each other pleasant lies to make their tedious boring unexceptional lives tolerable. And we are happy to buy and sell this bits of nonsense.
e) Voluntarily exchanged payments for such entertainment are much better than the alternative: sexy obtained by violence, entertainment by subjugation, and sustenance by enslavement and parasitism. Alcohol, storytelling and prostitution in all the various forms of paying women for sex one way or another are as old as human existence.
f) The waitress who smiles at your imbecilic wit, the shopkeeper who treats you with undeserved respect, the marketer who promises you feelings beyond your natural means, the politician who panders to your failure to mature into a productive adult. None of these differ from the prostitute who tells you that you’re attractive and she’s pleased by your company.
Liars all. Virtue Signaling included: our most fashionable current form of lying. These various fictions are a creature comfort we use to make the daily evidence of our personal irrelevance tolerable. Do not begrudge people fictions purchased in trade. They are far better than truths obtained by violence and conquest – which was the norm throughout our history.
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
[A]TTACK ON PROFIT SEEKING USING VIRTUE SIGNALING BY AN EX PROSTITUTE (choice quotes for your rhetorical armory)
a) Author’s article is nothing but an act of personal promotion for drumming up business by yet another western example of pretentious virtue signaling. It is another kind of whoring. But in the end whoring none the less. The selling of false-virtue lies, rather than false-sex lies.
b) People sell all forms of entertainment that are contrary to life’s evidence. People pay for all forms of entertainment that is contrary to life’s evidence. Sex is just one more of them. alcohol, drugs, movies, literature, media narratives, and pretentious virtue signaling are but a few examples of them.
c) People buy, sell, and tell themselves and each other pleasant lies to make their tedious boring unexceptional lives tolerable. And we are happy to buy and sell this bits of nonsense.
e) Voluntarily exchanged payments for such entertainment are much better than the alternative: sexy obtained by violence, entertainment by subjugation, and sustenance by enslavement and parasitism. Alcohol, storytelling and prostitution in all the various forms of paying women for sex one way or another are as old as human existence.
f) The waitress who smiles at your imbecilic wit, the shopkeeper who treats you with undeserved respect, the marketer who promises you feelings beyond your natural means, the politician who panders to your failure to mature into a productive adult. None of these differ from the prostitute who tells you that you’re attractive and she’s pleased by your company.
Liars all. Virtue Signaling included: our most fashionable current form of lying. These various fictions are a creature comfort we use to make the daily evidence of our personal irrelevance tolerable. Do not begrudge people fictions purchased in trade. They are far better than truths obtained by violence and conquest – which was the norm throughout our history.
Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.