Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Almost all of philosophy after Aristotle up until Hume consists of a few feather

    Almost all of philosophy after Aristotle up until Hume consists of a few feathers of wisdom and a vast amount of hand waving. Justification, wishful thinking and cunning lies.

    The the evolution of law is the only meaningful source of insight into western man’s mind. the evolution of art, the evolution of war, the evolution of money, banking, credit, interest and insurance; the evolution of mathematics. Of engineering. Of astronomy. Of our diets. Our dress. All add color.

    But philosophy consists of convenient lies by the church, polite begging of the middle class. Wishful thinking of the proletarians. And nonsensical pseudo mysticism of the academy.

    Liars all. Dreamers all.

    We soldier onward.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-11 19:31:00 UTC

  • Philosophy is an avocation, not vocation, and getting paid for it does nothing e

    Philosophy is an avocation, not vocation, and getting paid for it does nothing except encourage skepticism.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-11 18:18:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664507504743866368

    Reply addressees: @thathad2hurt @iowahawkblog

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664487399909490688


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    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.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664487399909490688

  • Free Speech or Truthful Speech? Academic Freedom or Academic unaccountability? W

    Free Speech or Truthful Speech? Academic Freedom or Academic unaccountability? Welders must warranty, not philosophers. 🙂


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-11 08:23:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664357769793900544

    Reply addressees: @Robert_Graboyes

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664309701010718720


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Robert_Graboyes

    Which group more strongly supports free speech and academic freedom?
    – Philosophers
    – Welders

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664309701010718720

  • because the cost of acquiring additional information for increased prediction, i

    because the cost of acquiring additional information for increased prediction, is greater than the benefit of prediction.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-10 18:37:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664149806877646848

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664111460960698368


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    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.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664111460960698368

  • There are those who are could care less, those who are curious and those who thi

    There are those who are could care less, those who are curious and those who thirst for it. The latter matter.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-09 11:27:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663679236578918401

    Reply addressees: @Outsideness @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663601766831788032


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Outsideness

    @ne0colonial @curtdoolittle … not that it’s uninteresting.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663601766831788032

  • “In the current era, innumeracy is a far greater weakness than illiteracy.” —

    —“In the current era, innumeracy is a far greater weakness than illiteracy.” — Sean Ring

    (genius)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-09 08:14:00 UTC

  • We can purge all forms of lies from this earth. And in doing so, transform man i

    —We can purge all forms of lies from this earth. And in doing so, transform man into gods. For what is a god but a wielder of truth? And what is a devil, but a wielder of error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit?—

    (worth repeating)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-09 06:05:00 UTC

  • What is the difference between truthful testimony, the disciplines of science, a

    What is the difference between truthful testimony, the disciplines of science, and of philosophy?


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-08 21:52:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663474073465397248

    Reply addressees: @AllooCharas @SpiritSplice

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663472921264979972


    IN REPLY TO:

    @AllooCharas

    @curtdoolittle @SpiritSplice Why when you are talking political philosophy?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/663472921264979972

  • Q&A: “Are There Higher Psychologies Than Truth?” (whatever that means)

    —“It sounds like you’re recognizing there are higher psychologies than that of the mere scientist.”—

    [W]ell, I disagree that for the purposes of LAW and TRUTH claims, that there are ‘higher’ psychologies, but for the purpose of CREATIVITY yes, I agree. My position is that matters of creativity are the subject of aesthetics, not metaphysics, truth, epistemology, ethics, politics or war.

    I have observed the same reaction from scientists who think that they’re work is the most ‘spiritually advanced’: the critical rationalists are determined that they not be constrained, and are not responsible for the externalities produced by their failure to warranty that their work has been laundered. Why would I expect artists, authors, theists, philosophers, scientists or whatever other group that claims spiritual superiority to accept both that their desire for creativity in their frame of reference is not special in the least, that their work is not special in the least – only subject to less empirical tests of failure; or to accept accountability for their speech and action, since they themselves would say that they need no such limits, given their moral character, and desire to create not decide, not police, not punish. Except the evidence is otherwise. People want to pretend their smarter than they are, to utter nonsense, to obtain status with nonsense utterances, and not to be held accountable for that which they failed to foresee. People are ridiculous really, in all walks of life. But without such nonsensical pretenses we would not be motivated enough to get out of bed and struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance. Given that more damage has been done by priests, philosophers, politicians, and pseudoscientists than has been done by warriors, the great plagues, and only matched by volcanic disruption of the ecosystem, it is merely prudent that the most irresponsible people warranty that they do no harm instead of escape liability for that harm they have observably done. Liars all. Particularly to ourselves. So as one who is learning, I understand the desire for creativity and experience. As one who defends civilization I also understand that we can, and must, limit the damage that can be done by those who would seek status and affirmation, and excitement, through falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
  • Q&A: “Are There Higher Psychologies Than Truth?” (whatever that means)

    —“It sounds like you’re recognizing there are higher psychologies than that of the mere scientist.”—

    [W]ell, I disagree that for the purposes of LAW and TRUTH claims, that there are ‘higher’ psychologies, but for the purpose of CREATIVITY yes, I agree. My position is that matters of creativity are the subject of aesthetics, not metaphysics, truth, epistemology, ethics, politics or war.

    I have observed the same reaction from scientists who think that they’re work is the most ‘spiritually advanced’: the critical rationalists are determined that they not be constrained, and are not responsible for the externalities produced by their failure to warranty that their work has been laundered. Why would I expect artists, authors, theists, philosophers, scientists or whatever other group that claims spiritual superiority to accept both that their desire for creativity in their frame of reference is not special in the least, that their work is not special in the least – only subject to less empirical tests of failure; or to accept accountability for their speech and action, since they themselves would say that they need no such limits, given their moral character, and desire to create not decide, not police, not punish. Except the evidence is otherwise. People want to pretend their smarter than they are, to utter nonsense, to obtain status with nonsense utterances, and not to be held accountable for that which they failed to foresee. People are ridiculous really, in all walks of life. But without such nonsensical pretenses we would not be motivated enough to get out of bed and struggle against the dark forces of time and ignorance. Given that more damage has been done by priests, philosophers, politicians, and pseudoscientists than has been done by warriors, the great plagues, and only matched by volcanic disruption of the ecosystem, it is merely prudent that the most irresponsible people warranty that they do no harm instead of escape liability for that harm they have observably done. Liars all. Particularly to ourselves. So as one who is learning, I understand the desire for creativity and experience. As one who defends civilization I also understand that we can, and must, limit the damage that can be done by those who would seek status and affirmation, and excitement, through falsehood. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine