Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Propertarianism Is a System of Thought Just Like Aristotelianism

    PROPERTARIANISM IS A SYSTEM OF THOUGHT JUST LIKE ARISTOTELIANISM WHICH IT SEEKS TO COMPLETE Let’s disambiguate Propertarianism a bit. We use the term “Propertarianism” as a brand name. But, Propertarianism as constructed is just a methodology: an Operational Logic of the human sciences. Technically speaking propertarianism refers to the unit of measurement for demonstrated interests (expenditures) in individual action and interpersonal and group cooperation. This methodology makes use of not less than the following reformation of the aristotelian categories and their merger with the sciences: (a) physics – (realism, naturalism, entropy, operationalism) (b) vitruvianism (the grammars) – metaphysics, (c) acquisitionism – psychology, (d) compatibilism – sociology, (e) propertarianism (reciprocity) – ethics (f) testimonialism – epistemology (logic, emp, oprer.) (g) Sovereigntarianism (rule of law) – politics (h) Adaptive Velocity – group strategy (i) Transcendence (eugenics, heroism, excellence, beauty) – Aesthetics As far as I now there is no other system of thought anywhere ear complete, nor one that is value neutral, other than aristotle’s attempt. SOVEREIGNTARIANISM Sovereigntarianism is a political methodology, or what we used to call philosophy, that uses the aristotelian-propertarian paradigm and methodology. PERFECT GOVERNMENT Perfect Government is a recommended organization of governments that can – like the roman- react to stress and war, operating as a growing concern – and distributing windfalls. This government differs from the modern in that it is less optimistic of human character, and suppresses falsehood and rent seeking of all kinds, and definnacializes the polity, and depoliticizes the polity, so that people are limited to the market of voluntary cooperation to improve their lives. This government is described using a set of levers so to speak (set of choices) that vary according to market demand for government, from the most authoritarian in war, to the most redistributive under windfalls, while at the same time eliminating the ability of individuals and groups to accumulate rents and corruption (calcification) that always and everywhere brings down a polities from the village to the empire.

    1. Propertarianism > Methodology
    2. Sovereigntarianism > Socio-legal methodology
    3. Perfect Government > Economic-political-military methodology.

    As far as I know there is no program as large, or as complete, or as scientific as Propertarianism in human history and the best we have so far is the set of empirical disciplines that have been as much a tragedy as a benefit to us. Because empiricism = correspondence it does not equal causality. Operationalism equals causality. Thanks. I hope this helps newbs.

  • Never Trust a Thinker. only Determine the Truth or Falsehood of His Theories

    Never Trust a Thinker. only Determine the Truth or Falsehood of His Theories. https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/never-trust-a-thinker-only-determine-the-truth-or-falsehood-of-his-theories/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 23:19:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267596632599789568

  • Never Trust a Thinker. only Determine the Truth or Falsehood of His Theories

    Never Trust a Thinker. only Determine the Truth or Falsehood of His Theories. https://t.co/szom0Ahtvt

  • Never Trust a Thinker. only Determine the Truth or Falsehood of His Theories.

    —“I just don’t trust him.”—Arnold Brunson

    You should never trust a thinker. You should only determine the truth or falsehood of his theories. If you cannot determine that truth or falsehood of his statements two things are occurring: either you lack the knowledge and ability, or the thinker is uninterested in bearing the expense of teaching you sufficient knowledge that you, with your ability, are able to determine the truth or falsehood of the statement. You must trust a person who has made you a promise, but you falsify an argument. There is no trust involved except in yourself, and your ability to comprehend that argument. What you mean is that a person does not share your emotional reactions to statements, or agree with your frame of reference. But at every standard deviation of ability we are incompatible, and at every two standard deviations we are incomprehensible to one another. I don’t pander, which is what you want: someone you feel comfortable controlling you. Instead, I practice the aristocratic strategy of seeking for men who can rise above needing control. So, I don’t want your trust. I want you to have sufficient agency so that you don’t need to. Because if you need to trust, then you lack the agency to determine the truth or falsehood yourself. My goal is only to give you that agency. I will only ‘lead’ as a last resort, for having to fail to manufacture by my work, leaders better than I at leading. That’s the goal of western civilization: men who develop agency sufficient to insure one another and police the private and common. We created the only civilization that industrialized the development of agency regardless of rank. Every other did not – although the chinese did try at least for the bureaucratic class. So understand my arguments or don’t. But don’t trust me. It means you have failed – and so have I. And if you must trust, you deserve the fate those you trust deliver unto you – which so far, it appears, you have chosen poorly.

  • Never Trust a Thinker. only Determine the Truth or Falsehood of His Theories.

    —“I just don’t trust him.”—Arnold Brunson

    You should never trust a thinker. You should only determine the truth or falsehood of his theories. If you cannot determine that truth or falsehood of his statements two things are occurring: either you lack the knowledge and ability, or the thinker is uninterested in bearing the expense of teaching you sufficient knowledge that you, with your ability, are able to determine the truth or falsehood of the statement. You must trust a person who has made you a promise, but you falsify an argument. There is no trust involved except in yourself, and your ability to comprehend that argument. What you mean is that a person does not share your emotional reactions to statements, or agree with your frame of reference. But at every standard deviation of ability we are incompatible, and at every two standard deviations we are incomprehensible to one another. I don’t pander, which is what you want: someone you feel comfortable controlling you. Instead, I practice the aristocratic strategy of seeking for men who can rise above needing control. So, I don’t want your trust. I want you to have sufficient agency so that you don’t need to. Because if you need to trust, then you lack the agency to determine the truth or falsehood yourself. My goal is only to give you that agency. I will only ‘lead’ as a last resort, for having to fail to manufacture by my work, leaders better than I at leading. That’s the goal of western civilization: men who develop agency sufficient to insure one another and police the private and common. We created the only civilization that industrialized the development of agency regardless of rank. Every other did not – although the chinese did try at least for the bureaucratic class. So understand my arguments or don’t. But don’t trust me. It means you have failed – and so have I. And if you must trust, you deserve the fate those you trust deliver unto you – which so far, it appears, you have chosen poorly.

  • More on Lying

    —“What is the argument against selfish lying if it serves my self interest, assuming the majority of people don’t lie to burst the language bubble.”– Gyeff @Gyeff

    SPECTRUMTransparent Lies – Signal Conformity White Lies – provide comfort to the psyche Grey Lies – protect from consequences of accident, impropriety, or folly Black Lies – Pursue gains by means of deceit Evil Lies – Pursue harm for the sake of harm. People are amoral, and immoral or moral as suits their interests. People conspire ie, cheat, steal, harm and murder as suits their interests.We have just worked very hard to create institutions such that it doesn’t suit their interests. Lying is one of the hardest crimes to limit… …because we continually shift techniques such that we need only raise the cost of truth discovery by creating ambiguity such that lie is indistinguishable from ignorance, error, or natural limitations in judgement and prediction. As such only westerners have succeeded in such suppression of falsehood, that we are able to produce high trust commons, and the means by which we evolved that tradition is almost impossible to replicate without intentionally designing a legal system for it (which I did.) So like manythings, truth telling is just a tax. Truth Before Face, Before Gain, Before All, regardless of impact to the competence-dominance hierarchy is uniquely western. But it is the primary reason for our sovereignty, liberty, freedom, prosperity, and dominion over nature.

  • More on Lying

    —“What is the argument against selfish lying if it serves my self interest, assuming the majority of people don’t lie to burst the language bubble.”– Gyeff @Gyeff

    SPECTRUMTransparent Lies – Signal Conformity White Lies – provide comfort to the psyche Grey Lies – protect from consequences of accident, impropriety, or folly Black Lies – Pursue gains by means of deceit Evil Lies – Pursue harm for the sake of harm. People are amoral, and immoral or moral as suits their interests. People conspire ie, cheat, steal, harm and murder as suits their interests.We have just worked very hard to create institutions such that it doesn’t suit their interests. Lying is one of the hardest crimes to limit… …because we continually shift techniques such that we need only raise the cost of truth discovery by creating ambiguity such that lie is indistinguishable from ignorance, error, or natural limitations in judgement and prediction. As such only westerners have succeeded in such suppression of falsehood, that we are able to produce high trust commons, and the means by which we evolved that tradition is almost impossible to replicate without intentionally designing a legal system for it (which I did.) So like manythings, truth telling is just a tax. Truth Before Face, Before Gain, Before All, regardless of impact to the competence-dominance hierarchy is uniquely western. But it is the primary reason for our sovereignty, liberty, freedom, prosperity, and dominion over nature.

  • I Don’t Really Recommend Philosophy

    I Don’t Really Recommend Philosophy https://t.co/7Fb7HRnkiZ

  • I Don’t Really Recommend Philosophy

    I Don’t Really Recommend Philosophy https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/01/i-dont-really-recommend-philosophy/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-01 22:17:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267581179869515776

  • I Don’t Really Recommend Philosophy

    —” might have done better by reading the summaries of the major philosophers first instead of going through their complete works one by one. Still, I’m going through them pretty fast.”— Martin Štěpán

    I don’t really recommend philosophy, but science and economics instead. That said, myself I just read the Encyclopedia of Philosophy. And most of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and I don’t know how many summaries of the works of philosophers before I ‘bothered’ with the source material. And even then, except for starting with aristotle and plato like everyone else, I worked backwards from the present to the past. Because it’s readily apparent from that process what’s worth reading and what’s drivel.