RT @curtdoolittle: @SaitouHajime00 ARISTOTLE’S USE OF “EXCELLENCE”
–“Q: What do truth, excellence, and beauty mean?”–
Great question.…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-16 05:58:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780113510929772778
RT @curtdoolittle: @SaitouHajime00 ARISTOTLE’S USE OF “EXCELLENCE”
–“Q: What do truth, excellence, and beauty mean?”–
Great question.…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-16 05:58:28 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780113510929772778
That’s not a tautology. It’s description of cause and effect. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-16 00:32:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780031455390818556
Reply addressees: @apollonaut_
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780025190627389523
That’s simply false. Every tautology and every demonstrable chain of actions are simple examples of why that’s false.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 22:51:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780006005297823913
Reply addressees: @FrancoKurte @MindEnjoyer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780005408674894154
ARISTOTLE’S USE OF “EXCELLENCE”
–“Q: What do truth, excellence, and beauty mean?”–
Great question.
|Contribution To The Commons|: Duty > True > Good > Excellent > Beautiful > Heroic
Basically these are the criteria demanding the maximum contribution to the commons (heroism) in exchange for respect and status.
Conversely, they are the criteria by which we can determine if people are ‘skating’ on their duty to the commons.
Aristotle’s use of Excellence is the demand for the individual to achieve his potential limits, and in doing so improve the polity (commons).
Reply addressees: @SaitouHajime00
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 22:50:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780005744596635650
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779994792736551319
It may not be but it is all the truth you may claim without lying that you’re stating the truth.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 22:33:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780001535201579069
Reply addressees: @FrancoKurte @MindEnjoyer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780001384017846664
Note the use of —“we can imply”– meaning “we can justify” meaning “we can make up the excuse”. 😉
I work with testimonial truth. Not justification. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 22:29:14 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780000457315782717
Reply addressees: @FrancoKurte @MindEnjoyer
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779992967433895996
Yes, sorry, I should have clarified the difference between that which is directly apprehensible by our senses and perception, and the problem of that which is not. Thank you for noticing. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 20:58:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779977628184609231
Reply addressees: @rikstorey
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779976566933422305
IT’S ALL WORD SALAD TO YOU?
This is why my writing looks like word salad to you:
1) It’s much closer to mathematics and programmatic logic than it is to ordinary english. In fact it’s ‘a formal operational logic’ meaning a lot like programming.
2) All technical fields prevent ambiguity and confusion by using terms specific to the context. (again, my work is much closer to programmatic logic) In effect instead of analogies, technical fields use terms as the equivalent of names or measurements.
3) There is a presumption among ordinary people that ethical, moral, and legal language should be composed in ordinary language – despite that ordinary language is ambiguous, loaded, framed, and full of ignorance, error, bias and deceit.
So, if instead, I wrote everything in algorithmic prose using legal document structure, then you would not assume that you would understand it.
Can you read the law? Can you read software programs? Do you understand the foundations of mathematics? Of language and grammar? Of cognitive science? Of Economics? Of course you don’t. But do you criticize them for their ‘word salad’? Yet, I use concepts from all those fields and many others.
But because enough people DO understand my work (our work at the institute since it’s more than just me), and because I don’t want to ‘scare people off’ by using math, formal logic, or formal operational logic (programming), I write as I do, and people either stick around to learn or they don’t.
This strategy serves as a filtering system to keep away people who lack the capacity (and degrade the conversation) and encourages those that do (that improves the conversation).
I’ve been a public intellectual for over a decade now, and the ‘word salad’ accusation is the equivalent of claiming calculus is false because it’s hard’. Yes my work is hard. It takes work to understand.
So does every other scientific discipline. ‘)
-Hugs
Reply addressees: @PlayerJuan96
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 20:57:17 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779977315553890304
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779947987919356371
Yeah. Unfortunately distillation to simplicity eliminates the proof of work necessary to convey any sense of validity. So just as a theory produces an index to a formula, a distillation serves as an index to a construction (proof). And the knowledge necessary to grasp the proof may be prohibitive. So social construction of the validity of the distillation by those who can grasp the proof is the only means by which common people can place confidence in it.
Just how it is.
-hugs.
Reply addressees: @LudwigNverMises
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 20:41:53 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779973441656864769
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779948309706060261
There is a difference between a construction by a set of testable operations, and a narrative explaining the consequence.. Just as there is a difference between a formula(measurement) and a theory(search criteria).
I teach the formula (construction), because I want to teach causality, from which deduction is possible. It’s acceptable to teach the narrative, but not if it obscures the causality.
As such the best answer is always the narrative first(explanation), and the causality second (proof).
But otherwise why should someone believe anything I say any more than any other person who does not provide ‘proof of work’ so to speak? 😉
So yes< ia gree but my mimssion since 2022 has beeen reinforced by the three sequences of teams we’ve put together – that I wodk on the formal and others on the informal. I would rather you and others become influential and powerful by teaching the ordinary people the informal version, than ask me to speak to ordinary people with whom I do not share cognitive parity.
– hugs
Reply addressees: @RunicSigil
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 20:36:09 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779971998589870080
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779951250651648429