Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/counsel-philosophy-vs-sophism/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:26:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179900576324358148
Counsel: Philosophy vs Sophism https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/counsel-philosophy-vs-sophism/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:26:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179900576324358148
COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM [G]iven any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.).
COUNSEL: PHILOSOPHY VS SOPHISM [G]iven any term, always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. I prefer 8 to 12 whenever I can get them, and english because it has so vast a vocabulary of working, governing, intellectual, logical, and scientific origins is extremely useful for creating constellations of constant relations whether in one series, or a competition between series we call ‘supply and demand curves’. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Example: Good < Moral < Ethical < Amoral > Unethical > Immoral > Evil constant relations: 1… change in capital whether positive, neutral, or negative 2… degree of intent, accidental, self interest, other interest 3… degree of informational distance between actors and victims (ethical interpersonal, moral inter social, evil both.) Most sophistry in philosophy consists of: 1… using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; 2… using the verb to be (is are was were, be, being) rather than the means of existence; 3… conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; 4… and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between pseudoscience, theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more. ORIGINS Mathematics has only one constant relation (position) consisting of a single ratio, which provides scale independence, and cost independence which produces fully deterministic and testable descriptions. Yet philosophers since the time of the greeks have be trying to imitate it’s utility to no avail, and instead, have created textual and verbal interpretation under the premise the the triviality of one-dimensional positional logic can provide the same utility in deduction and prediction (induction) as the constant relations of mathematics. Animism > Readings (Divination) > Astrology > Scriptural interpretation > Textual interpretation > legal interpretation > numerology > postmodern linguistic divination all constitute the same: finding what is not there as an appeal to an non-existent authority. The only peer to mathematics in language is serialization: lines that test the constant relations between points (terms), and supply demand curves that test the relationship between lines ( propositions.).
Render faith unto god, and truth unto Caesar.
I don’t do faith. I do testimony.
Cheers,
Caesar
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 23:00:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179894068635164674
Reply addressees: @freedomismoral
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179891038980202496
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/1179891038980202496
AHMED REDA SAYS IT BEST
—“A Propertarian is expected to (and must) use Mathematics (as a universal language of measurement), Science (as a universal language of testimony), Law and Economics (as a universal language of decidability), Natural history (as a universal language of evidence), Literature (as a universal language of meaning) and Mindfulness (as the means of preventing addictions). And a Propertarian is expected to (and must) demonstrate Agency in pursuit of political power, instead of fantasizing about it.”—Ahmed Reda
AHMED REDA SAYS IT BEST
—“A Propertarian is expected to (and must) use Mathematics (as a universal language of measurement), Science (as a universal language of testimony), Law and Economics (as a universal language of decidability), Natural history (as a universal language of evidence), Literature (as a universal language of meaning) and Mindfulness (as the means of preventing addictions). And a Propertarian is expected to (and must) demonstrate Agency in pursuit of political power, instead of fantasizing about it.”—Ahmed Reda
Nor Can Anyone Else… https://propertarianism.com/2019/10/03/nor-can-anyone-else/
Source date (UTC): 2019-10-03 22:41:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1179889317063331840
I cannot testify to anything other than? 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism
Nor can anyone else.
I cannot testify to anything other than? 1. Realism, 2. Naturalism, 3. Operationalism
Nor can anyone else.
TESTIMONYby Bill Joslin [H]umans swim in a sea of testimony. Any information we gather beyond local and immediate scale has been gained through the testimony of others. Because this is akin to the air we breathe we often overlook the drastic impact that testimony plays in nearly all of our decisions, choices, and actions. If given a truly sincere analysis in this vein, the very foundations of our personal realities may be shaken to a degree that I can only describe as akin to the fear of death. Coupling this realization with the fraud that our memories often play on us (memory just being self-testimony), the importance of operationalism (in thought and deed) and self-authoring based upon operationalism becomes paramount and weighed second only to our instinct to survive (because information remains a critical component to our ability to survive) …which is why testimonialism receives such resistance… it cuts through the denial of our ignorance which we like to cover with a venier of certainty. …oh how deeply we rely upon our trust in others and oh how we like to hide this fact from ourselves…