Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • So, Why Study Philosophy

    October 25th, 2018 6:24 PM SO, WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY OTHER THAN FRAUD OF SELF AND OTHERS?

    —“So are you saying that rigorously interpreting a text is by definition pilpul and therefore bad? How do you read philosophy then?”— postmodernist.

    (a) Is that what I am saying? And (b) Why would anyone read either theology or philosophy in the age of math, logic, sciences, economics, law, history, and literature – each of which is less vulnerable to fraud and confirmation bias, than sophism (philosophy) and magic(theology)? (c) because the only reason to do so is to justify perpetuate a fraud, commit a falsehood, justify a bias, or admit one’s incompetence at developing sufficient mindfulness (agency) to leave fantasy fiction literature behind. (d) the reason to write philosophy and theology is precisely to avoid math, logic, science, economics, law, biography, and history. … (e) There is no other reason to do so – which is why Abrahamic Theology, Platonic(literary) philosophy, their conflation in the medieval era, and continental reconstruction after anglo empirical falsification of it, was constructed.

  • So, Why Study Philosophy

    October 25th, 2018 6:24 PM SO, WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY OTHER THAN FRAUD OF SELF AND OTHERS?

    —“So are you saying that rigorously interpreting a text is by definition pilpul and therefore bad? How do you read philosophy then?”— postmodernist.

    (a) Is that what I am saying? And (b) Why would anyone read either theology or philosophy in the age of math, logic, sciences, economics, law, history, and literature – each of which is less vulnerable to fraud and confirmation bias, than sophism (philosophy) and magic(theology)? (c) because the only reason to do so is to justify perpetuate a fraud, commit a falsehood, justify a bias, or admit one’s incompetence at developing sufficient mindfulness (agency) to leave fantasy fiction literature behind. (d) the reason to write philosophy and theology is precisely to avoid math, logic, science, economics, law, biography, and history. … (e) There is no other reason to do so – which is why Abrahamic Theology, Platonic(literary) philosophy, their conflation in the medieval era, and continental reconstruction after anglo empirical falsification of it, was constructed.

  • SO, WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY OTHER THAN FRAUD OF SELF AND OTHERS? —“So are you say

    SO, WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY OTHER THAN FRAUD OF SELF AND OTHERS?

    —“So are you saying that rigorously interpreting a text is by definition pilpul and therefore bad? How do you read philosophy then?”— postmodernist.

    (a) Is that what I am saying? And (b) Why would anyone read either theology or philosophy in the age of math, logic, sciences, economics, law, history, and literature – each of which is less vulnerable to fraud and confirmation bias, than sophism (philosophy) and magic(theology)?

    (c) because the only reason to do so is to justify perpetuate a fraud, commit a falsehood, justify a bias, or admit one’s incompetence at developing sufficient mindfulness (agency) to leave fantasy fiction literature behind.

    (d) the reason to write philosophy and theology is precisely to avoid math, logic, science, economics, law, biography, and history. …

    (e) There is no other reason to do so – which is why Abrahamic Theology, Platonic(literary) philosophy, their conflation in the medieval era, and continental reconstruction after anglo empirical falsification of it, was constructed.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 18:24:00 UTC

  • 19) And like I said, if you studied Physics, Genetic and Cultural Differences, P

    19) And like I said, if you studied Physics, Genetic and Cultural Differences, Political Economy, and Law (the complete scientific method), then you would understand such things – instead of reading Sophomoric Political Fantasy Fiction.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:42:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055454624428277761

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 15) So your ‘list of excuses-of-intent’ by stating ‘quotes of intent’ are just a

    15) So your ‘list of excuses-of-intent’ by stating ‘quotes of intent’ are just attempts to perpetuate the dysgenic, defeatist, destructive, fraud, of using sophisticated lies (sophisms, supernaturalisms, pseudosciences) to appeal to sentiments as a means of obtaining power.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:35:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055452843015061504

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 8) So while you merely made a list of STATED INTENTIONS, as scientists (and juri

    8) So while you merely made a list of STATED INTENTIONS, as scientists (and jurists) we measure the form of argument (lying) and the changes in state (thefts), and the means, motives and opportunity used (criminal liability) not the STATED INTENTION (lies) of the actor.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:20:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055449021408534528

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 7) And that under Falsificationism (Survival) from tests of coherence, consisten

    7) And that under Falsificationism (Survival) from tests of coherence, consistency, correspondence, existential possibility, rationality, reciprocity, limits and completeness (what we test in court) such Frauds (Lies to cover Thefts) are exposed. Leaving only truth candidates.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:18:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055448476576825345

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 6) And that under Pilpul(Justificationism) and Critique (Straw Manning, disappro

    6) And that under Pilpul(Justificationism) and Critique (Straw Manning, disapproval, shaming, ridicule, gossiping, rallying) any internal consistency (constant relations) can be argued (story or fraud constructed) to violate correspondence, reciprocity, limits, and completeness.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:15:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055447879790313473

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 3) Pomo is an attempt to circumvent (conduct a fraud) by casting power as arbitr

    3) Pomo is an attempt to circumvent (conduct a fraud) by casting power as arbitrary, truth as arbitrary, reciprocity as arbitrary when they are necessary, and a presumption of an arbitrary good (equality rather than evolutionary survival) as justification for the fraud.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:08:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055445962762665984

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • 2) Scientist: Truth (coherent, consistent, correspondent, rational reciprocal, l

    2) Scientist: Truth (coherent, consistent, correspondent, rational reciprocal, limited, and complete) is power independent. Either you are engaging in full reciprocity correspondent with reality or you are not.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 12:58:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055443586219675648

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680