Curt Doolittle

Category: Epistemology and Method

  • Is Mises’s Action Axiom Self Evident?

    My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable). Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious. What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason. Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.) The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.

  • Is Mises’s Action Axiom Self Evident?

    My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable). Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious. What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason. Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.) The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link. My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident?

    Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg

    Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).

    Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.

    What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.

    Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.)

    The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 15:00:24 UTC

  • My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident?

    My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://www.quora.com/Is-Misess-action-axiom-self-evident/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=7ca09c03

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 15:00:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014161944910225409

  • My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident?

    My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://www.quora.com/Is-Misess-action-axiom-self-evident/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 15:00:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1014161943232380930

  • answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? Is the statement an axiom? No. I

    https://t.co/X0C0GANSPgMy answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg

    Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).

    Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.

    What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.

    Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.)

    The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 11:00:00 UTC

  • answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? Is the statement an axiom? No. I

    https://t.co/X0C0GANSPghttps://t.co/X0C0GANSPgMy answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg

    Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).

    Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.

    What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.

    Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.)

    The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 11:00:00 UTC

  • Pseudo Philosophy Has Six Characteristics

    According to Christopher Heumann, an 18th-century scholar, pseudo-philosophy has six characteristics: A preference for useless speculation It appeals merely to human authority It appeals to tradition instead of reason It syncretises philosophy with superstition It has a preference for obscure and enigmatic language and symbolism It is immoral

  • Pseudo Philosophy Has Six Characteristics

    According to Christopher Heumann, an 18th-century scholar, pseudo-philosophy has six characteristics: A preference for useless speculation It appeals merely to human authority It appeals to tradition instead of reason It syncretises philosophy with superstition It has a preference for obscure and enigmatic language and symbolism It is immoral

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIG

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    I ONLY WORK WITH AND I ONLY CONSTRUCT PARADIGMS CONSISTING OF CONSTANT RELATIONS THE REMAIN CONTIGUOUS ACROSS DISCIPLINES

    In other words, Logic > Mathematics > Physics > Chemistry > Biochemistry > Biology > Sentience > Consciousness > Reason > Calculation > Computation.

    So when you ask me “Hey have you hear of X nonsense?” I hear “Hey have you heard of this set of fictional paradigms that are discontiguous with existential, observable, testifiable, reality?”

    No. Fairy stories. I like fairy stories. But only when they are in fact fairy stories, not fairy stories claiming to be something else.

    There is only one most parsimonious paradigm. And that most parsimonious paradigm is that which consists of constant relations contiguous across the disciplines.

    CONTIGUOUS
    1 : being in actual contact : touching along a boundary or at a point – the 48 contiguous states
    2 : touching or connected throughout in an unbroken sequence – contiguous row houses contiguous vineyards
    3 : next or near in time or sequence -The fires were contiguous with the earthquake.

    DISCONTIGUOUS
    1 : not contiguous – intermittent · sporadic · broken · fitful · interrupted · on and off · disrupted · erratic · disconnected

    CONSTANT RELATIONS
    1 : properties shared between two or more referents.
    2 : properties remaining constant between two or more states.

    INCONSTANT RELATIONS
    1 : properties not shared between two or more referents.
    2 : properties not constant between two or more states.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-02 23:20:57 UTC