You know how a reasonably smart person hears a theological argument and understands its ridiculous? Or how a scientist hears a rationalist argument and understands it’s ridiculous?”Testimonialists” understand most speech is just as ridiculous. And it’s humbling – and a bit scary.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 19:27:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974728778067869697
Until you understand the difference between justificationism (proof) and survival (truth), and between answering known questions,and solving problems the solution to which is unknown, you really don’t know how absolutely stupid you sound when you think you’re speaking reasonably.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 18:37:32 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974716309488525312
BTW, I do science(testimony) and law(Decidability). As far as I know, philosophy is limited to the determination of personal choice, and interpersonal good. And that is probably all that is left for philosophers to judge.
Truth is now in the domain of science – as it should have been all along.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 13:29:00 UTC
—“PLEASE DEFINE DEFLATIONARY GRAMAR”—
(also: See the various categories of Truth (including deflationary).
Deflationary <-> Inflationary <-> Conflationary <-> Fictionalism
DEFLATIONARY: identity(constant relations), Mathematics(positional relations), Logics(sets of relations), Algorithms (States and Transformation of states), Procedures/Recpies(states, transformation of states, by operations), Contracts(exchanges), Survival (from competition)
INFLATIONARY: the descriptive narrative. the fiction.
CONFLATIONARY: addition of inconstant relations for purposes of association(transfer) or suggestion (deception)
FICTIONALISM: supernatural, ideal (especially platonism), pseudoscientific (especially marx, boaz, freud), pseudo-rational (Especially pretense of closure), pseudo historical (especially revisionist history whereupon present knowledge, luxury, and incentive, is attributed to past actors.)
GRAMMAR: Rules of continuous disambiguation.
SEMANTICS: sets of constant relations.
PARADIGM: Networks of sets of constant relations.
In other words we have developed deflationary, inflationary, conflationary, and fictionalist (fraudulent) grammars, wherein the possible operations(transformations, comparisons,) and therefore possible paradigms and semantics (constant relations) are increased or decreased in scope in order to test and falsify (deflate by disassociation) or communicate (inflate by association) or mislead (inflate, conflate, and fictionalise) for the purpose of self, and other, fraud, deception, pretense.
In other words, anything that is not false or immoral/unethical(involuntary transfer) is a truth candidate, a preference candidate, and a ‘good’ candidate.
This exercise is just codifying in scientific terms the 4000 year old empirical law of tort (reciprocity): do whatever you want but don’t display, speak, or perform a fraud no matter how you justify doing so.
Ergo, via positiva philosophy is limited to the selection of personal preferences and contactual goods, but otherwise, as far as I know, the subject of truth is complete and now science (as it probably always should and could have been had the Stoics not be suppressed by the eastern empire.)
The problem is, we have regulated action, we have regulated production (commerce and trade) we have regulated contract (Promise of performance) but we have not regulated speech, for the simple reason that it has been heretofore too difficult to limit speech to that which is warrantable.
Ergo, if it isn’t warrantable, we can’t tell it’s not false or unethical/immoral directly or by externality..
No man wants laws to bound his ambitions for self delusion as to his social, sexual, economic, political, and military market value. No murderer, theft, or fraud wants constraints on his parasitism and predation. Likewise no social climber, virtue-signaller, priest, public intellectual, wants limits on his speech which constrains his ability to defraud himself and others in pursuit of attention, status, and virtue signals that might increase his perceived social, sexual, economic, political, and military value to others.
But yet our uniquely aggressive rate of western evolution in all fields has been possible because of our incremental suppression of violence, theft, and fraud in concert with our rapid advancement in technology, economic, social, political, and military order.
Fraud is fraud no matter what excuse we make for it. And while it is one thing to imagine fraud, it is another to speak, advocate, and publish it.
😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 12:23:00 UTC
No, it’s a question about the difference between theology and philosophy on one hand and science, cognitive science, natural law (reciprocity), economics on the other. In other words, between that which is free of fictionalism and that which is not.
The question remains, we can learn from history, biography, science, economics, or we can learn from the narrative, archetypes and plots, or we can learn from religion, philosophy, and the occult.
There is reason we identify ‘fictionalisms’ in each discipline (and I have worked on this subject for the past ten years), and that is because they are self referential rather than suffering and surviving the test of falsification by demonstration.
As far as I know, assuming that we separate the study of grammar (continuous disambiguation), logic(formal disambiguation), semantics(constant relations), and paradigms (networks of constant relations), that it is very difficult to find a question asked in any philosophy that is not simply avoidance of science(the sciences), natural law (reciprocity), and economics(results of cooperation) for the purpose of avoiding the falsification of what which which values as either immoral, or deflating of status, and self confidence.
As such philosophy is currently used for the purpose of self help, which is to provide pseudoscientific or pseudo rational justification of intuitions and priors so that individuals develop the courage to act or tolerate their status: social, sexual, economic, political, and military value. Or it is used to avoid the high cost of learning rationalism over religion, or science over rationalism.
Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 08:34:00 UTC