People justify what they want by looking for comforting words. People know the truth of what it takes to construct what they want by seeking operational definitions.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-10 02:40:00 UTC
Category: Epistemology and Method
-
If you cannot describe what you mean in operational terms then you do not know o
If you cannot describe what you mean in operational terms then you do not know of what you speak. Period. End of story.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-10 02:39:00 UTC
-
ergo we cannot know the truth, we can only know falsehood. Prescription is what
ergo we cannot know the truth, we can only know falsehood. Prescription is what we seek, but it makes for stagnation.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-09 16:59:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718845834448748544
Reply addressees: @bierlingm
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718840786515836928
IN REPLY TO:
@bierlingm
@curtdoolittle What’s the difference between proscriptive and prescriptive? Seems to be used interchangeably in general discourse…
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718840786515836928
-
Prescriptive Norm (should), Proscriptive Norm (should not). While we can know wh
Prescriptive Norm (should), Proscriptive Norm (should not). While we can know what NOT to do, we must always create what we may
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-09 16:58:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718845637773631489
Reply addressees: @bierlingm
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718840786515836928
IN REPLY TO:
@bierlingm
@curtdoolittle What’s the difference between proscriptive and prescriptive? Seems to be used interchangeably in general discourse…
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718840786515836928
-
Non Triviality of Revolutionary Ideas
[O]ld Ideas need a reference. A word. New Ideas an extension by analogy. A few sentences. Novel ideas a chain of reasoning. A few paragraphs or pages. Revolutionary ideas, a framework. A few chapters or a book.
It’s non trivial. -
Non Triviality of Revolutionary Ideas
[O]ld Ideas need a reference. A word. New Ideas an extension by analogy. A few sentences. Novel ideas a chain of reasoning. A few paragraphs or pages. Revolutionary ideas, a framework. A few chapters or a book.
It’s non trivial. -
Operational descriptions are informative. Literary analogies tell us nothing. Pa
Operational descriptions are informative. Literary analogies tell us nothing. Paleo lives. Libertinism’s dead.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-09 15:51:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718828592155729920
Reply addressees: @jeffdeist @mises @LPTexas
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718827434792087553
IN REPLY TO:
@jeffdeist
My talk today at the @LPTexas convention discusses issue libertarianism (good) vs. movement libertarianism (bad).
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/718827434792087553
-
GUARANTEED OFFENDER ( I am guaranteed to offend almost everyone. Why? Because to
GUARANTEED OFFENDER
( I am guaranteed to offend almost everyone. Why? Because to the last, just like all other people, you start with some axiomatic principle that you hold dear, but which is false. We are all rational actors. Saints and sinners all. The question is not how we have been in the past, but what we choose to be in the future. Truth is not merciful to our creature comforts. It is however, the most empowering method of choosing our actions that we can make use of.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-09 12:22:00 UTC
-
(Non-descriptive definitions are part of the reason for the failure of libertari
(Non-descriptive definitions are part of the reason for the failure of libertarianism. With descriptive definitions rather than vague obscurantist “principles” the philosophical vacuousness of the movement is readily exposed. The reason these debates still occur, and the reason this article is just one of thousands of similar pretentions is the fact that the NAP is untestable. And as I have argued, it is untestable just as dialectical materialism is untestable: to allow for individual interpretation of scope of that which can be aggressed upon, and therefore creates a false consensus. NAP sounds meaningful to many but because it’s an incomplete sentence, it leaves the object of aggression substitutable by each individual. AS SUCH NAP IS MORALLY RELATIVE since each person interprets the scope to which aggression must be limited differently. Yet, to form a voluntary polity, one cannot posses moral relativity. The problem with any such polity is (a) whether it is a rational choice versus competing polities and (b) whether it is possible to sustain competition from within such a polity, and (c) whether such a polity would be tolerated by neighboring polities. )
The NAP is just another variation on dialectical materialism or the labor theory of value. It’s another bit of pseudoscientific nonsense. one does not determine that which is “right” – others do. One determines what is right by whether or not others retaliate against you for it.
Walter Bock and Murray Rothbard’s ancestors practiced the NAP in the wildlands and ghettos of eastern europe, and were almost always exterminated or outcast for it. And it is probably the reason why the polity was never able to functionally produce the commons that were necessary for the defense of and holding of territory.
The only liberty that is existentially possible is that which prohibits retaliation, because it is the need for costly that causes demand for the state.
Period. End of story. Individual moral choice is a lie. Morality is empirically determined by the value of cooperation and the cost of retaliation.
But it is a cognitive bias, probably born of developmental defect that causes people to become attracted to libertarianism in order to claim to determine morality on their own, of their own choice, rather than out of necessity. And why? Beucase as outcasts the desire to escape payment for normative and physical commons is a rational reaction to obtaining less value from the commons than one is required to pay in costs.
Source date (UTC): 2016-04-09 10:37:00 UTC
-
La revolución operacional
Texto original de Curt Doolittle, traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U. Disponible en inglés: http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/10/the-operational-revolution/ (Nota importante) [U]no puede describir los eventos que ocurren de forma subjetiva (sobre cómo nos sentimos al respecto); uno puede describir los eventos que ocurren de forma objetiva (sobre cómo los observan terceros), y; uno puede describir los eventos que ocurren de forma operacional (por las acciones tomadas). Uno de los métodos más útiles para sobrecargar, trampear y falsear los hechos es describir los procesos que los desarrollan de forma subjetiva. Por ello es que los científicos físicos describen los hechos de forma operacional, razón por la cual las matemáticas requieren la prueba de la intuición, y por la cual la psicología requiere una prueba de operatividad, y es la razón por la cual en la economía (cooperación) se escribe en materia de acciones humanas. La innovación bandera de la izquierda fue legitimar la pseudociencia que es la psicología con el propósito de sobrecargar, falsea y trampear. El postmodernismo y la propaganda son los mayores logros de la tecnología del “mentir”.
- Si vemos mitos como intentos de explicar verdades, nosotros entonces podemos ver al monoteísmo como un método organizado del desarrollo de mentir por medio de sobrecarga, falseo y trampeo.
- Si vemos a la razón como un intento de explicar verdades, podemos ver a la filosofía como un método organizado del desarrollo de mentir por medio de sobrecarga, falseo y trampeo.
- Si vemos al empirismo como intento de explicar verdades, podemos ver a la filosofía racional (itálicas del traductor) como un método organizado del desarrollo de mentir por medio de sobrecarga, falseo y trampeo.
- Si vemos a la revolución científica darwiniana como un intento de explicar verdades, nosotros podemos ver a la revolución pseudocientífica como un método organizado del desarrollo de mentir por medio de sobrecarga, falseo y trampeo.
- Si vemos a la revolución lógica (filosofía analítica) como un intento de explicar verdades, podemos ver a la revolución del postmodernismo como un método organizado del desarrollo de mentir por medio de sobrecarga, falseo y trampeo.
Si vemos la revolución operativa fallida: -intuicionismo en las matemáticas -operatividad en física -construcción estricta en las leyes -operatividad en psicología -praxeología en la economía -e-prime en los idiomas -verdades basadas en su desempeño en la filosofía Entonces nosotros podemos ver como se ha desempeñado la academia desde que la izquierda nos la arrebató, los intelectuales públicos previos al movimiento conservador de 1980, los medios de comunicación antes de Fox News, como una forma de prevenir la consolidación de la revolución operativa. PROPIETARISMO Yo puedo reparar todo esto incluso solo, distribuir la tecnología para derrotar a los mentirosos. Los únicos medios de derrotarlos es por medio del derecho consuetudinario, los bienes informativos, el significado universal, y el mandato de la garantía y debida diligencia para el discurso público. La izquierda siempre inventará un nuevo método para mentir. Sin embargo, ya tendremos las herramientas para evitar que eso ocurra durante siglos. Curt Doolittle El Instituto Propietarista Kiev, Ucrania