Socrates: Critique
Plato: Pilpul
Aristotle: Truth
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 20:03:00 UTC
Form: Aphorism
-
Socrates: Critique Plato: Pilpul Aristotle: Truth
-
I mean, if you’re articulate, conniving, but not creative, and unburdened with m
I mean, if you’re articulate, conniving, but not creative, and unburdened with moral intuition, then it’s deterministic that you will specialize in parasitism by false promise or moral hazard – and it’s rather obvious that you would develop a group evolutionary strategy that takes advantage of your ability to create exception. Take your average woman’s intuition and means of competition by gossip and undue compliment, remove all fear, and that’s what you get. Reversal of dimorphism seems to have been an effective strategy.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 17:06:00 UTC
-
Self Defense Requires Violence Truth Requires Defense
Self Defense
Requires Violence
Truth Requires Defense
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 13:16:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012686145908625408
Reply addressees: @navyhato
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012630447614930950
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/1012630447614930950
-
Confusing Liberalism with the spread of wealth from the consumption of fossil fu
Confusing Liberalism with the spread of wealth from the consumption of fossil fuels. AFIK we gave up on democracy in ’92, Keynesianism in ’08, and cosmopolitanism in ’12, and the postwar model in ’16. You are trying, but a disconnect between your correlations and econ incentives.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 02:36:04 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012525075034181632
Reply addressees: @sapinker @aeonmag
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012513864146214913
IN REPLY TO:
@sapinker
Reports of the demise of liberalism are greatly exaggerated. Cole & Craiutu show that liberalism “first died in the late 1870s, then died some more at the turn of the 20th century, and has been dying almost continuously since 1920.” https://t.co/V1MA0JBOVv via @aeonmag
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012513864146214913
-
We don’t have anything to sell the left, but we have something to sell ourselves
We don’t have anything to sell the left, but we have something to sell ourselves: Revolution, Secession, Prosperity, Competition, (and speciation). 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 00:21:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012491099322101761
Reply addressees: @TOOEdit
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012373492455518211
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/1012373492455518211
-
There Is No “We”
There is no “WE”. There is us and ours, and you and yours, and they and theirs, and cooperation with you or they, under your or their parasitism, is no longer preferable to separation, war, or even extermination. It is a purely empirical question. Cooperation is only valuable until it is not. Under certain conditions cooperation is profitable – when it is not parasitic. Under other conditions predation is preferable to parasitism. The only question I have is whether separation, enslavement, or destruction is preferable. That is a purely empirical question. The subject of morality is a condition of cooperation outside of cooperation all questions are amoral. Under parasitism only predation is rational. It is a purely empirical question.
-
There Is No “We”
There is no “WE”. There is us and ours, and you and yours, and they and theirs, and cooperation with you or they, under your or their parasitism, is no longer preferable to separation, war, or even extermination. It is a purely empirical question. Cooperation is only valuable until it is not. Under certain conditions cooperation is profitable – when it is not parasitic. Under other conditions predation is preferable to parasitism. The only question I have is whether separation, enslavement, or destruction is preferable. That is a purely empirical question. The subject of morality is a condition of cooperation outside of cooperation all questions are amoral. Under parasitism only predation is rational. It is a purely empirical question.
-
Mythology Makes No Pretense
Mythology makes no pretense, nor law, nor requests no compensation. I’m a fan of fairy tales, myths, legends, histories. They are necessary due to the intertemporal content of their information, and the increasing precision and depth we need as we accumulate knowledge. In the end we should find science and law. But not all of us can complete the journey. My problem is the pretense of truth.
-
Mythology Makes No Pretense
Mythology makes no pretense, nor law, nor requests no compensation. I’m a fan of fairy tales, myths, legends, histories. They are necessary due to the intertemporal content of their information, and the increasing precision and depth we need as we accumulate knowledge. In the end we should find science and law. But not all of us can complete the journey. My problem is the pretense of truth.
-
Our Warning
OUR WARNING *We alone possess agency, will to create sovereignty, and demand for transcendence. There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for any if we fail.*