WHY AM I AN ANTI-PHILOSOPHY ‘PHILOSOPHER”?
One would only read continental philosophy if one was not competent to read contemporary algorithmic logic, genetics, cognitive science, behavioral economics. Philosophy as a paradigm, as knowledge, and truth rather than just choice…
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-08 01:34:42 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1810125322450301280
All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should and largely do converge, just as all logicians should and largely do converge.
The difference between their convergences consists in: (a) the requirement for the true (logic), the testifiable (science), and the preferable (philosophy),
(b) the decreasing requirements for consistency and correspondence in the logical, scientific, or philosophical domains,
and,
(c) the requirement for consistency across domains.
In this sense, there is a reason for little divergence among logicians, more divergence among scientists, and far more among philosophers – and irrelevance among theologians.
I don’t think much of philosophers, which is why I am somewhat frustrated that my work in logics, which is profound, is categorized by some as philosophy, and others and formal science.
The primary problem I observe with philosophers is trying to theorize on the good first instead of the true first. Whereas I codify the true first and care little about which potential good people choose from that suits their interests.
This is the optimum frame of reference that I know of.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-06 21:05:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809695211334819840
All philosophers should and largely do converge just as all scientists should and largely do converge, just as all logicians should and largely do converge.
The difference between their convergences consists in: (a) the requirement for consistency and correspondence in the logical, scientific, or philosophical domain,
(b) the requirement for the true (logic), the testifiable (science), and the preferable (philosophy),
and,
(c) the requirement for consistency across domains.
In this sense, there is a reason for little divergence among logicians, more divergence among scientists, and far more among philosophers – and irrelevance among theologians.
I don’t think much of philosophers, which is why I am somewhat frustrated that my work in logics, which is profound, is categorized by some as philosophy, and others and formal science.
The primary problem I observe with philosophers is trying to theorize on the good first instead of the true first. Whereas I codify the true first and care little about which potential good people choose from that suits their interests.
This is the optimum frame of reference that I know of.
Source date (UTC): 2024-07-06 21:05:35 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1809689383211266050
No. Sorry. The only possible purpose of truth is decidability within the tolerance for infallibility. The only existentially possible meaning of truth is testifiability – speech about the universe. Everything else is error, bias, or deceit. If you mean that the universe is consistent independent of the observer, then that’s correct. But you’re trying to lie (as is common) by producing relativism (lying).
Reply addressees: @DaveTrader07
Source date (UTC): 2024-06-22 22:12:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1804638547414306816
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1804637372719472823
(a) Anyone claiming to be a prophet is a liar – only philosophers and theologians exist. And and theological philosophers just lie to pretend knowledge and certainty they do not and cannot know, to convince illiterate ignorant and unintelligent demographic distributions.
(b) Islam was spread by the sword and taxation. It was even more destructive than the Great Khan.
(c) Islam only spread because the plague killed half of the population of the ancient world, and the superior civilizations of the Persians and the Europeans were exhausted from warfare.
(d) While communism sent nations backward with two hundred hears of regression that they CAN recover from, islam destroyed every civilization it touched reducing it to ignorance and superstition dysgenia and authoritarianism: North African, Levantine, Mesopotamian, Persian, NW Indian, Anatolian, Byzantine, and even southwest europe still struggles to recover from the tyranny. The Christian middle east had promise and islam, despite pillaging the knowledge of the superior civilizations, by the 900s rapidly became fundamental to serve the low IQ of the region, and was surpassed by Indian, east asian, and european civilization such that by the time of the crusades, europeans had to teach levantines how to farm efficiently.
Reply addressees: @Unknown_Parinda
Source date (UTC): 2024-06-20 15:29:24 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1803812403177828352
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1803771994426777862
Superiority is an overwhelmingly demonstrated fact in every walk of public life. In fact, despite our attempts we have yet to find just one woman capable of theoretical genius. Same for physical ability. Same for social and economic policy. And we know why (and I study why).…
Source date (UTC): 2024-06-11 20:16:29 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800623158896075017
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800622025939005649
See, that’s the problem. The “No True Scotsman” fallacy. If I want to define religion as first principles, it’s not true. If you want to define religion as supernatural that’s a subset of that institution that we call religion. Now you could say we need another name for the production of mindfulness, of which, supernatural religion is one means. Or we can say that it’s just an evolution of grammars from most empathic and imaginary to most systematic and concrete. Generally speaking humans need a sequence of grammars that mirror human development and human developmental ability. Generally speaking to produce coherence in a population and suppress conflict groups need a standard of weights and measures of ideas and behavior, and a system of debt to obligate them to it so that ostracization and shame regulate adherence to it.
Reply addressees: @AutistocratMS @SRCHicks
Source date (UTC): 2024-06-11 19:24:07 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800609977909809152
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800607680966299687
Correlation with woke and left is (a) female (b) low verbal intelligence. Female means of attention seeking is victim claiming, oppression claiming. When its’ just a matter of rebellion against our domesticating of ‘feral’ women. (like her).
If a woman is rejected constantly during her life she will retaliate by antisocial means, rather than accept her fate as undesirable, she uses accusation and undermining to obtain the attention she cannot by civil and reciprocal means.
Reply addressees: @anderstegn
Source date (UTC): 2024-06-11 18:30:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800596567885303808
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1800592704147231186
The entirety of the left (and the cognitively feminine) is to avoid self regulation, adaptation, and responsibility. So, it’s obvious: They want control and authority to impose it. It’s not that they hate the police etc, it’s that they hate the obstacle to their power to end the suppression of their irresponsibility.
Whenever a leftist (or woman) says anything that doesn’t make sense to you, then simply look for what self regulation, adaptation, risk, responsibility accountability they’re seeking to avoid.
We teach this as as a science including the sex differences in deception and fraud and warfare.
Reply addressees: @NuSecretShopper @whatifalthist
Source date (UTC): 2024-06-08 00:47:13 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799241738986422273
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1799227168641138758
Apologies in advance but it needs to be said:
White superiority is an empirically demonstrated fact in every dimension of measurement possible. But white supremacy is either a suggestion of responsibility for those less able, or a a false accusation against superiority, And whites have learned by colonialism. Postwar attempts at domestication into human rights reciprocal trade and sovereign borders, and post 1960 immigration, that non whites cannot be governed into equality, incentivized into equality, or assimilated into equality – and instead they are destroyers of genetic, institutional, cultural capital, and the high trust norms manners ethic as and morals in both display word and deed, that through self domestication and genetic pacification whites have produced while maintaining maximum Individual responsibility for reciprocal insurance of self determination by self determined means that we call freedom, liberty, and sovereignty. And outside of small numbers of the upper classes who are unable to form subcultures, no other people demonstrates will or capacity to achieve that equality that we achieve with one another. This is not an opinion it is the evidence of twenty five hundred years of experiments at equality that have always failed. And so white are giving up on the false promise of the Christian sedition of universalism an like the Chinese and Japanese and Koreans who are our only near peers, deciding that grate walls and oceans and separation is the only means of both self defense and incentive for others to self domesticate as well. Good intentions are irrelevant in matters of domestication.
Source date (UTC): 2024-06-03 19:04:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1797697184084697088