Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • YOU’RE CHRISTIAN – IT’S JUST WHICH GRAMMAR YOU USE. A thing is defined not by wh

    YOU’RE CHRISTIAN – IT’S JUST WHICH GRAMMAR YOU USE.
    A thing is defined not by what it is but by what it is not. (Disambiguation). We merely state what it because it requires less knowledge an information.

    This is why I’m a bit exasperated by europeans who claim they are atheists and not christians following the christian ethic that we have developed in concert with our proto-european ethics and morals over the past two centuries.

    You are christian if you are not something else. Because there are no civilizations without some group strategy, some metaphysical value judgements, some means of persisting them, into traditions values norms and institutions.

    You could say that europeans developed natural law and that christianity made it accessible to the lower and underclasses, and as such there is little difference between christianity secular humanism, and the natural law of cooperation.

    Ergo:
    Intuition > Reason……. > Evidence
    Faith ….. > Philosophy > Law (Science)

    However, you must also understand that it took christianity to convert the via-negativa of the law, the via positiva of virtue, in to a via positiva of forgiveness which made it possible for the little people to possess and demonstrate virtue.

    Europeans are in fact the remains of european aryans, european greco-romans, and european christians, and the restoration of european greco-roman with the sciences.

    Via Brad
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-17 21:24:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780708866550059008

  • Plato was a popular failure that paved the way for th sedition of Christianity (

    Plato was a popular failure that paved the way for th sedition of Christianity (progressive-to-marxist). While Aristotle, Epicurus, and the Stoics – the masculine thought of the aristocracy (and all our European strategic cultural advantages) – were defeated by the sheer numbers of the feminine priesthood and peasantry.

    The axial age was necessary as trade was restored after the Indo European cause of the Bronze Age Collapse – the equivalent of the fall of Rome on a larger scale, affecting the entire fertile crescent – but even worse.

    This period was, not indifferent from the age of enlightenment as we recovered from the fall of Rome and for the same reasons: the need for political and cross-cultural cooperation by the adoption of a standard and weights and measures for human behavior in a form that the illiterate and ignorant peasantry could understand in the servile east, and that could unify the aristocracy in he sovereign west.

    So we are in the same period. The consequence of the fall of europan people and the colonization of them by the reformation of abrahamic sequence of religions into the marxist sequence of religions, and massive immigration sponsored by jewish intellectuals just as was christianity.

    I don’t counter-signal people our side of the fence unless they’re causing false promise or harm. And I don’t like to counter signal Imperium press whatsoever.

    But the great leaps are always made by the European masculine aristocratic minds. But the advantage they created always gives opportunity for the enemy their inventions have defeated.

    There are no answers in philosophy or literature. They are all in military, scientific, technological, economic, legal and the political order that results from their use.

    This means on must be genetically biased to the masculine conservative, or possessed of the ability to master the tools of our successful thought – but hopefully both.

    We should never has allowed our christian optimism about man to allow those without demonsrated responsibility for the private and commons, or women who are all but incapable of it, into the political order – for they are the locusts of consumption that destroy all our innovation advancement, and competitive superiority to others.

    Affections
    -CD

    Reply addressees: @0hPolaris @radiofreenw

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-17 19:17:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780676900408479745

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780668031745614186

  • PHILOSOPHY ENDED IN THE LAST CENTURY The problem with philosophical tradition is

    PHILOSOPHY ENDED IN THE LAST CENTURY
    The problem with philosophical tradition is that it’s predicated on textual and scriptural interpretation. It’s verbal not operational.

    But words don’t mean things, people mean things and they satisfy the demand for unambiguity, consistency, correspondence, and the possibility – or they don’t.

    So the entire program seems to have ended somewhere between Godel and Kripke: The reliance on set logic rather than operations, on non-contradiction vs operational possibility, on ideals rather than distributions, and ignoring costs, rather than accounting for them.

    In other words: Performative truth can only consist of satisfaction of demand for decidability in the context (which, like math and measurement, determines the degree of precision – scale dependence).

    Continental Philosophy still survives because the continent is still trying to find a bias to human experience, rather than a scientific description of human experience that we can determine is correct given its complete explanatory power for all experience.

    I have no idea why philosphy departments still survive and I doubt they will outlast the next generation.

    But people don’t want to pay the cost of learning the sciences, so they stay with literature, which remains somewhat intuitionistic.

    It’s hard to teach people to reason (or calculate) entirely. We all want to intuit rather than reason. (avoid the cost).

    But the discount on thought results from malinvestment in what is intuitionistically accessible, (cheap to test), and creates high costs over time.

    The investment in learning independent of intuition, then using it to explain intuition, produces long-term returns.

    So the cheap route, as always, produces its own limits (ceiling).

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-17 00:32:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1780393969232363520

  • ARISTOTLE’S ORIGINATION OF NATURAL LAW Aristotle’s conception of natural law is

    ARISTOTLE’S ORIGINATION OF NATURAL LAW
    Aristotle’s conception of natural law is integral to his teleological understanding of the universe, emphasizing purpose and natural order rather than a constructed set of legal rules:

    Natural Law in Aristotle’s Thought:
    Aristotle defines natural law not as explicit statutes but as an inherent order discernible through reason. This law is constant and universal, guiding both natural phenomena and human conduct, unlike human-made laws which are variable and context-dependent.

    In works like “Nicomachean Ethics” and “Politics,” he elucidates that natural justice and law possess a universal power of decidability that does not depend on human perception or societal convention. He argues that aspects of justice are embedded in nature and thus hold universal validity.

    Causal Foundations of Natural Law:
    Aristotle’s natural law emerges from his view that everything in nature is directed towards a purpose or end (telos). Natural law stems from this purposeful existence and the rational capacities inherent in humans, who are naturally equipped to discern and align with these universal principles.

    The capacity for human reasoning and virtue is in alignment with the cosmic order. Aristotle’s virtue ethics, detailed in his philosophical works, advocates living in accordance with this natural law, pursuing the ‘good life’ or ‘eudaimonia,’ achieved by fulfilling one’s natural purpose.

    Implications for Human Law:
    Aristotle distinguishes between justice by nature and justice by convention, recognizing that while natural law is immutable, its application through human laws must adapt to societal variations. Ideally, human laws should extend natural law, tailored to specific community needs but ultimately reflecting universal justice principles.

    In essence, Aristotle’s natural law represents the rational and purposive structure of the universe, accessible through human reason and central to achieving the highest form of good through a life of virtue. It serves both as a description of the world’s inherent order and as the cause for humans to act in harmony with this order, realizing their true nature and potential.

    Result
    In other words, without knowing of evolution, Aristotle is attributing causality and natural law to evolutionary consequence, and in his general counsel, that man should live according to nature not according to Ideals, fictions and lies.

    What is Not in Aristotle That Was Added by Christians?
    The Christian adaptation of natural law significantly diverges from Aristotle’s formulation by embedding theological elements that Aristotle’s philosophy omits:

    Divine Origin and Authority: Christianity posits that natural law is authored by God, thus divine will becomes the source of natural law. In contrast, Aristotle sees natural law as emerging from the inherent purposes and functions of things, discerned through reason without divine attribution.

    Theological Purpose:
    In Christian doctrine, the ultimate purpose of natural law is aligned with fulfilling God’s will, leading to eternal salvation or damnation.
    In other words “you must obey” (a stick)

    Aristotle’s concept is secular; the purpose of natural law is to achieve eudaimonia, a state of flourishing based on virtues, confined to earthly existence without eschatological implications.
    In other words, ‘you will flourish” (a carrot)

    Moral Fallibility and Sin:
    Christianity introduces the concept of original sin, framing human nature as inherently flawed, requiring divine grace for moral guidance and adherence to natural law. Aristotle attributes moral failure to ignorance or lack of virtue, considering human nature as fundamentally rational and oriented towards good.
    In other words “you are evil so obey”

    Role of Revelation:
    Christian natural law often relies on divine revelation through scripture for its elucidation and application, asserting that human reason alone is insufficient due to the corrupted nature of human will.
    “You’re evil and stupid so obey the Church”

    Aristotle’s approach relies solely on human reason to understand and apply natural law based on observable natural order.
    “You can reason you can choose the good, beautiful, excellent and heroic, and you will benefit from it.”

    In summary, the Christian reinterpretation of natural law transforms it from Aristotle’s rational, purpose-driven understanding based on intrinsic natural properties to a divinely dictated, eschatologically significant framework where human nature requires divine correction and guidance.

    In other words christianity teaches:
    –‘You are bad and stupid, so don’t think, but obey’.–

    Analysis:
    Now if you follow my work on natural law, converting anglo enlightenment empiricism, to contemporary scientific operationalism, you’ll note that of course, I take aristotle’s position because I do not believe I am or man is either evil or stupid but constrained by circumstance and possessed of sufficient free will to choose the good over the bad.
    But that man may need education in order to understand the problems of cooperation as human numbers and variation scale. So that what may appear ethical and moral in one case may not be in another.
    This is reasoning.

    So my work in natural law simply uses the findings of the sciences especially those over the past century and a half to state the natural law of cooperation as an evolutionary outcome of evolutionary computation over time, and itself an example of evolutionary computation by processing vast amounts of information for vast differences in abilities, wants and needs.

    Aristotle in this case was largely right. Even if he lacked the knowledge of causality that we possess today he understood from the evidence at hand the concept of balance (what we call reciprocity and proportionality), that both Common distributive justice (mutual insurance, proportionality) and Individual corrective justice (sovereignty, reciprocity, restitution, punishment) was necessary to preserve an equilibrium of cooperation that suppressed injustices – not produced justices. 😉

    Aristotle’s concept of justice as proportionality is deeply integrated into his view of natural law. He believes that justice, as a virtue, fulfills the natural order and purpose (telos) of human society. Justice ensures that individuals can achieve their potential and contribute to the flourishing of the community, which is the ultimate goal of the polis (city-state) as a natural entity. In Aristotle’s view, the laws of a polis should reflect this natural order by promoting justice as proportionality, ensuring that each person receives what is due to them according to their merit and the nature of their relationships and transactions.

    In other words, Aristotle favored Classical Liberalism, and rule of law by the natural law.

    Cheers
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 18:29:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779940094134099968

  • EUROPEAN ARISTOTLE VS SEMITIC ABRAHAMISM (prelude to understanding the natural l

    EUROPEAN ARISTOTLE VS SEMITIC ABRAHAMISM
    (prelude to understanding the natural law of cooperation absent semitic superstition and primitivism)

    Abstract:
    Aristotle in proper greek tradition is seeking to advise already good people on how to live better lives, while the abrahamic theology in proper semitic tradition is seeking to advise people who are not good on how to live good lives. You may not like this observation but that does not mean it isn’t true. Why? Sovereign Aristocratic civilization in Europe and Subject Peasant Civilization in the middle east. As such the wisdom literature of each needed to solve the problems distinct to each.

    –“The Greek focus on improving the good towards the excellent, and the Abrahamic focus on uplifting the general populace towards goodness”–

    Explanation:
    The philosophical and theological differences between Aristotle’s ethics and Abrahamic moral teachings reflect the distinct societal structures from which they emerged. Aristotle, addressing a relatively small, elite segment of Greek society, assumes a baseline of rational and ethical competence. His philosophy aims to refine virtues and enhance personal and civic excellence, suitable for an environment where participation in public life and intellectual debate is expected of free citizens.

    In contrast, Abrahamic religions developed within more hierarchical and diverse societies, encompassing a broad socioeconomic spectrum. These religions provide explicit moral codes to guide a varied populace towards righteous living, establishing a standardized conduct that can apply universally, irrespective of individual moral starting points. This approach ensures widespread accessibility and applicability, critical in societies with significant variations in education and moral development.

    Thus, the Greek tradition is designed for an aristocratic context where the focus is on enhancing existing virtues towards optimal civic and personal function. The Abrahamic tradition, however, operates within a context aiming to elevate a broad population to a basic threshold of righteous behavior, critical for maintaining order and unity across diverse and extensive communities. Each system’s moral guidance is tailored to the specific needs and structures of its society, using laws and ethical teachings as tools to shape and stabilize the community and guide individual conduct.

    Detail:
    So, there is a profound contrast in philosophical and theological traditions that reflect different social structures and cultural needs. The distinction between the Greek (particularly Aristotelian) and Abrahamic approaches to moral and ethical guidance indeed mirrors the societal and governance systems predominant in their respective regions and historical contexts.

    Greek Philosophical Tradition
    In Ancient Greece, especially in the works of Aristotle, philosophy was often directed towards a relatively small, educated, elite segment of society. These individuals were typically already engaged in a life where personal virtue and excellence were seen as attainable and desirable. Aristotle’s philosophy assumes a base level of moral competence and rationality, focusing on the refinement of virtues and the pursuit of eudaimonia (flourishing or happiness). The concept of being a good person was tied to being a well-functioning person according to one’s rational nature and social role.

    Aristotle’s ethics, therefore, cater to those who are already on the path of moral contemplation, aiming to provide them with the intellectual tools to perfect their virtues. This approach is characteristic of a society where the individual’s role in the polis (city-state) was paramount, and where civic participation and personal excellence were closely intertwined.

    Abrahamic Theological Tradition
    In contrast, Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) arose in contexts where societies were more diverse and included a wide range of socio-economic statuses and levels of education. These religions often spread among populations that included large numbers of individuals with limited access to formal education and philosophical training. As such, the religious teachings needed to be more universally accessible and applicable to everyday life.

    Abrahamic theology typically focuses on laws, commandments, and moral codes that are designed to guide adherents from a broad range of moral starting points towards a life of righteousness and divine obedience. This includes explicit prescriptions and prohibitions intended to manage a diverse populace comprising varying degrees of moral rectitude.

    Cultural and Social Implications
    The differences can be viewed through the lens of the social and political structures of these civilizations. Greek philosophy often reflects the ideals of a sovereign, somewhat aristocratic society where the free male citizenry engaged directly in civic life and philosophical debate. The focus is on advising those who are already considered good on how to excel further in their moral and intellectual endeavors.

    In contrast, the Abrahamic traditions emerged within and addressed more hierarchically structured societies, where the masses were often subjects rather than participants in the sovereign functions of the state. The moral and legal codes provided by these religions served to unify and regulate a wide range of individuals, including many who might not have had the initial moral or intellectual formation that Greek philosophy presupposed.

    Conclusion
    Thus, the “wisdom literature” of each tradition developed to address the specific needs and challenges of their respective societies. The Greek focus on improving the good towards the excellent, and the Abrahamic focus on uplifting the general populace towards goodness, both serve the goal of social cohesion and individual improvement, but they do so in ways that reflect their distinct social structures and historical contexts.

    My Work
    So, I work from the aristocratic position trying to lift people from bad to good, and if possible from good to excellent – if ever possible. In other words I do not provide a compromise or presumed good for the moment, but the science of excellence for eternity.

    The peasants may need their solace and sedation but for those of us able, we seek excellence not just good enough.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 17:59:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779932460123385856

  • (re: criticisms) I am on a mission on behalf of our people in particular, and hu

    (re: criticisms)
    I am on a mission on behalf of our people in particular, and humanity in general, and have paid a great price for pursuing it.
    That mission is to produce a body of law and a judiciary (think an Inquisition) to bring it about the restoration of the *trajectory* of our civilization because of the lessons of our past, not to recreate our past.
    And if possible I seek to create the solution and the inspiration to rebel as did our ancestors and restore the natural law to european peoples and restore that trajectory.
    Conversely, I do not have a mission to create communities and solve tactical issues that affect our people. But I am happy that people who want to participate with me, us, do. In other words, I recognize that the feeling of making a tangible difference in time is important to others who are on the journey with me over time.
    So I encourage these things, these ‘tangible’ goals, to provide fulfillment for others – not because it is central to my mission. I am still not sure it assists my mission or not. Because unless these things result in more judges or more warriors who show up to demand change, every other positive bit of feedback is just therapy.
    As such, I do. not find meaning in criticism of the temporality of my efforts. Instead I find virtue in the use of my (now our) work so that those who do want temporal results can achieve them.
    If at any time the temporal interests and need for satisfaction (finding of meaning) are counter to my intertemporal interests instead of mutually beneficial, then my mission over time is more important than others’ mission in time.
    Yet if we both are achieving satisfaction in pursuit of our missions despite the time horizon of feedback, then we are all succeeding together – which I prefer.
    But issuing criticisms or demands that I sacrifice my mission over time, for others missions in time, when the consequences are inversely proportional to outcomes is not something I’m interested in investing in.
    Love you all.
    It’s a privilege.
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-15 16:08:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779904542085107712

  • USA is intentionally withdrawing from policing world transport and trade as it s

    USA is intentionally withdrawing from policing world transport and trade as it should have in 1992 at the end of the cold war. Americans voted out Bush Sr., the most capable international president in history who could hav reformed policy.. Clinton undermined the military. GWB overextend under the neocon presumption its possible to civilize primitives. Americans gave up on the postwar project. Obama did nothing and military decayed, accelerated it, and abandoned foreign policy altogether. It took Trump to make ending the postwar policy public and material. Biden continues it. And Iran, Russia, China are taking advantage of that withdrawal.

    Reply addressees: @StephenKalil @RealScottRitter

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-14 02:31:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779336642160898048

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1779308880234738005

  • COMPARATIVE RELIGION AND THE NEXT REVOLUTION It’s difficult to study comparative

    COMPARATIVE RELIGION AND THE NEXT REVOLUTION
    It’s difficult to study comparative civilization without study of comparative religion. 😉 I went to a private catholic high school where we were taught comparative religion. Which I wish was standard fare, just as we were taught how to conduct marriage and family, which I also wish was standard fare.

    However, I work on religion only as a social scientist, in an effort to explain positive an negative consequences of religiosity, and while making an effort to discover a path to non-false religions that do not require suspension of disbelief.

    So while I have studied regional religions and the age of transformation as producing an early form of mass production of conceptual and behavioral weights and measures that reduced friction and increased chances of cooperation, I find no value in discussions of religions on their terms, only as social science.

    And you will not that I hold a dim view of all the systematic fictionalisms, whether sophistry to idealism(philosophy), magic to pseudoscience, occult(divination, fortune telling) to esotericism(textualism, numerology), supernatural to theological, or critique to seditionism. These are all claims of knowledge that doesn’t exist.

    Religion can function, optimally, as an education system to indoctrinate the intuition of the young into the group evolutionary strategy by means of suggestion, repetition, social and emotional reinforcement, and in that role it provides positive mindfulness by assisting in the transfer of manners, ethics, morals, and traditions between generations, facilitating cooperation and as such minimizing conflict and alienation.

    Religion can also act as as a supernatural coping mechanism, is necessary for the production of mindfulness (discipline or sedation) by those whose empathizing, social rejection due to undesirability, neuroticism, or lack of intelligence sufficient, as a safeguard against alienation, anxity, and depression. It’s an addiction response.

    Affections
    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-10 00:12:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777852081392570368

  • AVOIDING CENSORSHIP: MAINTAIN CIVILITY Let me educate y’all a bit on the decisio

    AVOIDING CENSORSHIP: MAINTAIN CIVILITY
    Let me educate y’all a bit on the decision criteria for censorship of public speech – it’s mostly manners. If you don’t have manners, then you have no place in public speech.
    1) Decorum: Keep the language civil. (Emotional Loading) Do not violate “Decorum”, by using curses, slurs, or other emotionally loaded aggressions.”
    2) Content: Keep the content civil: Avoid the criminal, illegal, sexually explicit, brutal, grotesque, and shocking.
    3) Position/Viewpoint: Keep the Position Civil: Speak the truth as you understand it, and if possible explain rational incentives, failure to understand them, and whether or not the behavior is transparent and reciprocal.
    Don’t engage in “gossiping, shaming, moralizing, psychologizing, ridiculing, rallying, undermining, rolling accusation, doxxing, canceling”
    Most of the time differences are an extension of sex differences, escalated by class, culture, nation, and race differences in moral PREFERENCE – all of which are reducible to sex differences (feminine vs masculine) instincts.
    The solution to our moral differences is trade, because all moral settlements like all political settlements consist of compromises.
    Grow up.
    Suppress heated emotion.
    Respond with civil Reason.
    If the government seeks to do otherwise they must be overthrown and replaced.
    -Cheers

    Reply addressees: @yankees_28th @elonmusk

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-09 18:43:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777769208857694208

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777695431335502217

  • IS ALL SYSTEMIC REASONING PHILOSOPHY? Depends on how we define philosophy. Man R

    IS ALL SYSTEMIC REASONING PHILOSOPHY?
    Depends on how we define philosophy.
    Man Reasons no matter what. He must.
    if by Philosophy we mean the production of a coherent system of valuation and decision on the good using verbal (set) logic that’s possible by verbal reasoning then yes, maybe.
    If by empiricism we require observable evidence to falsify our reason, and instrumentation to falsify our perception;
    If by science we search for first principles and causes by the use of testing using empiricism and instrumentation to falsify our observation, our perception, our reason;
    If by computation we construct existence from first causes, producing a universal logic of decidability;
    Then there is a difference between Reasoning, Mythicism, theology to systematize mysticism, Philosophy absent mysticism, Empiricism, Science, And Computation (Formal Operational Logic).
    And given that philosophy not a first cause, but reason is, then no we depend on reason not philosophy. Or we depend on the entire hierarchy of reasoning just as we do on the entire hierarchy of mathematics.

    Reply addressees: @kyle_sheehan

    Source date (UTC): 2024-04-09 15:14:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777716611551518720

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777689791854706801