What pray tell, is the material difference, between individual anarchic males, and the male heads of noble families, each of whom are peers, not above the other, and cannot question that fact without pain of death?
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-15 06:53:00 UTC
What do you think of this?
Is the whole thing not a silly language game?
Page 6-23:
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 09:06:00 UTC
http://www.stephenhicks.org/#article/26345Why are philosophers stupid about politics?
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-13 01:02:00 UTC
Explanatory Power vs Parsimony
Verification vs Falsification
Correspondence vs Operations?
Proof vs Truth?
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 05:51:00 UTC
QUESTION?
What is the difference, if any, between following the rules in Sinic society, and doing one’s duty in German society?
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 02:49:00 UTC
Is there a city that exemplifies germany, like athens, jerusalem, london, rome or paris do? Was there a philosohpical center of the german enlightenment? I mean kant was from prussia (now occupied by russia).
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-09 08:04:00 UTC
What is the origin of Jewish/Cosmopolitan/Marxist/Postmodern “Psychologizing?” Where does that come from?
We don’t do this in western philosophy, particularly in aristocracy, except under polemical circumstances. It’s considered ill mannered at minimum, is a violation of the equality of condition required to enter into debate, and as such it has and can get you challenged to a duel, and killed – which was only successfully outlawed last century. I suggest wrongly so. It is the worse violation of debate, and an obscurant means of calling someone a liar. And calls his argument into question, not on logical grounds but on grounds of honesty that are a prerequisite for warriors to lay down their arms when entering a debate.
In the west, ridicule is dishonest. It could get you killed. Heck, calling a woman a whore could get you killed. We constrained speech heavily until the marxists abused the constitutional law.
I didn’t really understand it before as a technique for loading, framing, and overloading, nor that it is an evolution of ‘rallying and shaming” used by females to control alphas through competitors.
But where does it start? Where did this evolve from? Why does Popper use it to criticize Hegel (fallaciously in most cases). Why do Rothbard and Hoppe rely upon ridicule when they have a weak argument? Why does rothbard create straw men? Why is Mises adamant that he is right, condemn others as socialists, but write pseudoscience with the air of pontification? Why is nonsense endemic in rothbardian libertarianism? Why are postmoderns masters of it on a scale never seen before? Why are marxists masters of rallying and shaming?
I had thought it was a Marxist strategy arising out of critique. I don’t know a lot of thinkers outside of Spinoza, Maimonides, Mendelssohn, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, Rothbard and Chomsky. Chomsky can’t utter an honest sentence. But Spinoza, Maimonides, and Mendelssohn don’t seem to do anything of the sort.
Why do marxists rely so heavily on ridicule rather than argument? Conversely, why was it so hard, and does it remain so hard, for conservatives to adopt ridicule, and instead continue to levy accusations of immorality? Why do progressives and socialists all conservatives stupid, yet fail to grasp them, while conservatives understand progressives but merely call them wrong and fostering immorality?
I can explain these behaviors in evolutionary terms, and I can explain them in cognitive terms. But what I don’t know is where the use of that form of rhetoric in public originated? Where does this kind of nonsense argument start? Is it in France? Is that where the marxists got their arguments? It is, is isn’t it. But, is that the start of it, or did it exist before?
Was it buried int he lower classes but prohibited like Montainge’s digressions from literary works? Than with the rise of printing it expanded through newly available channels the way ghetto speak has expanded in current language?
So where does this set of techniques come from? Where does the straw man, ridicule, pseudoscientific, ‘critique’ method of fallacious argument that is so expensive and impossible to counter come from?
Help appreciated.
I mean, I know it’s immoral and I know how to arm against it now, but where did it start? It seems so much like french vaudevillian nonsense, and thats the only place I can come from.
Thanks.
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-09 06:14:00 UTC
FROM : Roman Skaskiw QUESTION: Been reading Fukuyama — Seems state structures replaced kinship-Aristocratic ones b/c states were better at coordinating violence and meritocracy (first in war, then in bureaucracy). He uses the end of the Chou Dynasty in China to illustrate this. 1. Do you agree with this assessment? 2. Do you think modern technology and understanding could overcome these disadvantages if we reverted to some form of aristocratic kinship? ANSWER: Yes. Because they had insufficient property rights. Yes, Because they had a low trust society. The monarchies did not have this problem. Nor could they build such great edifices of war. I think, whether Fukukuyama admits it, where all other historians do, the purpose of the Chinese system was the conduct of war and suppression. By contrast, the purpose of the western model is ADJUDICATION. One cannot had adjudication without property rights. One must have tyranny. One cannot have adjudication without property rights, one must have tyranny. Command and control under the western model is superior. Rates of innovation under the western modal are superior. The fact that the Chinese got started first, is not much testimony. The fact that no matter what Europe did, when it used science, it exceeded rates of development of all other civilizations. Property rights and science. They are both ‘CALCULABLE’ institutions. The west, under duress kept the “east” (desert and steppe people) at bay. The east, under duress, kept the “west ” (desert and steppe people) at bay. We just chose different models, and the desert and steppe people are still a (fkng) problem to this day. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
FROM : Roman Skaskiw QUESTION: Been reading Fukuyama — Seems state structures replaced kinship-Aristocratic ones b/c states were better at coordinating violence and meritocracy (first in war, then in bureaucracy). He uses the end of the Chou Dynasty in China to illustrate this. 1. Do you agree with this assessment? 2. Do you think modern technology and understanding could overcome these disadvantages if we reverted to some form of aristocratic kinship? ANSWER: Yes. Because they had insufficient property rights. Yes, Because they had a low trust society. The monarchies did not have this problem. Nor could they build such great edifices of war. I think, whether Fukukuyama admits it, where all other historians do, the purpose of the Chinese system was the conduct of war and suppression. By contrast, the purpose of the western model is ADJUDICATION. One cannot had adjudication without property rights. One must have tyranny. One cannot have adjudication without property rights, one must have tyranny. Command and control under the western model is superior. Rates of innovation under the western modal are superior. The fact that the Chinese got started first, is not much testimony. The fact that no matter what Europe did, when it used science, it exceeded rates of development of all other civilizations. Property rights and science. They are both ‘CALCULABLE’ institutions. The west, under duress kept the “east” (desert and steppe people) at bay. The east, under duress, kept the “west ” (desert and steppe people) at bay. We just chose different models, and the desert and steppe people are still a (fkng) problem to this day. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
(intrigue) (AI) ??(operationalism)??
AI test reveals machines will lie to one another to compete. Is there any operational significance to this?
Source date (UTC): 2014-07-05 22:30:00 UTC