https://twitter.com/CuffyMeh/status/533652693374738432Best description of tolerance so far:
You can’t wear that.
You can’t eat that.
You can’t do that.
You can’t say that.
You can’t think that.
#LiberalPuritanism
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-20 04:43:00 UTC
I CAN TRANSLATE THIS ONE TOO:
—“(a) Mathematics is common sense; (b) do not ask whether a statement is true until you know what it means; (c) A proof is any completely convincing argument; (d) Meaningful distinctions deserve to be preserved.”—
Morality is common sense. Do not ask whether a statement is moral unless you know what it means. a proof of construction is a completely convincing argument because that is all we seek to prove.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 20:18:00 UTC
EXISTENTIAL NUMBERS FOR EXISTENTIAL CREATURES
—“The primary concern of mathematics is number, and this means the positive integers. . . . In the words of Kronecker, the positive integers were created by God. Kronecker would have expressed it even better if he had said that the positive integers were created by God for the benefit of man (and other finite beings). Mathematics belongs to man, not to God. We are not interested in properties of the positive integers that have no descriptive meaning for finite man. When a man proves a positive integer to exist, he should show how to find it. If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself.”— (Bishop 1967, Chapter 1, A Constructivist Manifesto, page 2)
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 20:16:00 UTC
PROFOUND: MEANING AND TESTIMONY
—“Brouwer’s criticisms of classical mathematics were concerned with what I shall refer to as ‘the debasement of meaning’”— (Bishop in Rosenblatt, 1985, p. 1)
Let me see if I can translate this one….
—“My criticisms of rationalism are concerned with the debasement of the meaning of truth: that which I can testify to having observed. And by consequence the cumulative externalities produced by the systematic debasement of the meaning of truth, and therefore the systematic debasement of our ability to testify truthfully. High trust societies, and their economic velocity, are not possible, or is liberty, under rationalism independent of the requirement for construction”—
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 19:57:00 UTC
PROFOUND: UNRIGOROUS THOUGHT IS NOT USELESS
—“We are not contending that idealistic mathematics is worthless from the constructive point of view. This would be as silly as contending that unrigorous mathematics is worthless from the classical point of view. Every theorem proved with idealistic methods presents a challenge: to find a constructive version, and to give it a constructive proof.” — (Bishop 1967, Preface, page x)
Now… lets translate this into the moral domain:
—“I am not contending that any rational method is worthless for the purpose of truth-telling. That would be silly. Unrigorous thought is useful – we can arrive at theories by whatever means it is possible for us to do so. Every theory that survives by unrigorous – meaning rational – means, presents us with a challenge: to find an operational version and therefore demonstrate that it is existentially possible, open to observation, and therefore something that it is possible to testify to.”—
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 19:53:00 UTC
PROFOUND: OPERATIONALISM (CONSTRUCTIVISM) AND GODS
—“When a man proves a positive integer to exist, he should show how to find it. If God has mathematics of his own that needs to be done, let him do it himself.”— (Bishop)
I wonder if I can translate this into the moral domain:
“When a man asserts that an action is moral, he should show how it is constructed of fully informed, voluntary exchanges, free of negative externality. If the gods have some sort of morality of their own, let them practice it.”
Oh.. I think I’m proud of that one. 🙂
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 19:41:00 UTC
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 10:11:00 UTC
de.aristocratia
—“And how can any man be commended, if he is gentle towards the wicked?”—Archidamidas
Punish the wicked.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-18 21:00:00 UTC
“[G]ods exist as numbers exist and formulae exist and narratives exist.”
Adam Voight
Just to clarify: I think the original post is making the claim that ontologically, God falls into Popper’s category of “Thirdness” or the “Third World”. Religion is extremely adaptive; even the greatest critics of religion can see that and have said it in many ways. I even think that fictional literature falls into the same category, although it is nowhere near as adaptive as religion. I’m also critical of the “meme virus” theory of religion for reasons I won’t go into here, but even in this theory, religion fall into the same category of beings. The objects of faith are on my view not viruses, but they and numbers are memes. It would require a long detour through the philosophy of science and metaphysics to justify and clarify the ancient reverence for the exact sciences and to demarcate them from theology and mythology. I won’t do it here due to constrains on my time, but it’s not that hard for a philosophically literate person to see how this can all be true.
You could make a case that religion and money are the “cause” of much evil, and this case would also be seen by the reader of the late Heidegger to cast a negative light on mathematical science. While this perspective is a interesting one to ponder, it’s not sufficient to justify practical Luddism or radical mislogy.
This sort of issue is where a little Aristotle goes a long way.
“[G]ods exist as numbers exist and formulae exist and narratives exist.”
Adam Voight
Just to clarify: I think the original post is making the claim that ontologically, God falls into Popper’s category of “Thirdness” or the “Third World”. Religion is extremely adaptive; even the greatest critics of religion can see that and have said it in many ways. I even think that fictional literature falls into the same category, although it is nowhere near as adaptive as religion. I’m also critical of the “meme virus” theory of religion for reasons I won’t go into here, but even in this theory, religion fall into the same category of beings. The objects of faith are on my view not viruses, but they and numbers are memes. It would require a long detour through the philosophy of science and metaphysics to justify and clarify the ancient reverence for the exact sciences and to demarcate them from theology and mythology. I won’t do it here due to constrains on my time, but it’s not that hard for a philosophically literate person to see how this can all be true.
You could make a case that religion and money are the “cause” of much evil, and this case would also be seen by the reader of the late Heidegger to cast a negative light on mathematical science. While this perspective is a interesting one to ponder, it’s not sufficient to justify practical Luddism or radical mislogy.
This sort of issue is where a little Aristotle goes a long way.