Source: Facebook

REGARDING PHILOSOPHY

I dunno.

As far as I know, one can practice a limited spectrum of methods of producing paradigms (networks) of decidability: occult < theology < literature < philosophy <- common law -> science > mathematics > logic.

We do possess three faculties: intuition-emotion, reason, and physical sensation. And we depend more or less on each of those faculties in each, with law depending upon all, and others depending upon less so.

It’s not unreasonable that some would seek to rely more on intuition, more on reason, or more on physical sense and perception, if for no other reason than intuition is cheap, reason is more difficult and therefore costly, and physical operations are the most difficult and costly of all. But conversely, intuition > reason, and > physical demonstration are decreasingly prone to error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit.

I consider this a scientific, logical, and legal statement, because it has no room for, or tolerance for untestifiable fictionalisms (irreciprocity, pseudoscience, pseudo-rationalism, fiction, and the combination of those in mythology, theology and the occult.) And conversely it demands testifiability, reciprocity, existential possibility, rationality (cost), consistency, correspondence, and coherence.

Common (traditional) Law, reasoning, and observation within that law existed before all other disciplines and exists even where there are no other disciplines, and as far as I know of all other disciplines are derivatives of the rules of resolution of conflict that we call law.

The origin of western philosophy was largely in the circumvention of traditional law, in an effort to reform it to match the rates of innovation and changes in the scale of cooperation – in particular the learnings of mathematics.

It’s certainly true that there has been a conflict between law, and martial authority, and law and religious authority, and even in the modern world, between law and commercial authority, or law and popular authority.

And this is because coercion by various fictionalisms (pseudo-rational, pseudoscientific, supernatural) seek to deceive or coerce others such that they can violate the law that requires the rational, reciprocal, logical, scientific, and existential that can be testified to.

So because philosophy is not as strong (decidable) as law, science, mathematics, because it’s scope is smaller, but does accommodate preference and good rather than decidability(truth).

So I consider philosophy a discipline for violating law (reciprocity, volition, rational choice, costs), science, logic, and mathematics, – all of which that evolved because it was cheaper than experimentation (science).

Or stated more simply, between Saul, Augustine, Plato, And Aristotle, Aristotle’s science won:

Saul(Supernatural) < Augustine(Theological) < Plato(Ideal) < Aristotle(Real Empirical)

And science won because it is more demanding of decidability – but was delayed because it’s more expensive. Philosophy was a cheap substitute prior to the development of science. And all disciplines are now subsets of science not philosophy.

I work in the science of natural law (testimony and decidability). I only use the term ‘philosopher’ to directly compete with the discipline – which I consider, like theology, dead, and or fraud.

(Hopefully that will stimulate a conversation). 😉