(thought)
I’m getting the feeling that all set based argument is just lying.
I mean we can TEACH by transferring properties via sets. But you know, you gotta criticize that nonsense once you turn the lightbulb on, oyu gotta look around the room a bit and make sure you see what you think you see.
You do that by sequences. Not just ORDERED SETS, but supply demand CURVES with LIMITS.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 05:23:00 UTC
THERE IS ONLY ONE PHILOSOPHY IF WE SPEAK THE TRUTH. THE REST IS IGNORANCE, ERROR, BIAS AND LIES
(very important for anyone interested in philosophy)
*(How should we teach Philosophy? Let me tell you.)*
One can teach philosophy as historical LITERATURE(Errors, Lies and Failures). Or one can teach philosophy as the evolution of TRUTH TELLING (science).
If you want to teach the history of TRUTH then you teach western philosophy – at least you teach a small subset of it. (A very small one).
If you do teach truth then philosophy is equivalent to a STEM course SEQUENCE:
1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech)
2 – Law (social/cooperative science)
3 – Economics (organizational science)
4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement )
5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe)
6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials)
7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction)
If you want to teach literature, then teach moral literature.
SEQUENCE:
1 – Mythology, (Non-Conflationary Analogy)
2 – Theology, (Authoritarian/Conflationary Analogy)
—
3 – Moral Literature, <<—- Almost All ‘Philosophy’
4 – The Novel and Short Story, <<— Incl., Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Etc.
—
5 – History, (description)
6 – Biography,(description)
—
7 – Argument (coercion)
7 – Essay (opinion)
8 – Poetry and Verse. (expression)
WE MAY DIVERSIFY LITERATURE BY CULTURE LIKE DIET, AND FESTIVALS.
But truth bears no competition. Polylogism cannot exist. All such attempts are merely ignorance, error, bias and lies.
THE WEST EXCEEDED THE REST THREE TIMES.
In the Steppe.(horse, wheel, bronze, heroism (and technology))
In the Ancient World (heroism, truth, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, and technology)
In the Modern World. (heroism, truth, trust, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, accounting, common law, and technology )
For these simple reasons: Truth not compromise, Analytic(non-conflationary), not conflationary, Competition(sovereignty), not Decision(rule).
OTHERS MUST LEARN TRUTH. WE DO NOT NEED TO STUDY ERROR.
LIMITS: SPEAKING IN SEQUENCES (SPECTRA)
I follow a general rule that if I speak in ideal types (concepts) and I cannot position an argument or idea on a spectrum (define its limits) then I do not know what I am talking about, and will unknowingly engage in conflation and imprecision from which no deduction is possible, since each attempt merely amplifies errors of conflation. Yet this is precisely what men do, because most men do not seek to discover uncomfortable (expensive) truth (requiring adaptation) but to justify a utilitarian falsehood (limit costs of adaptation).
PHILOSOPHY = CHOICE/PREFERENCE + DECIDABILITY/NECESSITY
Any Philosophical Framework, no matter which argumentative method is used to construct it (myth, parable, rationalism, pseudoscience, law, or science) must supply the following in order to produce a change in state of the human mind:
1 – Metaphysical value judgment as to man’s relation with reality (usually if not always unstated).
2 – A set of Concepts, Properties, and Relations,
3 – Values for those Concepts and Relations,
4 – Decidability from those concepts, properties, relations, and values.
And in that metaphysical value judgment, and by the means of arguing in favor of it, do we find the differences between civilizations, religions, and philosophies.
METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS
– The world is uncontrollable(or evil) and I must escape from it. (Mysticism/Judaism/Christianity/Islam = ‘Critique/gossip’ or ‘fantasy worlds’ or ‘utopias’)
– The world is hostile and I can only control how I respond to it (Buddhism = Disengagement)
– The world of man is chaos but we can create harmony, and I must learn to live in harmony with it (Confucianism = Historicism)
– The world is vast and I can only control and be responsible for what I have the ability to control and be responsible for. (Stoicism = Natural Law)
– The purpose of my existence is to alter the world for the better having existed in it. (Heroism = Technology)
ASSUMPTIONS ARE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES
We are (genetically, behaviorally, materially) more or less desirable to others in our capacity as children, kin, mates, friends, allies, leaders, rulers. We call this our ‘class’: Genetic, Occupational, Economic, Social. All of which overlap except for the outliers.
.
STRATEGIES ARE GOOD(LIBERATING) AND BAD(IMPRISONING), NOT MERELY DIFFERENCES IN PREFERENCES
So some strategies will lead you into dysgenia, ignorance, decline, poverty and illness (ISLAM). And some strategies will lead you into slow evolution (Confucius), and some strategies will provide you with eugenics and rapid evolution (Western Aristocratic Egalitarianism “Aryanism”, Middle-Class Rule of Law, Working Class Stoicism, Underclass Christianity.)
WESTERN PHILOSOPHY (HEROISM, LAW[natural empirical], TECHNOLOGY[science], REFLECTS CLASSES
(just as Confucius vs Lao Tzu, just as Brahmins vs the Underclasses) Westerners do not engage in institutional conflation. We separate mythic literature(heroism), religion(sanctity), festival/celebration/sport, education, law, science. And we either produce a subset of each for each class, or we emphasize one or another in each class. In other words, we produce conceptual products for various markets (upper, professional, middle, working, lower, under). And because none has any real power via conflation of argument or institution, this market remains: a competition between philosophies (methods of decidability).
WESTERNERS USE DECONFLATED INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS: SPECIALIZATION NOT UNIFORMITY
This ‘deconflated market’ model is profoundly important when comparing the west to other ‘conflationary monopoly’ civilizations and cultures.
THIS PROVIDES SPECIALIZATION IN EACH TYPE OF ARGUMENT, INSTITUTION
It allows us to specialize in each without sacrificing each out of pragmatic necessity given the diverse abilities of each class (or rather lack of abilities of each class).
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE NOT (UNTIL NOW) HAD A UNIVERSAL COMMENSURABLE LANGUAGE ACROSS INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENT TYPES.
While we have had MONEY to make commensurable good and services across all specializations
While we have had NATURAL LAW to make conflict commensurable across all specializations.
While we have had MATHEMATICS to make everything we measure commensurable across all specializations.
While we have had NATURAL SCIENCE to
We have NOT had a MORAL LANGUAGE OF COOPERATION across all those specializations.
PHILOSOPHY IS LARGELY PRACTICED AS A MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS METHOD OF INFLUENCING THE RULING CLASS (STATUS QUO).
Religion is largely practiced as a lower class means of resisting the ruling class (status quo). Religion coerces man by resistance.
Credit and Trade are practiced as a means of rule by the economic class within the limits fo the religious and legal classes. Finance, Industry, Entrepreneurship, Calculative, Managerial, administrative specialize in organization of production
Law is largely practiced as a means of administrative rule by the ruling class, by employing the professional class, just as war is practiced as a means of territorial rule by the ruling class by employing the working, and underclasses. Law coerces man by force.
Science, technology, engineering, craftsmanship, and labor specialize in transformation (coercing the universe rather than coercing man).
Women specialize in the organization of reproduction, care, and caretaking. They need no ‘religion’ except to confirm the intuitions that they are born with. Festivals, Philosophy, Soldiery are for men. And Religion, Feasts, and caretaking are for women. Not that we cannot preclude one or the other. But this explains the kind of information system (philosophy) we are attracted to: one that justifies our genetic predispositions.
SO PHILOSOPHERS FAILED IN THE 20TH CENTURY
1 – Philosophers tried to make the discipline a SPECIALTY rather than a language of commensurability. (The continued investigation into Truth, since all the other specializations had broken off into sciences,)
2 – Philosophers tried to create a second set of lies, this time with pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience (the cosmopolitans:Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; Rand/Rothbard; and the Puritans: French, and American literary Postmodernists; And the secular Christians Rawls-and-too-many-others-to-list. )
3 – Philosophers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences (cooperation) and instead used a multitude of deceptions and obscurantisms in order to justify authoritarianism(non-cooperation). This exposes most philosophers as theologians in secular rhetorical garb.
PHILOSOPHERS EITHER ENGAGE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH, THE ARTICULATION OF POSSIBILITY, OR THE CREATION OF A FICTION, OR THE CREATION OF DECEIT.
Philosophers have a very poor record in history. Despite so many, it is largely those who struggle to discover empiricism and its offspring ‘testimony’ that have contributed to man. The rationalists are almost universally reducible to excuse makers, and those who attempt to create a rational literature with which to replace biblical literature of mysticism.
Many people who enjoy philosophy are far closer to recreational readers of science fiction and fantasy with which to escape the effort of truth seeking in reality, than inquisitors into truth from which we may construct solutions. We can discover which of these a person is: recreational literature, seeker of a particular solution, or investigator of truth with very few questions and very little difficulty.
Whenever we do not argue in favor of truth we merely deprive Man of the knowledge he needs to invent institutions of cooperation that assist us in cooperating in the real world.
We can use the truth to identify possibilities, or we can deny the truth and create possibilities that require lies (religions) incompatible with reality.
We can create deceptions with which to destroy truth or obscure it.
It is quite easy in retrospect to determine which philosophers have done so.
PHILOSOPHERS AS PROFITEERS ON THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
In other words, philosophers sought a market into which to sell their ideas for profit or coercion, not truth, regardless of profit or coercion.
ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY?
1) Investigate and Prosecute Falsehoods And Their Advocates
2) Incorporate the findings of the sciences such that discover superior truths to those we use today.
3) Discover new possibilities having incorporated the findings of the sciences.
4) Articulate metaphysical representations, Reorganize Concepts, Properties, and Relations, Re-weight Values, and provide new criteria of Decidability.
IS THERE A SPACE FOR LIARS?
No. There is a space for parables. But liars, particularly philosophical liars, should be prosecuted like any other liar that creates a hazard in the commons. Most philosophers function akin to tiger traps baited with words and are completely unaccountable for the tragedy and death that they have caused.
I am a philosopher. As such, a prosecutor. Anything that survives prosecution, and which I am willing to warranty with my life, is worthy of publication into the commons. If either of those conditions fails, then I should be punished for it.
Why should philosophers have greater permissiveness than the manufacturers of ladders, and the brewers of coffee, or the makers of drugs?
They shouldn’t. Because arguably, philosophers and theologians ship the worst product that causes the most harm of any product man has made.
(I know. Everyone wants to play philosopher at everyone else’s expense just like they want to free-ride on everyone else in every other capacity in life. But speech produces consequences. And while we may always say truthful speech produces consequences that we must bear the cost of, there is no reason we must bear the cost of false speech. Especially given how much of it there is, and how expensive it has been for western civilization.)
THE MOST IMPORTANT SEQUENCE
– Testimony(what can I see not infer)
– Vocabulary
– Grammar
– Logic(reason) and Measurement(math)
– Natural Law
– Micro Economics (incentives)
– Strict Construction
– Rhetoric (argument)
-Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1262749110415707/permalink/1304648022892482/
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 04:54:00 UTC
SORRY, BUT PLATO, ARISTOTLE, SMITH(ECONOMICS), LOCKE(LAW), PHILOSOPHY(HUME), JEFFERSON, HAYEK…
These men are Aryans (Heroic, Commons-Contributing, Paternalistic, Domesticating, Aristocratic Egalitarians, Practicing Aristocratic Rule). To the degree that they are Christian, we can say only that there is nothing in the Christian world that was not present in the Aryan world.
The Christian world is but a kinder one in which the underclasses are serfs with moral rights we must respect as good parents, rather than slaves with legal rights we must obey as good rulers as in the ancient world.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 04:27:00 UTC
SIMPLE: ARISTOCRACY +COMMONS, OLIGARCHY -COMMONS
An Aristocracy increases the capital in the commons and an Oligarchy exploits it. That’s the difference.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 04:05:00 UTC
LADIES – YOU”RE NOT THINKING IT THROUGH. MEN ARE SLOW BUT WE LEARN AND WE ADAPT AND YOU WON”T LIKE IT.
Listen ladies. If you won’t have enough children, then why are we men supposed to create order, civilization, prosperity?
You aren’t thinking this through.
You do understand that pickup trucks, keg parties, fires, and rifles, are a lot more fun that working every day right? I mean, If we can get away with a laptop, fifty guys with weapons, campfires at night, and meat to eat then life is pretty damned good.
So keep it in mind. We don’t build civilization for us. We build it for you. Women are riders on their men’s achievements.
But if you won’t keep it going, then why should we?
Bear children. Raise them well. Four at a minimum. Six if you can.
If you agree, then I think men will agree to fund you.
Otherwise america would make a great afghanistan.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 03:59:00 UTC
I love Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 02:47:00 UTC
ADDING DEPTH TO TALEB’S INSIGHT THAT MINORITY RULE IS SUPERIOR TO MAJORITY. (Shhh. Its all in the incentives.)
Nassim,
(edited for clarity)
I’ll fortify your thought experiment a bit. To the best of my knowledge the general argument that reflects the evidence is this:
1) The slower the rotation of elites, the more consistent the policies, the least ‘virtue signaling expenditure’, the least waste, and the least fragility. Consistent policy allows long-term low-cost investment in commons. Preserves knowledge in the administrators.
2) The longer term the incentives the more capital will be accumulated in all its forms. So, Monarchies have the best intertemporal incentives, houses of ‘lords’ so to speak the next best, Westminster/German model parliaments the next, and democratically elected representatives in the American model the worst incentives. Germans seem to produce consistent policies, yet can still be removed from office.
3) Minorities face higher consequences if deposed from power than members of a majority, and they are easier to depose, so they have both incentive to rule well (reduce cost of defense), and to maintain rule(preserve their investments). (The HAN, RUSSIANS/Muscovites), and the TEUTONS/Germanics understood this. The Europeans no longer do. They lost this sentiment in the world wars. Aside from Jefferson’s attempt to codify natural law in an extant document and order, America has been a very bad influence on the world since its revolution.)
4) The more thorough the rule of law, the higher the trust, the faster the economic velocity. So, Rule of law (common, judge-discovered, natural law) is more important in producing good policy than the form of government if the aristocracy (martial class) is large enough. If a professional bureaucracy can form prior to the expansion of the franchise, then Continental Law can function as well as Common Law with a smaller aristocracy (martial class).
5) So, most civilizations fail to defeat i) Malthus, ii) Rent Seekers(corruption), iii) Familism(corruption) for any one of these reasons: (a) inability to form a military/martial/nobility class capable of enforcing rule of law and profiting from its enforcement (Nobility). (b) inability to concentrate wealth without ever-expanding corruption (Homogeneity), (c) inability to direct proceeds to the production of commons(universalism), (d) inability to create a class capable of sustained policy development (minority control)
So it’s not so much that it’s minority rule, but that it’s CONSISTENT rule, with intertemporal incentives, while still able to ‘throw the bums out’, with rule of law limiting their actions, and suppressing corruption. And minority rule tends to be more consistent. (And monarchies were more tolerant.)
Net: incentives of representative governments constantly trying to hold to their positions produce the worst policy because they have the worst of all incentives: urgency and unaccountability.
Reversal: If you are in a heterogeneous, tribal, familial, civilization, lacking a militia (universal military), and a large enough middle class to demand and require rule of law, and if you have its opposite (universal theocracy), and if you do not have harsh winters to reduce the size of the underclasses without invoking moral hazard, you will have a very difficult time creating prosperity compared to a homogenous, outbred, militial civilization, with harsh winters, and putative rule of law. Nobility makes an administrative class, makes a middle class makes a working class, makes an over-reproductive underclass, and rents expand by all classes until the civilization is fragile or stagnant and cannot respond to shocks or competitors.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 02:35:00 UTC
Curt Doolittle shared a post.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-01 10:47:00 UTC
I thought this might interest you, Curt, William and Andy.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-01 08:53:00 UTC
—“I hoped to help … But I see that you are in love. Take care.”— Ayelam Valentine Agaliba
( The most gracious takedown I’ve heard in a long time. lol )
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-01 02:30:00 UTC