Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • UKRAINE UPDATE : RUSSIAN TERRORISM IS WORKING IN THE EAST The ex-president took

    UKRAINE UPDATE : RUSSIAN TERRORISM IS WORKING IN THE EAST

    The ex-president took $30B with him to Russia to fund the insurrection in the east. Ukraine is too impoverished to defend itself.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 11:27:00 UTC

  • WHY DIDN’T I SAY THAT? –“It seems to me that ethics(/”morals”) dependently “exi

    WHY DIDN’T I SAY THAT?

    –“It seems to me that ethics(/”morals”) dependently “exist” ONLY so long as there also exists at least TWO cognitively willful physical actors … who can volitionally interact. Physics “exists” independently. I think.”–

    Frank Lovell

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 10:40:00 UTC

  • CLOSER ON ELIMINATING PLATONISM FROM TRUTH Well thanks to friends here I have go

    CLOSER ON ELIMINATING PLATONISM FROM TRUTH

    Well thanks to friends here I have gotten a bit closer. Close enough that I can say that sure, performative truth is ‘real’ but as used, the concept of hypothetical/ theoretical/ ‘ultimate’ truth is not false or immoral, any more than any other analytically deductive proposition say, of equality, in math, logic, or science is false. Like the term ‘numbers’ in math, is obscurant but useful, and not false in ACTION, even if it is linguistically false. While the terms are false. The deductive operations used are not. And while I am attempting to accomplish in action (operations), what linguistic philosophers have done with language, to improve upon their logic, by avoiding the semantic and correspondent issues that arise in current formal logic, I only need to determine whether the underlying operations are true, not whether the words used to describe those underlying operations are precise.

    I was very focused on ‘blaming’ a branch of philosophy or logic for the propagation of platonism. Because all these imaginary and imprecise terms inherited from religion and platonism have been used to create obscurant, anti-scientific means of deceptive language in economics, politics, ethics and law. But it is not so much their fault, as it is the lack of a formal logical test of such statements as a requirement for ethical, legal, political and economic speech.

    I won’t go into all the detail now. It’s more important that I recognize that I do not need to look for blame (because I was angry) I just need to look for the solution, and that solution is that operationalism and instrumentalism are ‘truth and extant’ and that everything else is allegory. But that allegory can lead to true propositions and false propositions. Just as it is possible in formal logic to state that which cannot be operationally performed. Just as it is possible to state in allegorical language that which cannot and does not exist.

    The problem is purely one of ethics and politics: we did not understand the origins of morality or the necessity of morality, and the logical impossibility of any alternative.

    I only need address ethics because ethics is bound to reality in ways that imagination, the imaginary, and the logical and the deductive are not.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 06:31:00 UTC

  • MORE EQUAL WORLD : THANK THE ANGLOS FOR CAPITALISM AND FOR DRAGGING HUMANITY OUT

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d79ffff8-cfb7-11e3-9b2b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz30MSBHmRhA MORE EQUAL WORLD : THANK THE ANGLOS FOR CAPITALISM AND FOR DRAGGING HUMANITY OUT OF IGNORANCE AND POVERTY.

    –“When looking at the actual consumption per head, the report found the new methodology as well as faster growth in poor countries have “greatly reduced” the gap between rich and poor, “suggesting that the world has become more equal”. The world’s rich countries still account for 50 per cent of global GDP while containing only 17 per cent of the world’s population.”–

    Of course, no man is felt a hero to his debtors.

    The only measure of equality is consumption – the rest is investment and taxes. If we look at consumption per capita, rich western countries are far more equal than their ‘egalitarian’ counterparts. Because all that extra ‘wealth’ is merely the means of influencing the voluntary organization of production. It is ‘pressure’ not consumption. It’s not ‘real’ money that can be consumed.

    But getting human beings to understand that it is not consumable without likewise losing the ability to voluntarily organize production, is just beyond their comprehension.

    Rich countries are rich because they voluntarily organize very complex, highly rewarding production with little corruption at low risk.

    One may not think of the US military as an organizer of production. But both the UK Navy and the US postwar military are the defacto-organizers of world production.

    The question remains, that if the west ceases organizing voluntary production by meritocratic means, then what form of involuntary production by unmeritocratic means will prevail.

    History is not terribly comforting in this regard.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 05:47:00 UTC

  • WE CAN NOW OBJECTIVELY AND SCIENTIFICALLY JUDGE GOOD PHILOSOPHERS AND BAD PHILOS

    WE CAN NOW OBJECTIVELY AND SCIENTIFICALLY JUDGE GOOD PHILOSOPHERS AND BAD PHILOSOPHERS

    (suggestions wanted)

    If we acknowledge that democracy is a failure, and all philosophers who attempted to justify democracy failures, and all philosophers who attempted to expand democracy into socialism and postmodernism failures, we are left with instrumentalists (empiricists) and reactionaries of various fields.

    Philosophy as a discipline, must face the uncomfortable fact, that (a) the metaphysical program failed and was solved by cognitive science, and (b) the democratic program failed and was solved by economists (c) therefore the political program failed, and was solved by heterodox philosophers (d) the ethical problem failed and was solved by economists and heterodox philosophers. The reason for this is obvious: the incentives in Academia to attempt to replace the church’s mysticism with some sort of collectivist democratic rationalism, had it’s predictable influence.

    Philosophers can produce good neutral and bad influences. Unfortunately, the greater body of philosophers that have been influential since the american revolution, have been more destructive than beneficial. We can never forgive Marx and Freud, any more than we can forgive Kant and Rousseau.

    “Thou Shalt Not Harm” not only applies to doctors, but to philosophers, and to all of us.

    I give great weight to computer science because unlike the logic of language and unlike abstract and mathematical logic, computer science does not drop the property of operationalism in real time from its reasoning. As such it has higher correspondence with actionable reality than mathematics, and farm more so than formal logic. And if we seek to make informal logic of any value we must learn from computer science and return the property of operationalism to philosophical discourse. Because without it, it certainly appears to consist almost entirely of nonsense built upon linguistic deception.

    ==

    99. Aristotle

    99. Niccolo Machiavelli

    99. Adam Smith

    99. Max Weber

    99. Emile Durkheim

    99. David Hume

    99. John Locke

    99. G.W.F. Hegel

    99. Friedrich Nietzsche

    (lesser candidates)

    99. Robert Michels

    99. Steven Pinker

    99. Jonathan Haidt

    ==

    99. Rene Descartes

    99. Alan Turing

    99. Karl Popper

    99. Gottlob Frege

    99. W.V.O. Quine

    99. Saul Kripke

    THE BAD PHILOSOPHERS

    99. Immanuel Kant

    99. Ludwig Wittgenstein

    99. Karl Marx

    99. Soren Kierkegaard

    99. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    20. John Rawls

    99. Martin Heidegger

    99. Jacques Derrida

    99. Michelle Foucault

    99. Jean-François Lyotard

    99. Jean Baudrillard

    99. Murray Rothbard

    THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL’S BAD PHILOSOPHERS

    Max Horkheimer

    Theodor W. Adorno

    Herbert Marcuse

    Friedrich Pollock

    Erich Fromm

    Otto Kirchheimer

    Leo Löwenthal

    Franz Leopold Neumann

    Siegfried Kracauer

    Alfred Sohn-Rethel

    Walter Benjamin

    Jürgen Habermas

    Claus Offe

    Axel Honneth

    Oskar Negt

    Alfred Schmidt

    Albrecht Wellmer

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 05:06:00 UTC

  • AS ENEMY COMBATANTS: 250 MAJOR FIRMS LEAVE CALIFORNIA SINCE 2011 “[They have] a

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/042914-698893-toyota-moves-from-torrance-california-to-dallas-texas.htm#ixzz30LdXIxBEBUSINESS AS ENEMY COMBATANTS: 250 MAJOR FIRMS LEAVE CALIFORNIA SINCE 2011

    “[They have] a regulatory structure in California that treats businesses, especially manufacturers, like enemy combatants. Joseph Vranich, a California-based business relocation adviser, who has long tracked the migration of companies from California, cites more than 250 major firms that left the state since 2011 through last year. Why? “Today,” he said, “California businesses can reduce costs by 20% by moving to many states and up to 45% in some areas.” One big cost factor: California’s green-energy mandates are driving up electric utility costs to near the highest in the nation.”

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-30 02:24:00 UTC

  • BOILING FROG? Contrary to popular imagination, the frog does eventually realize

    BOILING FROG?

    Contrary to popular imagination, the frog does eventually realize that the water is boiling. Apparently, like the frog, humans eventually realize that their tax, regulatory, and legal policy are killing them. But only when its too late.

    Our civilization is about to boil. And I’m going to add salt to the water.

    http://english.caixin.com/2014-04-22/100669023.html

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 13:02:00 UTC

  • Zwolinski 🙂 Heaven

    http://capture2text.sourceforge.net/Matt Zwolinski

    🙂 Heaven.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 11:45:00 UTC

  • “BENEFICIALLY NOVEL, GOOD, BAD(WRONG), AND DANGEROUS” (Discussion on Bleeding He

    “BENEFICIALLY NOVEL, GOOD, BAD(WRONG), AND DANGEROUS”

    (Discussion on Bleeding Heart Libertarians: The Measure of an Economist or a Philosopher)

    All,

    A good economists provides us with insights into the state of affairs we live in. A novel economists provides us with new general rules (a theory). A good philosopher explains or re-explains the changes in the world to us in current language. A novel philosopher provides us with a new general rule (a theory).

    It is not better to be good or novel. It is most important that one not be dangerous.

    Freud, Marx and Cantor reintroduced mysticism in the form of obscurantism. Russell compounded that new mysticism. The postmoderns have been terribly damaging to institutions, morality and language. Rothbard did more damage than good. Most of his history is quite good. His ethics were a catastrophe and set us back by decades. A disaster I have been struggling to correct.

    So one can be novel, one can be good, one can be wrong and one can be destructive. I don’t care much about the first three. The fourth quadrant is what I worry about most. Because bad and dangerous philosophy turns out to spread far faster than good and beneficially novel philosophy. Just like bad news spreads faster than good.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 10:05:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo

    Curt Doolittle shared a photo.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 08:28:00 UTC