September 19th, 2018 10:41 AM
from: Curt Doolittle
to: Stephen Sage
Re: Postmoderns, Fictionalisms, And historical Evolution of the Techniques of sophism.
—“What is the “universal fictionalism” of the left? Do you mean to assert that fictionalism is universal among the left? It is certainly not the case that the doctrine of fictionalism is endorsed, or even known of, by all leftists. Or do you mean that some leftists are fictionalists who wish to apply their doctrine universally across all human discourse? It’s not obvious why that would be noteworthy; you’d expect some overlap between fictionalists and leftists.”—
EVOLUTION OF FICTIONALISMS (SOPHISMS)
Mathematical Idealism > Supernormalism: Idealism > Supernaturalism: Abrahamism (judaism, christianity, islam) > theology > Pseudo-rationalism: continental philosophy > Pseudoscience: {Marxism (social science), Communism-Socialism (economics), Boasian anthropology, Freudian psychology, cantorian sets, Marxist-frankfurt Critique, Postmodern Critique and justificationary Pilpul (Sophism) including { diversity is a good rather than a bad, the fallacy of oppression rather than domestication, the denial of the catastrophic burden of underclasses, the denial of genetic dominance, the denial race-class-sex differences, the denial of dominance of iq-industriousness as the principle determinant of class differences, the denial of iq distributions as the principle determinant of economic possibility, the suppression of eugenics, the denial that western civilization alone dragged mankind out of ignorance, poverty, hard labor, disease, and early death, the social constructionist movement, the denial of the failures of abrahamism, marxism-commnism-socialism-freudianism-boasianism, Feminism, the intentional destruction of our education systems, rule of law, the constitution, and the intentional and successful overthrow of western civilization via immigration in response to the failure of ideas.
[W]hat do conservatives have against them?
1) The religious right which had formally aligned with the left until the left adopted marxism and atheism and attacks on the family as the central object of policy has become the activist wing of conservatism. But, conservatism is simply empiricism, because our law is empirical, and has been for 3500 years. And activism and incrementalism have been used to destroy western civilization due not to western oppressions but western tolerance and virtue signaling.
2) the tactic of seizing power from the landed aristocracy under the myth of equality was successful, just as the tactic of seizing power from the middle class by the underclass has been successful. This is because of WW2, the eugenics movement, which was necessary to continue western advantage upon the productivity of the industrial revolution, was halted and all related though actively suppressed in the academy and state. So it is not possible for conservatives to speak the truth in public because of suppression of the truth; that every point of IQ is the highest possible return for every population and the quality of life of all peoples is determined almost entirely by their success at suppression of the reproduction of the underclasses (or their culling but starvation, disease, and war).
3) Because (until now) the west relied on traditional inheritance of norms, traditions, and laws, and relied on a competition between intellectual disciplines, and markets in all walks of life, and as such the western group evolutionary strategy was not written down. For simple civilizations there are something between two and twenty books. WEstern civilization requires a lifetime of study because the group evolutionary strategy wasn’t written down – but habituated. Which made it vulnerable (hence why i have written it down in scientific terms).
So the left (rule of discretion for the purpose of dysgenic equality of individuals) lies consistently, and the right (rule of law for the purpose of eugenic meritocracy of families) simply cannot tell the truth because it is actively oppressed.
—“Can rightists not be fictionalists? I’d wager that some of your more sophisticated conservatives try to preserve valued religious discourse by adopting some kind of fictionalism, the argument being that if discourse is generally not descriptive but fictional, then religious discourse does not deserve elimination for failing to accurately describe reality. Jordan Peterson’s antics when pressed on religious truth come to mind. And I can say with confidence that many conservatives would recoil at the notion of “universal empiricism,” especially the Christian ones (whom you might say are conservative DESPITE the best efforts of the Christian Spirit).
Or do you use “fictionalism” to mean something other than what it means in, say, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy? (I suspect this is the case.)”—
Mar 24, 2017 11:43am
DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM
(important for propertarian core)
Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of âmake believeâ, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a âuseful fictionâ).
Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses:
1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.
2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face valueânot reduced to meaning something else:
conversation(bonding or entertainment),
discourse (discovery),
argument(persuasion), and
testimony(reporting),
Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of
description vs fiction,
honesty vs deceit, and
truth or falsehood,
…. of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)
3) The purpose of discourse(discovery) in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.
Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:
1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)
2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and;
3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.
4) religious fiction in all areas of thought â our most ancient form of fictionalism.
5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult)
We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past.
Of these groups:
0 â Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism)
1 â Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ),
2 â Supernormal Physicists, and
3 â Mathematical Platonists;
All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons:
1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths.
2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or
3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or
4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains.
5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered.
And so:
If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and
If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.
Then:
We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.
We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.
Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
—“It’s also not clear what you mean by the “denial of truth and reason.” “Truth” and “reason” are not assertions, so we don’t know what’s being denied when one denies “truth and reason.” I assume you know that there are serious challenges to certain canonical conceptions of truth, reason, meaning, etc. that cannot be reduced to mere “rhetoric” or “technique” (except in the rather post-modern sense in which all thought is the upshot of technique, instrument, negotiation, persuasion, unconscious drives, etc.).”—
As far as I know the problem of truth is solved. Although it has taken me 100 pages to put it to bed forever
In general there exists either science and law(falsification) truth and decidability, or sophism and fictionalism(justification) – meaning.
I have as far as I know addressed every single alternative hypothesis and none survive.
—“The western philosophical tradition has so far failed to produce necessary and sufficient application conditions for these concepts “true,” “rational,” “meaningful,” etc. (One could be awarded a philosophy PhD for developing a significantly novel theory of truth, let alone a TRUE and novel theory of truth.) There have been many persuasive attacks on essentialist uses of the core modernist concepts, e.g. truth, belief, meaning, reason, the mind, the individual, etc. I can expound at length about those attacks if you’d like, e.g. Kripke, Quine, Sellars, Rorty, late Wittgenstein. Thus I was drawn toward non-essentialism about these concepts, which means I meet one of the (insufficient) conditions of postmodernism.”—
Not any longer. no.
—“Could a conservative serve as a paradigm case of postmodernism, i.e. could a conservative be definitive of postmodernism? No he couldn’t, the history being what it is. But I see no reason why a conservative could not be considered some KIND of post-modernist, especially in his rejection of Enlightenment liberalism. I think Nietzsche in certain moods or under certain interpretations can get you close enough. “—
It would require we adopt internal consistency as has the left rather than external correspondence as does the right (empirical).
—“The leftist post-modernists didn’t abandon their lefty preferences, they just abandoned the hope and the pretense that those preferences were authorized by God, pure reason, or the structure of reality as disclosed by the unfaltering progress of the scientific method.’—
in other words, as I have stated, they have simply evolved abrahamism (indoctrination by chanting), pilpul (justification), critique (straw manning), and “Disapproval, ridicule, shaming, rallying, gossip, and reputation destruction” (the female method of violence), from the supernatural and sophist, to the pseudoscientific and sophist (marxism), the the pseudorational and sophist (postmodern) to combat against the evidence of sexual, social, economic, political, and military market value.
—“They admitted that they were their own authority, that they made assumptions they couldn’t defend intellectually, and that their values, beliefs, and hopes might indeed be incommensurable with others.”–
Correct, they advanced the abrahamic sophism of religion from supernaturalism to pseudoscience, to pseudorationalism having failed as reality, science, argument, and resorted to pilpul (excuses), critique (reputation destruction and heaping of undue praise), in order to achieve in the modern world (destruction of markets and meritocracy) as they did in the ancient world, and destroyed every major civilization of the ancient world other than india and china.
—“I’d say a rightist post-modernist could likewise hold on to his values, preferences, traditions, etc. but he would have to drop the modern-sounding arguments in their favor. Just imagine a self-satisfied Richard Spencer quipping, “Gender roles are a social construct… and a good one at that!”—
So now that you’ve written a very nice use of pilpul yourself (NAXALT and its equivalents, conflated conservatism with religion, and equated preference with truth, and produced a straw many by doing so…. It’s pretty obvious to me and everyone else that you are either possessed of a biologically female mind (women don’t need to be taught this behavior, it’s natural and necessary to favor conformity over truth, and to advance her children despite their lack of merit), or you have been sufficiently indoctrinated into the abrahamic technique of using the feminine strategy rather than the european male: truth, duty, sovereignty, reciprocity, meritocracy, rule of law of reciprocity (tort), and markets in all aspects ofl ife (association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, and policies) that separated the west from the rest – for the simple reason that meritocratic markets under rule of judge discovered law adapt faster and suppress parasitism and predation faster, and provide greater opportunity and incentive for competition faster, than all other human organizational models combined.