It is pretty hard to be better than a good christian for the simple reason that the path to goodness – now from catholics as well as protestants – is ‘personal (direct) works of charity’ toward those in your proximity.
(and I argue that all else is just virtue signaling – a kind of fraud and the opposite of the christian mandate).
The principle virtue of such a mandate is that it’s entirely empirical. It’s deeds(actions) not beliefs(self congratulations) or rituals (self insulations).
There is no better theology than action in the service of others.
If you can do so my charity (caretaking).
If you can do so by production (trade)
If you can do so by war (violence)
Germanicized Christianity (as of vatican II, we are all protestants now) creates the civil society.
Everything else is just virtue signaling so someone else does the work, pays the costs, or takes the risk, and you can feel good about escaping from it.
Source: Original Site Post
-
Russel’s Teapot And The Existence Of God
One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof. You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception. The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable. Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured) Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise. There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers. But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar. Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal) As soon as you admit the criteria of … – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy. -
Russel’s Teapot And The Existence Of God
One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof. You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception. The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable. Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured) Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise. There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers. But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar. Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal) As soon as you admit the criteria of … – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy. -
Define “Know”?
DEFINE “KNOW”? As far as I know (as far as I am aware) it can only mean ‘aware of’. One’s assessment of the truth or falsehood is quite different. The test of that truth or falsehood is something else. The truth or falsehood should we possess perfect knowledge is something else entirely. So we can know something. We can know something is false. We can know something is not false. We can know something is difficult to be other than true. Knowing of WHAT. Most philosophical questions are actually just grammatical sophisms. -
Define “Know”?
DEFINE “KNOW”? As far as I know (as far as I am aware) it can only mean ‘aware of’. One’s assessment of the truth or falsehood is quite different. The test of that truth or falsehood is something else. The truth or falsehood should we possess perfect knowledge is something else entirely. So we can know something. We can know something is false. We can know something is not false. We can know something is difficult to be other than true. Knowing of WHAT. Most philosophical questions are actually just grammatical sophisms. -
Teapots
This is a trivial problem in grammar with the terms truth and proof and can be debunked pretty easily. a) how can you testify that a teapot orbits the sun? This is a very different question than Russell is asking and is the entire reason why philosophy and theology became closely related after because of augustine. We demand warranty of goods and services, but we have stopped demanding warranty of information (words). So the question is, how can one warranty his statement that a teapot orbits the sun? Then why does he say such a thing? In other words, just as in any other crime, what is one’s incentive? -
Teapots
This is a trivial problem in grammar with the terms truth and proof and can be debunked pretty easily. a) how can you testify that a teapot orbits the sun? This is a very different question than Russell is asking and is the entire reason why philosophy and theology became closely related after because of augustine. We demand warranty of goods and services, but we have stopped demanding warranty of information (words). So the question is, how can one warranty his statement that a teapot orbits the sun? Then why does he say such a thing? In other words, just as in any other crime, what is one’s incentive? -
“Why did it take so long to produce an east asian super model?”— Answer is obv
—“Why did it take so long to produce an east asian super model?”— Answer is obvious: 1) Conspicuous consumption is the easiest means of demonstrating signals, and humans determine their self worth and the worth of others by signals just as peacocks do. 2) Supermodels (models in general) serve the purpose of selling to women by means of self identity) (attainable aspirations) 3) One must have what we call ‘middle class incomes’ (post-self sufficiency, disposable income) to purchase signal-goods. 4) Those who look for east asian role models to imitate lacked the economic capacity participate in the market economy. 5) Asians were lost in the permanent poverty of socialism and communism for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, and could not participate in that market economy. 6) Western modes of dress are, and for the time being will remain, optimum signal goods on the INTERNATIONAL market. 7) Enough asian women had to live under western life styles and consumer goods to learn to display the confidence that western women do, and which is so attractive to women who want to increase their signaling. In other words, it wasn’t until recently that it was worth pursuing asian models, because asians were too poor to market to. -
“Why did it take so long to produce an east asian super model?”— Answer is obv
—“Why did it take so long to produce an east asian super model?”— Answer is obvious: 1) Conspicuous consumption is the easiest means of demonstrating signals, and humans determine their self worth and the worth of others by signals just as peacocks do. 2) Supermodels (models in general) serve the purpose of selling to women by means of self identity) (attainable aspirations) 3) One must have what we call ‘middle class incomes’ (post-self sufficiency, disposable income) to purchase signal-goods. 4) Those who look for east asian role models to imitate lacked the economic capacity participate in the market economy. 5) Asians were lost in the permanent poverty of socialism and communism for most of the 19th and 20th centuries, and could not participate in that market economy. 6) Western modes of dress are, and for the time being will remain, optimum signal goods on the INTERNATIONAL market. 7) Enough asian women had to live under western life styles and consumer goods to learn to display the confidence that western women do, and which is so attractive to women who want to increase their signaling. In other words, it wasn’t until recently that it was worth pursuing asian models, because asians were too poor to market to. -
What is the difference between imaginable, logical, empirical and operational? E
What is the difference between imaginable, logical, empirical and operational? Each tests the prior’s claims.