DEFINING “PHILOSOPHY”
I define philosophy as the search for decidability given an objective or set of objectives. (preferences and goods)
I define truth as the search for decidability independent of objective or set of objectives. (truth)
I define science as the use of instrumentation both logical and physical to create measurements and systems of measurement, that reduce reality to that which we can perceive, compare, decide, and act upon: reduce the imperceptible to to analogy to experience.
In practice philosophers have done as much bad (marx, plato, buddha, kant, Abraham, Muhammed) as they have done good (Confucius, Aristotle, bacon, newton, smith, hume).
So it is possible to separate the techniques of those philosophers who have caused harm from those who have created good. And that difference is in conflationary prose(fiction) vs deflationary prose (measurement). Or put differently, those people who write literature, and those people who write religion(conflating law and wisdom lit), from those people who and those people who write science – that which is simply true whether we like it or not.
If we launder philosophy of fictions and deceits, then philosophy and science differ only in that science via negative tells us what can and cannot be done, and philosophy via positive suggests how to integrate new knowledge into the current network of truths, goods, preferences, and the decidability of each, by reorganization of categories (Names), relations, and values to take advantage of that new knowledge.
Unfortunately, truth is beneficial for all indirectly, but falsehood is beneficial for many directly. In other words, we all love our comforting fallacies. (90% of people think they are in the top 10% of employees for example.) We all love to think we are good people but the truth is that a very large percentage of people are detrimental to the society that they live in regardless of their genetic, social, and economic classes.
So there will always exist a demand for religion (comforting lies), and literary philosophy (comforting fiction), as well as for scientific truth (decidability whether comfortable or not).
Because there will always be a market demand for self deception, merely comforting utility, and decidability in matters of conflict.
One of the most disturbing behaviors I find among all of us who are interested in philosophy, is the attempt to find a substitute for the deceits of religion – but in rational (kantian) instead of supernatural (abrahamic) prose.
So I suspect that while religion (mythology/abrahamism-zoroastrianism), literary philosophy (reasoning/plato), logic(justificationism/law), and science (measurement/decidability) are all included under the blanket of ‘philosophy’ (portfolio of decidability), that philosophy will forever forward be the subject of intellectual ridicule just as religion has now become the subject of intellectual ridicule. (And has become categorized with theology and unfunded by universities).
But this is because philosophers have not defended the term or the discipline from religion and literature, and preserved it as a domain of logic, science, and law.
So how does one define Philosophy? The use of a set of inflationary, ordinary, and deflationary vocabularies and grammars (I combine them into ‘grammars’) including magic, myth, literature, law(rationalism), science, logic, and mathematics, to provide decidability in the satisfaction of preferences, goods, and truths, such that we may act in furtherance of our wants and needs in a universe the causal density of which is beyond our intuition’s abilities to provide us with choice.
Source: Original Site Post
-
I Know This Phase Of The Work Isn”t That Interesting
I KNOW THIS PHASE OF THE WORK ISN”T THAT INTERESTING (From Curt Doolittle: via VK.com) I know that working on “Grammars of Commensurability and therefore Decidability- both Inflationary, and Deflationary” is not terribly interesting to most followers. Any more so than the period I was working on Testimonial Truth was. Unfortunately, the edifice depends upon the logic and grammar of truthful speech. It’s this truthful speech, and the method of analysis that is required to produce it, that is the foundation of propertarianism. Testimonialism provides the grammar, property-in-toto provides the vocabulary, and acquisitionism provides the logic. So while I appreciate everyone’s interest when I’m talking about either psychology, sociology, western uniqueness, religion, market fascism, and revolution, the ability to understand these ideas, and to demand them in practice, is predicated upon the ability to put the arguments forward truthfully: meaning in deflationary, commensurable prose. But the rest of the work is not so technical, and should be more accessible – and more interesting. 😉 Hugs all. -
I Know This Phase Of The Work Isn”t That Interesting
I KNOW THIS PHASE OF THE WORK ISN”T THAT INTERESTING (From Curt Doolittle: via VK.com) I know that working on “Grammars of Commensurability and therefore Decidability- both Inflationary, and Deflationary” is not terribly interesting to most followers. Any more so than the period I was working on Testimonial Truth was. Unfortunately, the edifice depends upon the logic and grammar of truthful speech. It’s this truthful speech, and the method of analysis that is required to produce it, that is the foundation of propertarianism. Testimonialism provides the grammar, property-in-toto provides the vocabulary, and acquisitionism provides the logic. So while I appreciate everyone’s interest when I’m talking about either psychology, sociology, western uniqueness, religion, market fascism, and revolution, the ability to understand these ideas, and to demand them in practice, is predicated upon the ability to put the arguments forward truthfully: meaning in deflationary, commensurable prose. But the rest of the work is not so technical, and should be more accessible – and more interesting. 😉 Hugs all. -
FURTHER PROGRESS ON INFLATIONARY AND DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR O
FURTHER PROGRESS ON INFLATIONARY AND DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR OF COMMENSURABILITY AND DECIDABILITY. -
FURTHER PROGRESS ON INFLATIONARY AND DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR O
FURTHER PROGRESS ON INFLATIONARY AND DEFLATIONARY GRAMMARS – UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR OF COMMENSURABILITY AND DECIDABILITY. -
Rick Story Does A Good Job Making Progress
Well done. I know you are trying honestly to find common ground among the factions and you’re continuing this effort and improving along the way. I use far more precise terminology(“Science”) than Rothbard (“Reason”) or Hoppe (“Rationalism), so because of that additional precision I am am forced to solve problems neither rothbard nor hoppe attempt to solve. So I will ask you to try to solve, on their behalf, a behalf you wish to defend desperately, the remaining problem faced by libertarians of all stripes, and what separates my work (which by contrast I’ll use “Sovereigntarian” or borrow Duchesne’s “Aristocratic Egalitarianism”. And that question is this: we do not have means, opportunity, and motive to create the polity we choose. We have the means, motive and opportunity that COMPETING polities force us to choose. Polities compete by the production of commons. They compete in physical domains (war and territory), economic domains, political domains, and It is only possible to construct a mental model as have rothbard(borderland jewish), and hoppe (continental catholic), if there exists empires (lithuanian/polish/russian or Catholic/French/Spanish/Italian) that defend your territory, but intentionally do not impose a more structured government upon you for the simple fact that it’s too costly to administer with too few returns – and you need these peoples as border colonies in order to keep out the even worse post-border peoples. The agreement to not conquer germanic princedoms in order to keep the east at bay, and the agreement to settle jews in the borderlands to hold territory unprofitable for trade, but too dangerous to house a competitor. And it is this mental model that gives rise to the fallacy of the Crusoe’s island argument, in which the sea is a metaphor for the distant empires at large scale, and the walls of the protected urban ghetto at small scale. Or by even longer term analogy, the ongoing battle between the farmer-hierarchical-technologists (aryans), and the pastoralist-equalitarian-socialists(everyone else other than the east asians). But in all cases one does not possess sovereignty, one possesses liberty-by-permission. And these are the only conditions under which liberty-by-permission has (or can) exist. There is only one condition under which Sovereignty can exist: and that is a militia – and it is the farmer-technolgical-militia from which the west was born. The question instead, is how to defeat the Red Queens in all their forms: Military, genetic, familial, normative, Economic, Political, Religious, Informational, and Genetic competitions so that the maximum Sovereignty < Liberty < Freedom < Subsidy(Insurance) are provided the various classes. Is Rothbardian/Hoppeian (liberty, libertarians, liberty by permission) possible? Or is sovereignty possible? And what is required to defend such a polity from market failure in competition with other forms of government that place greater investment in those commons, particularly those military, genetic, familial, economic, political, religious, and informational commons, that render a borderland people uncompetitive? You see, the west creates the most complex and deepest commons in history. Liberty is merely the means by which the deepest most complex and deepest military, genetic, familial, normative, economic, political, religious, and informational commons can be produced, and produce with the greatest and fastest means of adaptation to change. I find it Ironic that a people who claim to make economic arguments, or claim to make legal arguments, rely on reason, rationalism, justification, and totally ignore military, genetic, familial, political, religious, and informational markets (competition, warfare) in order to justify (cherry pick) those forms of competition that they wish existed in isolation. I leave it to religions to engage in fictionalism and cherry picking. It is the job of the science to produce full accounting and description. And that is why science wins in the market for information. The problem is, that the market for self deception (religion) nearly always outpaces the market for information. if you can model a survivable rothbardian polity I will wait for it. I have never seen it. And as far as I know I have defeated every argument put forth by rothbard and hoppe. But no such model exists or can exist any more than we can expand childhood protection of our parents, into infantile incomplete adult protection from empires. We must eventually become men. And men burn calories and cellular damage against competitors in order to persist their genes – or they are conquered, enslaved, and exterminated by those who do. It’s just a question of the time scale that this process occurs within. The military, familial, normative economic, political, religious, and informational institutions groups produce through organizing into interest groups, and the commons and produced by those interest groups, is determined by nothing more than the capital available in each of those dimensions that can be put to competitive use. Good work. But you are not there yet. You will need to describe the minimum conditions for such a polity to produce in order to survive competition from other groups with different institutions. And when you do, you will find sovereignty, natural law of perfect reciprocity, an independent judiciary, monarchy as judge of last resort, a market for commons, a market for production, a market for reproduction, and a market for association and cooperation, with inescapable (mandatory) service in an ever vigilant militia to do so, and the institutional flexibility to vacillate between fascism (war), classical liberalism (growth), and redistributionism(windfalls) as necessary given the conditions. Rule of law of reciprocity (non imposition against property in toto) in a distributed dictatorship of sovereign men (militia) with a judge of last resort is the only possible method of producing conditions of Sovereignty in fact, liberty by permission, freedom out of utility, and subsidy out of luxury. You don’t get a free ride. There is no borderland remaining other than the poles. -
Rick Story Does A Good Job Making Progress
Well done. I know you are trying honestly to find common ground among the factions and you’re continuing this effort and improving along the way. I use far more precise terminology(“Science”) than Rothbard (“Reason”) or Hoppe (“Rationalism), so because of that additional precision I am am forced to solve problems neither rothbard nor hoppe attempt to solve. So I will ask you to try to solve, on their behalf, a behalf you wish to defend desperately, the remaining problem faced by libertarians of all stripes, and what separates my work (which by contrast I’ll use “Sovereigntarian” or borrow Duchesne’s “Aristocratic Egalitarianism”. And that question is this: we do not have means, opportunity, and motive to create the polity we choose. We have the means, motive and opportunity that COMPETING polities force us to choose. Polities compete by the production of commons. They compete in physical domains (war and territory), economic domains, political domains, and It is only possible to construct a mental model as have rothbard(borderland jewish), and hoppe (continental catholic), if there exists empires (lithuanian/polish/russian or Catholic/French/Spanish/Italian) that defend your territory, but intentionally do not impose a more structured government upon you for the simple fact that it’s too costly to administer with too few returns – and you need these peoples as border colonies in order to keep out the even worse post-border peoples. The agreement to not conquer germanic princedoms in order to keep the east at bay, and the agreement to settle jews in the borderlands to hold territory unprofitable for trade, but too dangerous to house a competitor. And it is this mental model that gives rise to the fallacy of the Crusoe’s island argument, in which the sea is a metaphor for the distant empires at large scale, and the walls of the protected urban ghetto at small scale. Or by even longer term analogy, the ongoing battle between the farmer-hierarchical-technologists (aryans), and the pastoralist-equalitarian-socialists(everyone else other than the east asians). But in all cases one does not possess sovereignty, one possesses liberty-by-permission. And these are the only conditions under which liberty-by-permission has (or can) exist. There is only one condition under which Sovereignty can exist: and that is a militia – and it is the farmer-technolgical-militia from which the west was born. The question instead, is how to defeat the Red Queens in all their forms: Military, genetic, familial, normative, Economic, Political, Religious, Informational, and Genetic competitions so that the maximum Sovereignty < Liberty < Freedom < Subsidy(Insurance) are provided the various classes. Is Rothbardian/Hoppeian (liberty, libertarians, liberty by permission) possible? Or is sovereignty possible? And what is required to defend such a polity from market failure in competition with other forms of government that place greater investment in those commons, particularly those military, genetic, familial, economic, political, religious, and informational commons, that render a borderland people uncompetitive? You see, the west creates the most complex and deepest commons in history. Liberty is merely the means by which the deepest most complex and deepest military, genetic, familial, normative, economic, political, religious, and informational commons can be produced, and produce with the greatest and fastest means of adaptation to change. I find it Ironic that a people who claim to make economic arguments, or claim to make legal arguments, rely on reason, rationalism, justification, and totally ignore military, genetic, familial, political, religious, and informational markets (competition, warfare) in order to justify (cherry pick) those forms of competition that they wish existed in isolation. I leave it to religions to engage in fictionalism and cherry picking. It is the job of the science to produce full accounting and description. And that is why science wins in the market for information. The problem is, that the market for self deception (religion) nearly always outpaces the market for information. if you can model a survivable rothbardian polity I will wait for it. I have never seen it. And as far as I know I have defeated every argument put forth by rothbard and hoppe. But no such model exists or can exist any more than we can expand childhood protection of our parents, into infantile incomplete adult protection from empires. We must eventually become men. And men burn calories and cellular damage against competitors in order to persist their genes – or they are conquered, enslaved, and exterminated by those who do. It’s just a question of the time scale that this process occurs within. The military, familial, normative economic, political, religious, and informational institutions groups produce through organizing into interest groups, and the commons and produced by those interest groups, is determined by nothing more than the capital available in each of those dimensions that can be put to competitive use. Good work. But you are not there yet. You will need to describe the minimum conditions for such a polity to produce in order to survive competition from other groups with different institutions. And when you do, you will find sovereignty, natural law of perfect reciprocity, an independent judiciary, monarchy as judge of last resort, a market for commons, a market for production, a market for reproduction, and a market for association and cooperation, with inescapable (mandatory) service in an ever vigilant militia to do so, and the institutional flexibility to vacillate between fascism (war), classical liberalism (growth), and redistributionism(windfalls) as necessary given the conditions. Rule of law of reciprocity (non imposition against property in toto) in a distributed dictatorship of sovereign men (militia) with a judge of last resort is the only possible method of producing conditions of Sovereignty in fact, liberty by permission, freedom out of utility, and subsidy out of luxury. You don’t get a free ride. There is no borderland remaining other than the poles. -
Back in the 80’s, when we relied on BBS’s and CompuServe, and had 300 baud modem
Back in the 80’s, when we relied on BBS’s and CompuServe, and had 300 baud modems, I ran a bulletin board ostensibly operated by a group of Friars in a distant monastery who were interested in video games. I posted pages profiling each personality with background narrative on the wall, so that I could try to write from each character’s perspective. I wrote about every major release back then – something that’s been impossible since the late 90’s. Eventually I had to cut down to just one character because it was just too strenuous to step into each character’s shoes for different reviews. I’d just been divorced, was ‘recovering’, and it provided a creative outlet. I haven’t played a computer game (that I can recall) since I moved to Ukraine. No time. And no interest. The Big Game is afoot and we are all pieces on the board. -
Back in the 80’s, when we relied on BBS’s and CompuServe, and had 300 baud modem
Back in the 80’s, when we relied on BBS’s and CompuServe, and had 300 baud modems, I ran a bulletin board ostensibly operated by a group of Friars in a distant monastery who were interested in video games. I posted pages profiling each personality with background narrative on the wall, so that I could try to write from each character’s perspective. I wrote about every major release back then – something that’s been impossible since the late 90’s. Eventually I had to cut down to just one character because it was just too strenuous to step into each character’s shoes for different reviews. I’d just been divorced, was ‘recovering’, and it provided a creative outlet. I haven’t played a computer game (that I can recall) since I moved to Ukraine. No time. And no interest. The Big Game is afoot and we are all pieces on the board. -
Another demarcation between science and psuedoscience, which I think is the one
Another demarcation between science and psuedoscience, which I think is the one that has been missing, is to attribute means, motive, and opportuntity to the universe that is not within it’s ‘interests’ (increasing entropy by first available means). Whereas man’s incentives (means, motive, and opportunity) are the opposite: to defeat entropy by the greatest return on investment.