(I will get hate mail over this rather grand deflowering)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/…/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelis…/
Some of us have to clean up history a bit:
(1) There is nothing strange about a popular political movement generating crackpots, and the state not shutting down the crackpots. I mean, world academia is full of them. We don’t even have to get to bloggers, and newsletters and their progenitors.
(2) Naziism was an aesthetic movement in the same way that socialism was a pseudoscientific movement, or the movements of religiosity of prior eras. All movements create nonsense mythos. Nazis were not unique.
(3) Hitler’s mistake was purely military. And had nothing to do with his attempt to ‘cleanse’ the population of cosmopolitan, bolshvik, and socialist activism. Germany’s enlightenment, thanks ot the failures of Kant and his followers, was incomplete and just reaching maturity under Wagner, Nietzsche and their contemporaries. The Ashkenazi enlightenment (Jewish enlightenment) arrived just as the German was peaking, but beause it was commercial where the german was cultural and aesthetic, was able to take advantage of new technologies and far lower cost of distribution of propaganda. The cosmopolitan (socialist) vision was not compatible with the german (hierarchical duty), and to some degree, this “Clash of Civilizations” turned out to be a war over the soul (Germany) of Europe. The two battling cultures (german heartland agrarian, and borderland diasporic Jewish) fought with their historical methods: germans with war and jews with propaganda. The bolshevik-cum-Stalinist Russians took advantage of this weakness, in hopes of not only seizing the borderlands, as they had the land east of the Urals, but possibly the german heartland as well. Had not the Americans intervened and de facto conquered and colonized Europe, that clash between agrarian hierarchy and cosmopolitan socialism would have been settled with that war. Hitler’s war was a civil war between the Jewish/Slavic borderlands previously held by Russia/Poland/Lithuania and their borderland enlightenment, and the ancient germanic martial civilization, and their heartland enlightenment and the bolshevik-stalinist fantasies of russia to escape third tier status among the great powers. The rest of us were just players until Hitler moved west – easily baited by the Russians into entrapping himself with Poland. His error was that he did not understand the stakes, any more than the Americans did. And in both world wars, Americans most likely fought ont he wrong side. It was germany that was trying to protect the west, as she had for millennia against invasion from the east.
(4) Had Hitler attacked Bolshevism, and had he not exhausted his resources so that the ‘ex-patriation’ camps did not become slave-labor and finally death camps, he would have accomplished the same ends by militarily, politically, and morally defensible means that we today would still find substantive. The British invented the idea of using camps as processing centers, the Nazi’s adopted it, and the Russians industrialized it. And the Chinese merely circumvented it by direct, outright killing opponents wherever they could find them – setting china back into destitution from which western influence by example, finally extracted them.
(5) The postwar propaganda campaign was probably appropriate, if not necessary, for the era in which so much cost was born by citizens, but has been overplayed since the early sixties – so much so that we are at risk at present (I monitor the scholarship) of reversing the historical narrative.
History will look at these events very differently in a century than we do now and the above narrative is more likely to be the one that survives and endures.
It’s my job to tell people unpleasant truths about their moral fantasies. I don’t particularly like the fact that my people have largely been wrong about everything they have done since the grand accident of the Louisianna Purchase.
But truth is merciless to all of us.
There is just as much pseudoscience if not more among Jewish intellectuals than there was ever imagined by the Nazis. And the difference is that no one took nazi propaganda seriously other than the semi literate, but the entire western intellectual and political system embraced jewish pseudoscience enthisiastically simply becuase it was better written ‘crackpot’ pseudoscience.
Boazian antropology = anti-Darwinian pseuoscience.
Freudian psychology = anti-Nietzschean pseudoscience.
Marxism / Socialism = anti-Economic pseudoscience.
Leninism = Justification of totalitarianism and murder.
Trotskyism = Justification of totalitarianism and murder
The Frankfurt School = anti-Spencerian sociological pseudoscience
Postmodernism = resorting to lying and repetition by propaganda having failed with pseudoscience.
Neo-Conservatism = Leo Strauss and his followers, attempting to use the german kantian technique of pseudo-rationalism to load, frame, and overload, and thereby decieve.
Let us assess the damage done by:
The Anglo struggle for its enlightenment: worldwide expansion. (an empirical one)
The French struggle for its enlightenment (the massacres of the French revolution, and the tyranny of napoleon), ( a romantic one) and its replacement of the existing nobility with a new bureaucratic one.
The Russian struggle for its enlightenment (a literary one)and its truncation by Bolsheviks.
The German struggle for its enlightenment (a philosophical one) and failure to transition to the empirical.
The second german struggle for its enlightenment (an aesthetic one)
The Jewish struggle for its enlightenment (a pseudoscientific one)
How many of these enlightenments were stopped dead by the Jewish pseudoscientific enlightenment?
How many more murders and how much more suffering was caused by the success of the Jewish pseudoscientific enlightenment, it’s conquest of Russia, it’s failed conquest of Germany, it’s failed conquest of China, it’s existing hinderance of Indian political development, and the saturation of the formerly great academies of the west with pseudoscience?
So let us not revel in self-compliment and congratulate ourselves on our moral standing when we are greater fools than those few who found purchase in such nonsense. You cannot compare the ineffectual propaganda of the Nazi fringe in support of anti-bolshevism and anti-cosmopolitanism in a fight over control of the borderlands with the extremely effective propaganda of the Jewish pseudosciences, and the 100m dead, and billiions idoctrinated into falsehoods because of them.
Look at the crisis the resistance to the enlightenment is causing in the Islamic world. They’ve been fighting it since they started suppressing knowledge and expanding Islam to the masses in the thirteenth century.
Civil wars, and border wars, and clashes of civilizations are bloody things. The fact that some of us fight more with armies(germans), some of us fight more with economics (anglos), some of us fight more with fabricated religions and pseudoscience (jews), some of us fight with reproduction and raiding (Islam), some of us fight with parasitism (gypsies), is just a matter of the resources and populations at our disposal.
Nothing more. We are all in competition. Cooperation is merely useful or it is not. Thankfully it is usually more useful than not.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source: Original Site Post
-
A Letter to a Philosophical Excuse Maker
LETTER TO A PHILOSOPHICAL EXCUSE-MAKER You see, you can build whatever contraption you want for your own use. You can practice whatever hobby that you want in your own home. You can say anything you want in your own living room. You can satisfy anyone willing in your bedroom. But you cannot sell a product without responsibility for the consequences it may cause. You cannot sell a service without responsibility for the service you provide and consequences you cause.
So why is it that you may speak without regard for the consequences of your speech? We already limit hazards. We already limit libel, slander, and the disclosure of information. Free speech was included in our laws only because we did not know how to determine what was truthful speech in the constitutional era. But that is because of greek folly – we did not understand the difference between exploratory public speech and critical public testimony. Now we do. We know that truthful speech is not in fact an act of speaking the truth, but of warranty by due diligence that we do not speak falsehood, and do no harm. Ergo, I know you do not speak the truth, and I know your words do harm. that does not mean that if you spoke in concrete recommendations that those recommendations would be immoral. It means that you do not speak in concrete recommendations, and instead that you are attempting to produce psychological rewards by expanding the number of those who speak the same fantasy story. This is called the “social construction of reality”. a postmodern technique whereby speakers use experiential terminology of non-causal construction to obscure their intent to decieve. And that is what you are engaged in. We cannot object to correspondent social construction of reality because truth by definition cannot produce a harm – only a correction. But we can object to non-correspondent construction of reality because it harms others, and by consequence the commons. Why you cannot pollute air, water, and land, is the same reason you cannot pollute information. They are commons. And your comforting lies do those commons harm Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
A Letter to a Philosophical Excuse Maker
LETTER TO A PHILOSOPHICAL EXCUSE-MAKER You see, you can build whatever contraption you want for your own use. You can practice whatever hobby that you want in your own home. You can say anything you want in your own living room. You can satisfy anyone willing in your bedroom. But you cannot sell a product without responsibility for the consequences it may cause. You cannot sell a service without responsibility for the service you provide and consequences you cause.
So why is it that you may speak without regard for the consequences of your speech? We already limit hazards. We already limit libel, slander, and the disclosure of information. Free speech was included in our laws only because we did not know how to determine what was truthful speech in the constitutional era. But that is because of greek folly – we did not understand the difference between exploratory public speech and critical public testimony. Now we do. We know that truthful speech is not in fact an act of speaking the truth, but of warranty by due diligence that we do not speak falsehood, and do no harm. Ergo, I know you do not speak the truth, and I know your words do harm. that does not mean that if you spoke in concrete recommendations that those recommendations would be immoral. It means that you do not speak in concrete recommendations, and instead that you are attempting to produce psychological rewards by expanding the number of those who speak the same fantasy story. This is called the “social construction of reality”. a postmodern technique whereby speakers use experiential terminology of non-causal construction to obscure their intent to decieve. And that is what you are engaged in. We cannot object to correspondent social construction of reality because truth by definition cannot produce a harm – only a correction. But we can object to non-correspondent construction of reality because it harms others, and by consequence the commons. Why you cannot pollute air, water, and land, is the same reason you cannot pollute information. They are commons. And your comforting lies do those commons harm Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine -
A Conversation With Joseph Pierce
(probably a distant relative) A well intended, reasonably intelligent fellow, who does have a grasp of what he speaks. I didn’t quite catch his meaning the first time through or I would have addressed it sooner and more directly. And that is, that CREATIVITY(free association for the purpose of opportunity discovery) and DECIDABILITY(truth for the purpose of dispute resolution in matters of harm) represent two ends of the epistemological spectrum. So the individual wants to identify opportunities, and the polity wants to prevent harm from the opportunities seized by individuals. The epistemological process follows from free association (imagination), to hypothesis (untested but articulated), to theory (survives testing by the speaker), to law (survives testing by application in a multitude of circumstances, to the point where we cannot find a reason it is false.) We can certainly engage in all the free association and hypothesizing we desire to, as long as we do not make truth claims about it, thereby testifying that our free associations have been tested and therefor warrantied to be free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit. Now, Ive written extensively about how to perform this testing – due diligence – so I wont’ go into it here other than to list the tests. And the point being not that we must always satisfy all tests, because sometimes we lack teh information to. But if we do testify (make a truth claim) then we must in turn, state those due diligences that we have performed and those that we have not. – categorical consistency (identity) – internal consistency (logically consistent) – external consistency (empirically correspndent) – existentially possible (operationally consistent) – morally consistent (consisting of voluntary exchanges) – parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted. (the proposed limits of the claim.) If one can survive those tasks, (and i know for certain that most cannot), then one can make a truth claim, stating that his testimoy does no harm. If not, he can’t. A SHORT COURSE IN TESTIMONIAL TRUTH (EXISTENTIAL TRUTH) http://www.propertarianism.com/…/a-short-course-on-propert…/ A VERY SHORT COURSE IN DECIDABILITY http://www.propertarianism.com/…/a-very-short-course-in-de…/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN EPISTEMOLOGY http://www.propertarianism.com/…/very-short-introduction-t…/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING http://www.propertarianism.com/…/a-short-course-in-propert…/ A SHORT COURSE IN THE TRANSACTION COST THEORY OF GOVERNMENT http://www.propertarianism.com/…/a-short-course-in-the-tra…/ AN OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM FOR SERIOUS NEWBIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/an-overview-of-propertari…/ BACK TO THE DISCUSSION: —-“The original post is just a rehash of empiricism. It has been pointed out consistently by myself (and I’m sure others as well) that prosecuting (via empirical observation) is yet another pernicious myth. Truth is not observable and quantifiable in the temporal, impermanent world of persistent motion. The discursive intellect (which Curt utilizes) is nothing more than a survival heuristic conflated with the suprarational. Amendment: Certain ‘truths’ can be observable and quantifiable. But the discursive intellect can only handle certain phenomena within human scale. Humanity cannot control much, but what he can control, he utilises for survival.”—Joseph Pierce Joseph, Please Define ‘True’ and ‘Truth’. —“‘Define?’ “Definitions” require boundaries, and thus you’re already framing your inquiry around an a priori, objectified, categorized, tautological assumption on the nature of ‘thinking’ of truth in temporal space and time. Language is limited, and even I on this point fail to communicate the pleroma of Truth. The best I can say is that “Truth” is beyond existence (existence presupposing boundaries, definitions, measurement), and is non-relatable, yet can accommodate into temporality and causal personhood. Reminds me of the philosophy of the Tao, or the Western Via Negativa. Nothing and Everything simultaneously.”—Joseph Pierce INTERJECTION: I should have gone directly to the difference between true(decidable and moral) and useful(preferable and amoral). What I translate this paragraph to is: “why can’t I create free associations? Why should my inquiry into life and the universe be limited to the true?” Well it shouldn’t. But if you conflate the imaginary with the true that’s causing damage to the commons. So it’s your ARGUMENT that is immoral, not your intent. Of course, if you can’t define something you can’t make a deduction from it only a free association. And that is precisely how you achieve your nonsense argument. It’s very different to say “I can get away with finding a relationship between A and B” and “If A, then of necessity, therefore B”. The second is a deduction, the first is an excuse. Like I said you folk are in the excuse-making business. There are many kinds of fraud. You are specializing in one of them. The strange thing is you don’t even really know it. —“By what standard do you make these claims? Why must an object be reducible to perpetual deduction? Who says this is the standard? Does Curt Doolittle, or empiricism or both? Argumentum ad verecundiam. Appeal to authority. Empiricism is to be questioned here as a questionable authority of deductive reasoning. Appealing to this authority, this illusory human heuristic is risible. It’s okay to use cautiously within human scale, but when you apply this model to the metaphysical real (religion) you run the risk of category error.”— Joseph Pierce The way adults make the same statement is this: – In a tautology, (or name) the information is identical. – In a truth statement, the information is perfectly parsimonious without being identical.if identical it is a tautology. the absence of information yet the retention of correspondence is what separates a truth statement from a tautology or ‘name’. – In a theory, or law, the statement is tested but is not perfectly parsimonious – and if it is we cannot not know it is. – In a hypothesis the statement is untested, and we have no idea whether it is parsimonious or even a truth candidate. It is the result of free association only not causal dependence. The standard by which I make this claim is three-fold: 1) LOGIC 2) EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION (law)(economics)(science) I suppose I don’t need to cover this – it’s ovbvious that the common law evolved for the purpose of resolving disputes. I suppose that it’s obvious that science relies upon the scientific method: the systematic attempt to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit from words and deeds. (that’s all the scientific method does). 3) MORALITY The reasons that we demand truthfulness are the following: a) your personal choice in word and deed. b) the effect upon those whom you speak and act with. c) externalities produced by your words and deeds d) decidability in matters of conflict over your words and deeds. In other words, the reason we demand truthfulness from one another is the damage you cause to others, and the costs that your error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit places upon others. And the resolution of disputes caused by your words and deeds. And the restitution you must pay for the damage caused by your words and deeds. Now in theory, just as whatever you do in your bedroom is no one’s business as long as it is voluntary. And just as whatever you do in the rest of your home is no one’s business as long as they are unaware of it. Whatever it is that goes in in your crazy little head is no one’s business, as long as it causes no harm to others. The problem is, when you do cause harm, we need a method of conflict resolution, and we USE a method of conflict resolution, and natural law and physical law, both of which are empirical systems, is how we can and do resolve conflicts. So the purpose of truth is to resolve conflict: provide decidability. And the reason we provide decidabily is to prevent violence in retaliation for your words and deeds, which increases the cost exported upon others by your words and deeds. What you and your ‘kind’ refer to as “truth” consists in the conflation of that which is preferable to you, and the words and deeds that you use to attempt to obtain it. (Even though it appears that the only benefit you get from this deceit is a psychological falsehood that gives you confidence or justification for doing what you wish, or believing what you wish. In both cases denying reality.) WHO DECIDES? So it is MORALITY that is the authority we appeal to when we seek decidability. And if you wish to speak and act immorally, in an effort to provide yourself with emotional confidence and security, then you will of course bear the consequences of doing so – one of which is to be shamed for. In a better world we could sue you for harmful public speech, and force you to keep your self-deceits to yourself. In this world we must just argue with and shame you for the harm you do by spreading lies. But hedonistic self-expression and damage to the informational and normative and institutional commons is the fashion of our age. A luxury good we have tolerated – and perhaps tolerated too long. SUMMARY So you see, we have historical empirical UNCONSTRUCTED evidece (meaning naturaly occuring evidence) of what constitutes the ethical, the moral, and the true. It’s called the common or natural law. But at this point if I try to educate you it will burn a lot of my time and be of questionable value to me. Cheers
-
A Conversation With Joseph Pierce
(probably a distant relative) A well intended, reasonably intelligent fellow, who does have a grasp of what he speaks. I didn’t quite catch his meaning the first time through or I would have addressed it sooner and more directly. And that is, that CREATIVITY(free association for the purpose of opportunity discovery) and DECIDABILITY(truth for the purpose of dispute resolution in matters of harm) represent two ends of the epistemological spectrum. So the individual wants to identify opportunities, and the polity wants to prevent harm from the opportunities seized by individuals. The epistemological process follows from free association (imagination), to hypothesis (untested but articulated), to theory (survives testing by the speaker), to law (survives testing by application in a multitude of circumstances, to the point where we cannot find a reason it is false.) We can certainly engage in all the free association and hypothesizing we desire to, as long as we do not make truth claims about it, thereby testifying that our free associations have been tested and therefor warrantied to be free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit. Now, Ive written extensively about how to perform this testing – due diligence – so I wont’ go into it here other than to list the tests. And the point being not that we must always satisfy all tests, because sometimes we lack teh information to. But if we do testify (make a truth claim) then we must in turn, state those due diligences that we have performed and those that we have not. – categorical consistency (identity) – internal consistency (logically consistent) – external consistency (empirically correspndent) – existentially possible (operationally consistent) – morally consistent (consisting of voluntary exchanges) – parsimonious, limited, and fully accounted. (the proposed limits of the claim.) If one can survive those tasks, (and i know for certain that most cannot), then one can make a truth claim, stating that his testimoy does no harm. If not, he can’t. A SHORT COURSE IN TESTIMONIAL TRUTH (EXISTENTIAL TRUTH) http://www.propertarianism.com/…/a-short-course-on-propert…/ A VERY SHORT COURSE IN DECIDABILITY http://www.propertarianism.com/…/a-very-short-course-in-de…/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN EPISTEMOLOGY http://www.propertarianism.com/…/very-short-introduction-t…/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING http://www.propertarianism.com/…/a-short-course-in-propert…/ A SHORT COURSE IN THE TRANSACTION COST THEORY OF GOVERNMENT http://www.propertarianism.com/…/a-short-course-in-the-tra…/ AN OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM FOR SERIOUS NEWBIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/an-overview-of-propertari…/ BACK TO THE DISCUSSION: —-“The original post is just a rehash of empiricism. It has been pointed out consistently by myself (and I’m sure others as well) that prosecuting (via empirical observation) is yet another pernicious myth. Truth is not observable and quantifiable in the temporal, impermanent world of persistent motion. The discursive intellect (which Curt utilizes) is nothing more than a survival heuristic conflated with the suprarational. Amendment: Certain ‘truths’ can be observable and quantifiable. But the discursive intellect can only handle certain phenomena within human scale. Humanity cannot control much, but what he can control, he utilises for survival.”—Joseph Pierce Joseph, Please Define ‘True’ and ‘Truth’. —“‘Define?’ “Definitions” require boundaries, and thus you’re already framing your inquiry around an a priori, objectified, categorized, tautological assumption on the nature of ‘thinking’ of truth in temporal space and time. Language is limited, and even I on this point fail to communicate the pleroma of Truth. The best I can say is that “Truth” is beyond existence (existence presupposing boundaries, definitions, measurement), and is non-relatable, yet can accommodate into temporality and causal personhood. Reminds me of the philosophy of the Tao, or the Western Via Negativa. Nothing and Everything simultaneously.”—Joseph Pierce INTERJECTION: I should have gone directly to the difference between true(decidable and moral) and useful(preferable and amoral). What I translate this paragraph to is: “why can’t I create free associations? Why should my inquiry into life and the universe be limited to the true?” Well it shouldn’t. But if you conflate the imaginary with the true that’s causing damage to the commons. So it’s your ARGUMENT that is immoral, not your intent. Of course, if you can’t define something you can’t make a deduction from it only a free association. And that is precisely how you achieve your nonsense argument. It’s very different to say “I can get away with finding a relationship between A and B” and “If A, then of necessity, therefore B”. The second is a deduction, the first is an excuse. Like I said you folk are in the excuse-making business. There are many kinds of fraud. You are specializing in one of them. The strange thing is you don’t even really know it. —“By what standard do you make these claims? Why must an object be reducible to perpetual deduction? Who says this is the standard? Does Curt Doolittle, or empiricism or both? Argumentum ad verecundiam. Appeal to authority. Empiricism is to be questioned here as a questionable authority of deductive reasoning. Appealing to this authority, this illusory human heuristic is risible. It’s okay to use cautiously within human scale, but when you apply this model to the metaphysical real (religion) you run the risk of category error.”— Joseph Pierce The way adults make the same statement is this: – In a tautology, (or name) the information is identical. – In a truth statement, the information is perfectly parsimonious without being identical.if identical it is a tautology. the absence of information yet the retention of correspondence is what separates a truth statement from a tautology or ‘name’. – In a theory, or law, the statement is tested but is not perfectly parsimonious – and if it is we cannot not know it is. – In a hypothesis the statement is untested, and we have no idea whether it is parsimonious or even a truth candidate. It is the result of free association only not causal dependence. The standard by which I make this claim is three-fold: 1) LOGIC 2) EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION (law)(economics)(science) I suppose I don’t need to cover this – it’s ovbvious that the common law evolved for the purpose of resolving disputes. I suppose that it’s obvious that science relies upon the scientific method: the systematic attempt to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit from words and deeds. (that’s all the scientific method does). 3) MORALITY The reasons that we demand truthfulness are the following: a) your personal choice in word and deed. b) the effect upon those whom you speak and act with. c) externalities produced by your words and deeds d) decidability in matters of conflict over your words and deeds. In other words, the reason we demand truthfulness from one another is the damage you cause to others, and the costs that your error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deceit places upon others. And the resolution of disputes caused by your words and deeds. And the restitution you must pay for the damage caused by your words and deeds. Now in theory, just as whatever you do in your bedroom is no one’s business as long as it is voluntary. And just as whatever you do in the rest of your home is no one’s business as long as they are unaware of it. Whatever it is that goes in in your crazy little head is no one’s business, as long as it causes no harm to others. The problem is, when you do cause harm, we need a method of conflict resolution, and we USE a method of conflict resolution, and natural law and physical law, both of which are empirical systems, is how we can and do resolve conflicts. So the purpose of truth is to resolve conflict: provide decidability. And the reason we provide decidabily is to prevent violence in retaliation for your words and deeds, which increases the cost exported upon others by your words and deeds. What you and your ‘kind’ refer to as “truth” consists in the conflation of that which is preferable to you, and the words and deeds that you use to attempt to obtain it. (Even though it appears that the only benefit you get from this deceit is a psychological falsehood that gives you confidence or justification for doing what you wish, or believing what you wish. In both cases denying reality.) WHO DECIDES? So it is MORALITY that is the authority we appeal to when we seek decidability. And if you wish to speak and act immorally, in an effort to provide yourself with emotional confidence and security, then you will of course bear the consequences of doing so – one of which is to be shamed for. In a better world we could sue you for harmful public speech, and force you to keep your self-deceits to yourself. In this world we must just argue with and shame you for the harm you do by spreading lies. But hedonistic self-expression and damage to the informational and normative and institutional commons is the fashion of our age. A luxury good we have tolerated – and perhaps tolerated too long. SUMMARY So you see, we have historical empirical UNCONSTRUCTED evidece (meaning naturaly occuring evidence) of what constitutes the ethical, the moral, and the true. It’s called the common or natural law. But at this point if I try to educate you it will burn a lot of my time and be of questionable value to me. Cheers
-
The Problem Of The Need For Taking Action And The Comforting Lies Some Of Us Need To Help Us Act
Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires. There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.
What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority. In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others. If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority. So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status. Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere. The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere. And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere. SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies. And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear. Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions. Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class. I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough. -
The Problem Of The Need For Taking Action And The Comforting Lies Some Of Us Need To Help Us Act
Every man must act in a way that produces the consequences he desires. There is no need for god in that question other than to give one excuses for having taken actions that others disagree with.
What you mean is that a man must provide his own moral authority. In other words, one needs justification only because one is either weak, or because one is demonstrably wrong because it causes retaliation from others. If one is strong and one is right in that he does not cause retaliation from others, then he needs no external authority. So in general, what we see is that those who do not obtain status from others, or do not obtain the status that they think they warrant, seek to obtain self-image through creating niche narratives in which they envision themselves heroic or of high status. Since many of us need these lies, because the admission of our status as much lower than we envision, and our abilities much lower than we envision, we must morally tolerate these comforting lies in the private sphere just as we tolerate the comforting lies of religion in the private sphere. The question arises as to whether we can tolerate these nonsense ideas in the public sphere. And this is where we get into the problem. Wherein the lies people like you ritualize, using pseudo-scientific pseudo-secular language, can be so real to you – through the social construction of reality – that you can apply these PERSONAL needs to arguments in the political sphere. SO whenever your comforting lies produce harmful externalities, then it becomes a matter of dispute resolution between different sets of comforting lies. And to resolve a dispute between sets of comforting lies, we need a means of decidability. That means of decidability is what we call ‘truth’. Meaning in the social context: are your statements free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception, and are you trying to use those words to impose costs on others or escape costs you yourself should bear. Because truth and objective morality are identical propositions. Anyway. This is probably too much for you; but you put in honest effort and you haven’t (knowingly) engaged in trickery during this discussion, so I have to take you as an honest man that is merely trying to fight above his weight class. I don’t really care because an honest man, even one who believes silly things, is better than a dishonest man. And that is enough. -
Nietzsche’s Morality Isn’t
Nietzche had little understanding of law(dispute resolution), and less understanding if not no understanding of its opposite: economics (cooperation). When he says ‘morality’ he means ‘convention’. and in that sense, convention may or may not survive moral scrutiny. That does not mean that there are no moral statements. It’s easy to define them. The question is instead whether moral action serves the desired purpose. Just as whether violence serves the desired purpose. Just as whether deception serves the desired purpose. Convention places no limits on man other than the cost he bears for abridging it. Not all our purposes need be moral, as long as the cost or benefit of immoral action is worth it to us. That is different from saying that we cannot determine moral actions. We can. But whether we DESIRE COOPERATION or not is a test of morality. Whether something suites our PURPOSES or not is a question of utility and the cost of it. This is where almost all philosophers are confused. They treat moral as the equivalent of good, rather than moral as what is necessary to achieve good through cooperation. But if the proposed good that might come from cooperation is undesirable, or a net negative, then moral action is not useful. What do these words mean? Moral = preserves or encourages cooperation by the non-imposition of costs. Immoral = inhibits or discourages cooperation by the imposition of costs. The fact that the MORAL is approximately equal to the good for ingroup members, with whom we wish to cooperate, has no bearing when we DO NOT WISH to cooperate with members ingroup or outgroup. Non cooperation is merely a question of cost. Is cooperation more or less valuable in the achievement of our ends? If we do not wish to cooperate, then the moral or immoral is little more than an assistance to us in judging the long-term consequences of our actions because of the possible retaliation of others in times when we are not as strong as we are now. I hope this helps because this appears to be a subject of confusion in the Nietzchean community. Morality is a fairly simple, reasonably scientific fact at this point. Whether a moral action is GOOD or not is a very different question. It may or may not be Good. Just a violence may be moral or immoral, the moral may be useful or not useful. It may be beneficial or it may be harmful. In my work I state that the moral is necessary for long-term competitive survival because of the productivity of labor in the production of everything from food to warfare. In this sense, the moral is good because it makes a group more powerful than others in every dimension – assuming they wish to allocate production to competitive ends. I state that all disputes are resolvable by objectively moral judgments. And it’s true. But this only matters if we want to resolve disputes peacefully, so that we can continue to cooperate and gain the projected benefits of cooperation. That says nothing about whether we want to cooperate – either as individuals or as groups or as nations, with other individuals or groups or nations. We may. Or we may not. I argue only that those who cooperate more, will eventually be more powerful than those who cooperate less. And power enables us to bring about what we desire. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Nietzsche’s Morality Isn’t
Nietzche had little understanding of law(dispute resolution), and less understanding if not no understanding of its opposite: economics (cooperation). When he says ‘morality’ he means ‘convention’. and in that sense, convention may or may not survive moral scrutiny. That does not mean that there are no moral statements. It’s easy to define them. The question is instead whether moral action serves the desired purpose. Just as whether violence serves the desired purpose. Just as whether deception serves the desired purpose. Convention places no limits on man other than the cost he bears for abridging it. Not all our purposes need be moral, as long as the cost or benefit of immoral action is worth it to us. That is different from saying that we cannot determine moral actions. We can. But whether we DESIRE COOPERATION or not is a test of morality. Whether something suites our PURPOSES or not is a question of utility and the cost of it. This is where almost all philosophers are confused. They treat moral as the equivalent of good, rather than moral as what is necessary to achieve good through cooperation. But if the proposed good that might come from cooperation is undesirable, or a net negative, then moral action is not useful. What do these words mean? Moral = preserves or encourages cooperation by the non-imposition of costs. Immoral = inhibits or discourages cooperation by the imposition of costs. The fact that the MORAL is approximately equal to the good for ingroup members, with whom we wish to cooperate, has no bearing when we DO NOT WISH to cooperate with members ingroup or outgroup. Non cooperation is merely a question of cost. Is cooperation more or less valuable in the achievement of our ends? If we do not wish to cooperate, then the moral or immoral is little more than an assistance to us in judging the long-term consequences of our actions because of the possible retaliation of others in times when we are not as strong as we are now. I hope this helps because this appears to be a subject of confusion in the Nietzchean community. Morality is a fairly simple, reasonably scientific fact at this point. Whether a moral action is GOOD or not is a very different question. It may or may not be Good. Just a violence may be moral or immoral, the moral may be useful or not useful. It may be beneficial or it may be harmful. In my work I state that the moral is necessary for long-term competitive survival because of the productivity of labor in the production of everything from food to warfare. In this sense, the moral is good because it makes a group more powerful than others in every dimension – assuming they wish to allocate production to competitive ends. I state that all disputes are resolvable by objectively moral judgments. And it’s true. But this only matters if we want to resolve disputes peacefully, so that we can continue to cooperate and gain the projected benefits of cooperation. That says nothing about whether we want to cooperate – either as individuals or as groups or as nations, with other individuals or groups or nations. We may. Or we may not. I argue only that those who cooperate more, will eventually be more powerful than those who cooperate less. And power enables us to bring about what we desire. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Difference Between Personal-Preferential and Political-Decidable Philosophies
We can make use of whatever free associations our unobservable minds give us. That says nothing about the truth of anything. it says only about the utility of randomly generated meaningful ideas. So personal philosophy(religion) can be constructed of such nonsense. Because people need to act in a way that they can feel confident in acting or they would be unable to act. But philosophy as a science: in which we seek decidability between different ideas, and to limit the damage of others ideas is something quite different.
This is what separates personal ‘philosophy’ which is not philosophy per se, but philosophy by analogy…. and political philosophy by which we create ethics, morals, norms, laws, institutions, commons, and war. This is the difference between what you call philosophy and has nothing to do with truth (decidability) and the science of decidability that is provided by attempts at using truth to decide between one thing and another – especially in matters of conflict. So as I say: it doesn’t matter how you come up with ideas. Just don’t call it true, don’t call it philosophy, and don’t call it science. It is what it is: justification for working with personal intuition sot hat you need not depend on others for guidance.