(from CR discussion) [W]ell, I have very consistently argued that platonic ‘ultimate’ truth is not extant, which is exactly what CR says: I can never possess it. (this may not be true at some point in the future but it is now, since we cannot reduce the universe to first principles as yet). Once we have reduced the universe to first principles It becomes difficult to understand how that would not be the most parsimonious truth, just as voluntary exchange is the most parsimonious ethical truth. So Popper defines truth … as in-extant. I am just agreeing with you all because I see no way of reconciling performative truth with absolute truth other than my oft-repeated argument that it is possible to produce many truthful statements(true), none of which are complete(ultimate truth). So I’ve had to stick with truthfulness and ultimate truth as a means of not fighting a linguistic argument over habituated semantics. As far as I know I am correct in making both arguments, even if the argument that I can’t ‘sell’ is the accurate one. Platonic truth is a moral, not necessary or logical constraint. Whereas performative truth, always open to revision, offered to the market as products for consumption is probably the most accurate version of truth I or anyone else, has been able to construct, for non-formal languages. (which is something I think some of people in this group don’t understand the meaning of.) (And I have kind of been fussing with this problem for a year now. It’s freakin’ killing me. no wonder so much ink has been spent on it.) So again, I can go either way with it, and I suspect that in my book I will answer it correctly first, then say why it is so culturally impossible to change platonic truth, and then simply surrender to the dichotomy of using performative truthfulness, and platonic truth. “Cause if I can’t seem to even get one of you guys to at least see it, then I kind of think the only people who will, are going to be specialists. ie: a handful of people. So the best solution is to address both audiences. That way I get the specialists with the accurate version and the passionately interested with the utilitarian version. I mean, I bet I could have this conversation with, say, Dennett or Searle if I explained the reason for it, and and I don’t think it would be very hard. Eh… most of the top 100 would be pretty easy. They might not like my application but I doubt they would disagree with my logic. Thanks. Curt
Source: Original Site Post
-
Table Of Ethical Arguments
[F]our categories of argument determined by how they are constructed. 1) ETHICAL Truthful speech: Operational. Knowledge of construction. Proof of existence. 2) ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE Pragmatic speech : operationally abbreviated. Insufficiently demonstrated. 3) ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE Allegorical speech: knowledge of use but not construction. 4) UNETHICAL Dishonest speech.
-
Table Of Ethical Arguments
[F]our categories of argument determined by how they are constructed. 1) ETHICAL Truthful speech: Operational. Knowledge of construction. Proof of existence. 2) ETHICALLY QUESTIONABLE Pragmatic speech : operationally abbreviated. Insufficiently demonstrated. 3) ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE Allegorical speech: knowledge of use but not construction. 4) UNETHICAL Dishonest speech.
-
Armies of Lies Instead of Armies of Men: War at a Discount.
[T]here are always malevolent people in the world. They simply lack the means of acting. Raising an army is actually quite hard. But we dont need to raise armies any longer. We celebrated the benefits of literacy. But we celebrated literacy among our culture of truth telling. We did not account for the misuse of literacy, the misuse of printing, the misuse of education, the misuse of radio, television, and film to construct elaborate lies. The most important was, to justify lying. The abuse of information systems whether it be the pricing system, or the education system, or the media, has been just as damaging as any war or plague – perhaps more so. We have survived the thirty years war. The world war. But we did not survive I suspect, a century and a half of lying (pseudoscience).
-
Armies of Lies Instead of Armies of Men: War at a Discount.
[T]here are always malevolent people in the world. They simply lack the means of acting. Raising an army is actually quite hard. But we dont need to raise armies any longer. We celebrated the benefits of literacy. But we celebrated literacy among our culture of truth telling. We did not account for the misuse of literacy, the misuse of printing, the misuse of education, the misuse of radio, television, and film to construct elaborate lies. The most important was, to justify lying. The abuse of information systems whether it be the pricing system, or the education system, or the media, has been just as damaging as any war or plague – perhaps more so. We have survived the thirty years war. The world war. But we did not survive I suspect, a century and a half of lying (pseudoscience).
-
Compatibilism
[J]ust as male and female evolutionary strategies are different, but compatible with the proper institutions and incentives, White European and Jewish evolutionary strategies are different, but compatible with the proper institutions and incentives. But would the jews give up their parasitic ethics? I don’t think so. Any more than whites will give up heroism. Truth and trust are far less advantageous that pragmatism and parasitism. Truth and trust works best for a warrior people. But for a commercial people pragmatism and parasitism is a superior strategy. The problem is that you can’t build fixed capital without warriors.
-
Compatibilism
[J]ust as male and female evolutionary strategies are different, but compatible with the proper institutions and incentives, White European and Jewish evolutionary strategies are different, but compatible with the proper institutions and incentives. But would the jews give up their parasitic ethics? I don’t think so. Any more than whites will give up heroism. Truth and trust are far less advantageous that pragmatism and parasitism. Truth and trust works best for a warrior people. But for a commercial people pragmatism and parasitism is a superior strategy. The problem is that you can’t build fixed capital without warriors.
-
Devious
[T]hey made freedom of speech and virtue of opinion morally superior to speaking the truth and only the truth. Devious
-
Devious
[T]hey made freedom of speech and virtue of opinion morally superior to speaking the truth and only the truth. Devious
-
Truth is Enough
[I]t isn’t necessary to construct formal and informal institutions to control the goodness of man. Such a thing requires no constraint. A government, a law, a philosophy, an ideology, a religion, and a mythos need only be constructed to constrain in bad in man: that which seeks to avoid meritocratic contribution to production. So any system of government, system of law, philosophical framework, ideological moralism, religious doctrine, mythical narrative must acknowledge the ill in man, and how to put his ill to good as does the market in converting self interest to the service of others. Any system that assumes the good in man, rather than the incentives for ill in man then, is but a system of deception in which those who would do ill, seek to corrupt the people and the society that do not. Utopianism is always and everywhere a cover for criminal, unethical and immoral action. Without exception. If the truth is not enough, then all that remains is deception. Truth is enough.
