Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
Source: Original Site Post
-
What’s The Difference
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
-
What's The Difference
Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you. b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other. c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding. d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. e) Mutually beneficial cooperation VS Parasitism. ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.)
-
Rothbardian Ethics Are Immoral, Parasitic And The Reason For The Failure Of Libertarianism.
–“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”– [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership. Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
Rothbardian Ethics Are Immoral, Parasitic And The Reason For The Failure Of Libertarianism.
–“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”– [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership. Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev
-
Spinoza: Philosophers Should Have A Trade
[I]’m not a big fan of Spinoza’s ideas, but am very much a fan both his writing style and his work ethic. Spinoza earned his living as a lens-grinder. He wrote his extremely parsimonious book, taking most of his life, from a musty apartment. It’s what, 200 pages long? A brutally concise work of numbered and ordered sentences. The first statement that struck me was ‘endeavor to speak in a manner comprehensible to the common people’. I’ve always viewed this as my curse. Which is why I work so hard at it. Because I’m aware of my frame of reference, and my near absence of conceptual empathy. The other influential thing that he said, can be roughly translated as “Every man who does not have a trade must eventually become a rogue”. A sentiment I agree with. And have tried to imitate. I’ve always tried to earn enough money that I could research and write either part time or full time. I don’t like the idea of philosophers trying to earn money from their work. I don’t trust it at all. I can barely respect teaching as a way to pay for writing. Nassim Nicholas Taleb reflects this same sentiment when he says: “…as a practitioner, my thinking is rooted in the belief that you cannot go from books to problems, but the reverse, from problems to books.” And I practice philosophy the same way. I’m trying to find a solution to the problem of ethics. In particular, the problem of deception in ethics, politics, and economics. Learn a trade so that you experience the real world. Identify a problem that exists in the real world. Use the accumulated wisdom of centuries to solve a problem in the real world. Otherwise you invent a mystical hammer and go on and endless search for the appropriate nails – which you seem to find all over the place. Curt Doolittle
COMMENTS by Roman Skaskiw 3 QUOTES ABOUT ACADEMIA ” Learn a trade so that you experience the real world. Identify a problem that exists in the real world. . . . Otherwise you invent a mystical hammer and go on and endless search for the appropriate nails – which you seem to find all over the place.” ~ Curt Doolittle “Every man who does not have a trade must eventually become a rogue” ~ Baruch Spinoza “…as a practitioner, my thinking is rooted in the belief that you cannot go from books to problems, but the reverse, from problems to books.” ~ Nassim Nicholas Taleb
-
Spinoza: Philosophers Should Have A Trade
[I]’m not a big fan of Spinoza’s ideas, but am very much a fan both his writing style and his work ethic. Spinoza earned his living as a lens-grinder. He wrote his extremely parsimonious book, taking most of his life, from a musty apartment. It’s what, 200 pages long? A brutally concise work of numbered and ordered sentences. The first statement that struck me was ‘endeavor to speak in a manner comprehensible to the common people’. I’ve always viewed this as my curse. Which is why I work so hard at it. Because I’m aware of my frame of reference, and my near absence of conceptual empathy. The other influential thing that he said, can be roughly translated as “Every man who does not have a trade must eventually become a rogue”. A sentiment I agree with. And have tried to imitate. I’ve always tried to earn enough money that I could research and write either part time or full time. I don’t like the idea of philosophers trying to earn money from their work. I don’t trust it at all. I can barely respect teaching as a way to pay for writing. Nassim Nicholas Taleb reflects this same sentiment when he says: “…as a practitioner, my thinking is rooted in the belief that you cannot go from books to problems, but the reverse, from problems to books.” And I practice philosophy the same way. I’m trying to find a solution to the problem of ethics. In particular, the problem of deception in ethics, politics, and economics. Learn a trade so that you experience the real world. Identify a problem that exists in the real world. Use the accumulated wisdom of centuries to solve a problem in the real world. Otherwise you invent a mystical hammer and go on and endless search for the appropriate nails – which you seem to find all over the place. Curt Doolittle
COMMENTS by Roman Skaskiw 3 QUOTES ABOUT ACADEMIA ” Learn a trade so that you experience the real world. Identify a problem that exists in the real world. . . . Otherwise you invent a mystical hammer and go on and endless search for the appropriate nails – which you seem to find all over the place.” ~ Curt Doolittle “Every man who does not have a trade must eventually become a rogue” ~ Baruch Spinoza “…as a practitioner, my thinking is rooted in the belief that you cannot go from books to problems, but the reverse, from problems to books.” ~ Nassim Nicholas Taleb
-
Tarski Is Specifically Referring To Formal Languages – Only Formal Languages
[F]ormal languages are subsets of our full language. They are platonic (imaginary and symbolic) by definition and intent. Operational language is not platonic, but extant and demonstrated in real time and space, and can be used to describe actions in time and space, and if constrained to the description of actions in time and space, are open to observation, and confirmation, and falsification. This is why science requires operational language. This is why ethics MUST require operational language. Otherwise deception, self deception and error are obscured by the fungibility of language. Tarski, Alfred, “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics”, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4 (1944). Tarski, Alfred. “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages”, in Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Clarendon Press, 1956.
-
Tarski Is Specifically Referring To Formal Languages – Only Formal Languages
[F]ormal languages are subsets of our full language. They are platonic (imaginary and symbolic) by definition and intent. Operational language is not platonic, but extant and demonstrated in real time and space, and can be used to describe actions in time and space, and if constrained to the description of actions in time and space, are open to observation, and confirmation, and falsification. This is why science requires operational language. This is why ethics MUST require operational language. Otherwise deception, self deception and error are obscured by the fungibility of language. Tarski, Alfred, “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics”, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4 (1944). Tarski, Alfred. “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages”, in Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Clarendon Press, 1956.
-
The Problem Of Correcting Philosophical And Scientific 'truth'.
[I]t’s interesting that philosophical truth is problematic simply because it was scientists and philosophers of science which succeeded MOST in cleansing philosophy of magic, mysticism and platonism. (I am trying to additionally cleanse philosophy of deceptive obscurantism so that we can repair the ethics of cooperation and politics.) But they left logical and mathematical platonism in the philosophy of science. So we have this well respected and highly successful methodology that has drastically improved our understanding of, and ability to interact with physical reality. But in order to correct ethics, I have to FURTHER cleanse scientific philosophy of platonism, and ethics of obscurantism. And I think I have it figured out. The confusion resulted from philosophy’s history as an attempt to create an authoritarian common good via consensual belief, rather than simply improve the means of cooperation by formal institutions. On need not believe in anything. One need only construct formal institutions that eliminate all free riding – or at least, the maximum elimination of free riding that the current family structure and structure of production require. Unfortunately the contract for meaning of terms sometimes needs correction. One can correct meaning out of preference, out of influence on ends, for scientific accuracy, or for ethical reasons. And unfortunately , the meaning of ‘truth’ must be corrected from it’s platonic common usage to its performative and therefore accurate usage. And all other various analogies to truth as made use of in the different methodological disciplines ,demonstrated to be subtractive properties. To some degree, mathematics has already partly acknowledged this problem by calling it’s work ‘proofs’ not ‘truths’. We must unfortunately, get science to do the same as mathematics has done. For ethical reasons. Because it is a moral hazard for science to persist in the platonic use of the term truth instead of performative truth and the completeness of correspondence with reality.