1 – We have evolved instincts that inform is about the demands of reality.
2 – We vary in those instincts because of our class and gender demands of reality.
3 – Like the physics of the natural world, all of our instincts are reducible to problems of existence, information, and ability.
4 – Our instincts have an evolutionary purpose.
5 – We do not have instincts for arbitrary reasons.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 07:29:00 UTC
[T]he moral man is skeptical. If you come at me with questions it would be the actions of a moral man. But as a teacher of others and a philosopher myself I grasp that it is quite difficult to ask questions when you do not know what to ask. So the only option available to one is to criticize until one knows what questions to ask. So it is not necessarily that one intends immorality. It is that we stumble the best we can with the skills at our disposal. As such you have moral intent but not the ability to act morally. I often spend a generous amount of time with those of moral intent but lacking in moral skills, in order to help them discover what questions they might want to ask. This is my contribution to the commons. Tolerance. Patience. Cost. A cost for which many people have suggested I waste my time. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
[T]he moral man is skeptical. If you come at me with questions it would be the actions of a moral man. But as a teacher of others and a philosopher myself I grasp that it is quite difficult to ask questions when you do not know what to ask. So the only option available to one is to criticize until one knows what questions to ask. So it is not necessarily that one intends immorality. It is that we stumble the best we can with the skills at our disposal. As such you have moral intent but not the ability to act morally. I often spend a generous amount of time with those of moral intent but lacking in moral skills, in order to help them discover what questions they might want to ask. This is my contribution to the commons. Tolerance. Patience. Cost. A cost for which many people have suggested I waste my time. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
THE PROBLEM OF MORAL INTENT WITHOUT SKILLS OF MORAL ACTION
The moral man is skeptical. If you come at me with questions it would be the actions of a moral man.
But as a teacher of others and a philosopher myself I grasp that it is quite difficult to ask questions when you do not know what to ask.
So the only option available to one is to criticize until one knows what questions to ask.
So it is not necessarily that one intends immorality. It is that we stumble the best we can with the skills at our disposal.
As such you have moral intent but not the ability to act morally.
I often spend a generous amount of time with those of moral intent but lacking in moral skills, in order to help them discover what questions they might want to ask.
This is my contribution to the commons. Tolerance. Patience. Cost. A cost for which many people have suggested I waste my time.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 02:39:00 UTC
[I] think that love (noun) refers to the condition in which one’s happiness depends on another’s. And therefore to love (verb) must mean to act in a manner consistent with this condition prevailing. If we adopt these as our definitions, then it becomes obvious, upon cursory examination, that we can never accurately describe actual “love” (either the noun or the verb) as either universal or unconditional for long. For example, unrequited love would tend to consume, either its host, or its host’s willingness to continue entertaining it; for it entails costs with certainty, but holds out no sure promise of benefits, and would be easy to take advantage of. But reciprocal love may prove (under some conditions) sustainable or even (under others) productive. Curt Doolittle made a status the other day, or perhaps a comment, wherein he opined that the statement “I love you” must resolve operationally to something like “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that ‘I love you’ you will not find it untrue.” So we can resolve this still further to say that “I love you” means “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that my happiness depends on your own against my actions, you will not find it untrue.” —Eli Harman
[I] think that love (noun) refers to the condition in which one’s happiness depends on another’s. And therefore to love (verb) must mean to act in a manner consistent with this condition prevailing. If we adopt these as our definitions, then it becomes obvious, upon cursory examination, that we can never accurately describe actual “love” (either the noun or the verb) as either universal or unconditional for long. For example, unrequited love would tend to consume, either its host, or its host’s willingness to continue entertaining it; for it entails costs with certainty, but holds out no sure promise of benefits, and would be easy to take advantage of. But reciprocal love may prove (under some conditions) sustainable or even (under others) productive. Curt Doolittle made a status the other day, or perhaps a comment, wherein he opined that the statement “I love you” must resolve operationally to something like “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that ‘I love you’ you will not find it untrue.” So we can resolve this still further to say that “I love you” means “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that my happiness depends on your own against my actions, you will not find it untrue.” —Eli Harman
(snippet of debate we can learn from) [I] almost always operate under the assumption that genes do the talking and that the rational mind needs assistance in overcoming the influence of accumulated cognitive bias in favor of one’s reproductive strategy. So I suspect you are just the usual victim of WISHFUL THINKING and need rescuing. Because I don’t see evidence that you’re knowledgeable enough to engage in FRAUD. And I don’t see evidence that you’re emotionally neutral and openly skeptical of your opinion so I do not think you ERR. As such, you are the perfect target for cosmopolitan deception: an obscurant and complex justification for whatever your cognitive bias: socialist, libertine, or neocon. You are a ‘useful idiot’ for the anti-western anti-aristocratic pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, religions. The great lie version two. This time in multiple class sizes: socialist, libertine, and neocon. It’s not so bad that one is fooled – we all are. What’s bad is maintaining a bias that’s increasingly, obviously, false, because it was a bad but exciting investment.
(snippet of debate we can learn from) [I] almost always operate under the assumption that genes do the talking and that the rational mind needs assistance in overcoming the influence of accumulated cognitive bias in favor of one’s reproductive strategy. So I suspect you are just the usual victim of WISHFUL THINKING and need rescuing. Because I don’t see evidence that you’re knowledgeable enough to engage in FRAUD. And I don’t see evidence that you’re emotionally neutral and openly skeptical of your opinion so I do not think you ERR. As such, you are the perfect target for cosmopolitan deception: an obscurant and complex justification for whatever your cognitive bias: socialist, libertine, or neocon. You are a ‘useful idiot’ for the anti-western anti-aristocratic pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, religions. The great lie version two. This time in multiple class sizes: socialist, libertine, and neocon. It’s not so bad that one is fooled – we all are. What’s bad is maintaining a bias that’s increasingly, obviously, false, because it was a bad but exciting investment.
—“Everyone fights. No one quits. If you run, I’ll kill you myself.”—
—“men fight for the men next to them”—
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 10:35:00 UTC
DEBATING THE USEFUL IDIOTS OF ALL STRIPES
(snippet of debate we can learn from)
I almost always operate under the assumption that genes do the talking and that the rational mind needs assistance in overcoming the influence of accumulated cognitive bias in favor of one’s reproductive strategy.
So I suspect you are just the usual victim of WISHFUL THINKING and need rescuing.
Because I don’t see evidence that you’re knowledgeable enough to engage in FRAUD.
And I don’t see evidence that you’re emotionally neutral and openly skeptical of your opinion so I do not think you ERR.
As such, you are the perfect target for cosmopolitan deception: an obscurant and complex justification for whatever your cognitive bias: socialist, libertine, or neocon. You are a ‘useful idiot’ for the anti-western anti-aristocratic pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, religions. The great lie version two. This time in multiple class sizes: socialist, libertine, and neocon.
It’s not so bad that one is fooled – we all are. What’s bad is maintaining a bias that’s increasingly, obviously, false, because it was a bad but exciting investment.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 13:05:00 UTC