If by philosophy we refer to fantasy literature as an extension of The Novel, Fictional histories, Mythology, Detective Stories, Fantasy, and Science Fiction, then the study of the SEP is equivalent to a world-of-warcraft or Game of Thrones wiki. It’s just entertainment. It’s no different from collecting any other kind of useless thing: bottle caps, beer cans, antique toys. If we are to make a list of existential problems that remain unsolved, and we eliminate those problems that are but word games that overload our meager minds, by proposing inarticulate deceptions masquerading as meaningful problems, then we are stuck with a small number of meaningful problems, and the vast literature of philosophy is a little other than attempt to create a religion by more elaborate deception than the original versions. Now, we could on the other hand, look at the catalog of philosophical positions as the evolution of (a) correspondence with reality, and (b) deceptions that seek to avoid it. Or the evolution of (a) true propositions, and (b) false propositions. And rather than empathize with the vast catalog of bad ideas we attempted to criticize and discover the motives of those thinkers and the methods of deceit that they employed, then that might be interesting. It might also be humiliating.
Theme: Civilization
-
Why Study Philosophy? There Isn’t Much There. It’s in History, Science, Economy.
If by philosophy we refer to fantasy literature as an extension of The Novel, Fictional histories, Mythology, Detective Stories, Fantasy, and Science Fiction, then the study of the SEP is equivalent to a world-of-warcraft or Game of Thrones wiki. It’s just entertainment. It’s no different from collecting any other kind of useless thing: bottle caps, beer cans, antique toys. If we are to make a list of existential problems that remain unsolved, and we eliminate those problems that are but word games that overload our meager minds, by proposing inarticulate deceptions masquerading as meaningful problems, then we are stuck with a small number of meaningful problems, and the vast literature of philosophy is a little other than attempt to create a religion by more elaborate deception than the original versions. Now, we could on the other hand, look at the catalog of philosophical positions as the evolution of (a) correspondence with reality, and (b) deceptions that seek to avoid it. Or the evolution of (a) true propositions, and (b) false propositions. And rather than empathize with the vast catalog of bad ideas we attempted to criticize and discover the motives of those thinkers and the methods of deceit that they employed, then that might be interesting. It might also be humiliating.
-
WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY? WELL. DON’T. ( If by philosophy we refer to fantasy litera
WHY STUDY PHILOSOPHY? WELL. DON’T.
( If by philosophy we refer to fantasy literature as an extension of The Novel, Fictional histories, Mythology, Detective Stories, Fantasy, and Science Fiction, then the study of the SEP is equivalent to a world-of-warcraft or Game of Thrones wiki. It’s just entertainment. It’s no different from collecting any other kind of useless thing: bottle caps, beer cans, antique toys. If we are to make a list of existential problems that remain unsolved, and we eliminate those problems that are but word games that overload our meager minds, by proposing inarticulate deceptions masquerading as meaningful problems, then we are stuck with a small number of meaningful problems, and the vast literature of philosophy is a little other than attempt to create a religion by more elaborate deception than the original versions. Now, we could on the other hand, look at the catalog of philosophical positions as the evolution of (a) correspondence with reality, and (b) deceptions that seek to avoid it. Or the evolution of (a) true propositions, and (b) false propositions. And rather than empathize with the vast catalog of bad ideas we attempted to criticize and discover the motives of those thinkers and the methods of deceit that they employed, then that might be interesting. It might also be humiliating. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-03 02:24:00 UTC
-
Interesting. It took McNeil 25 years to write the Rise of the West
Interesting. It took McNeil 25 years to write the Rise of the West.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 16:28:00 UTC
-
SORRY, BUT PLATO, ARISTOTLE, SMITH(ECONOMICS), LOCKE(LAW), PHILOSOPHY(HUME), JEF
SORRY, BUT PLATO, ARISTOTLE, SMITH(ECONOMICS), LOCKE(LAW), PHILOSOPHY(HUME), JEFFERSON, HAYEK…
These men are Aryans (Heroic, Commons-Contributing, Paternalistic, Domesticating, Aristocratic Egalitarians, Practicing Aristocratic Rule). To the degree that they are Christian, we can say only that there is nothing in the Christian world that was not present in the Aryan world.
The Christian world is but a kinder one in which the underclasses are serfs with moral rights we must respect as good parents, rather than slaves with legal rights we must obey as good rulers as in the ancient world.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-02 04:27:00 UTC
-
Q&A: Curt, Whats With Your Rejection Of Plato?
It is best to read Plato(idealist) along with Dante(apologist) and Macchiavelli(empiricist),with the understanding that as he is writing Greece has passed out of its high point, and he is trying to find a method for ‘manufacturing’ great leaders like Pericles. He wants to restore the past. Why? Because he doesn’t have a solution. So he’s kind of an analogy for 20th century conservatives. Aristotle, like Machiavelli,doesn’t try to make excuses for anything, he just reads a lot of constitutions and tells us what he finds. Hayek the same.
Aristotle, Macchiavelli, Locke, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Pareto, Weber, Durkheim, Burhnam, Hayek. All these authors practice Empiricism vs Idealism. The reason I’m exasperated with Plato is its he who the church turned to in order to create the priesthood. What they should have turned to was Roman Law for rule, Spartan Warriors for enforcement, Greek houses of government for commons, and Stoic Personal Philosophy, and Polytheistic Political Religion. But the dependence upon german mercenaries, the plagues that decimated the population, the eventual loss of the grain fields of north africa made them poor, and the people ignorant, and the lies of the church were simply a cheaper method of governing, with a smaller number of people, than was the army, lawyers, judges, and senators, all of whom must be expensively educated and thoroughly indoctrinated. MANAGEMENT CANNOT SUFFER INFINITE DILUTION -
Q&A: Curt, Whats With Your Rejection Of Plato?
It is best to read Plato(idealist) along with Dante(apologist) and Macchiavelli(empiricist),with the understanding that as he is writing Greece has passed out of its high point, and he is trying to find a method for ‘manufacturing’ great leaders like Pericles. He wants to restore the past. Why? Because he doesn’t have a solution. So he’s kind of an analogy for 20th century conservatives. Aristotle, like Machiavelli,doesn’t try to make excuses for anything, he just reads a lot of constitutions and tells us what he finds. Hayek the same.
Aristotle, Macchiavelli, Locke, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Pareto, Weber, Durkheim, Burhnam, Hayek. All these authors practice Empiricism vs Idealism. The reason I’m exasperated with Plato is its he who the church turned to in order to create the priesthood. What they should have turned to was Roman Law for rule, Spartan Warriors for enforcement, Greek houses of government for commons, and Stoic Personal Philosophy, and Polytheistic Political Religion. But the dependence upon german mercenaries, the plagues that decimated the population, the eventual loss of the grain fields of north africa made them poor, and the people ignorant, and the lies of the church were simply a cheaper method of governing, with a smaller number of people, than was the army, lawyers, judges, and senators, all of whom must be expensively educated and thoroughly indoctrinated. MANAGEMENT CANNOT SUFFER INFINITE DILUTION -
Caplan Always Requires A Tablespoon Of Salt
Caplan’s opinion, like most of his opinions, is not about western civilization in the same sense as westerners use the term in the Greco/Roman, Germanic, or Anglo, American, French, and German enlightenment thinkers: as the struggle for rule of law and truth, goodness and beauty. Instead, Caplan’s misattribution of ‘western civilization’ is the Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi) enlightenment vision of a universal market of high consumption combined with the British Imperial Marketplace that transformed British civilization from a germanic Hanseatic one prior to 1830’s expansion of the industrial revolution, to a purely commercial international one after 1830, under Disraeli and Gladstone.
Once you understand that he is not talking about western civilization at all, but cosmopolitan, his arguments are a little more transparent – and always consistent. The west didn’t develop first, it developed fastest. Why? It’s counter-intuitive: martial epistemology and the oath of the intitatic brotherhood of soldiers, the economics of concentrating family wealth into technology (bronze, horses, chariots and their descendants) for use by professional warriors, and the voluntary construction of armies from these voluntary associations. The reward for which was enfranchisement in freedom: the reciprocal insurance of one’s property from theft and conquest. Conversely given the wetness of our terrain, and its oceans, seas, and rivers, we never had to create a monopoly organization to control irrigation that caused the centralization of authority and capital in the flood-river civilizations. Instead, we constructed manorialism, which was the control of territory and its allocation to those best able to use it. Out of these conditions we developed argument, reason, common law, natural law, jury, senate, independent judiciary, private property, contract. And these processes from ideas, to organizations, to production to institutions, to armies can adapt faster as a group than any other known human social order. So the west defeated the rest not because it was first, because it was fastest. And it was fastest for the simple reason that we discovered ‘truth’ in the objective sense, and it was more valuable to us than the propaganda and deception necessary for central governments to organize multitudes for alternative, more communal, means of production. We discovered truth. Truth gave us trust. Trust gave us velocity. And we were (and are) faster than the rest because of it. Truth is the secret of the west. (That and that we’re the most eugenic civilization aside from the Ashkenazim). Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
Caplan Always Requires A Tablespoon Of Salt
Caplan’s opinion, like most of his opinions, is not about western civilization in the same sense as westerners use the term in the Greco/Roman, Germanic, or Anglo, American, French, and German enlightenment thinkers: as the struggle for rule of law and truth, goodness and beauty. Instead, Caplan’s misattribution of ‘western civilization’ is the Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi) enlightenment vision of a universal market of high consumption combined with the British Imperial Marketplace that transformed British civilization from a germanic Hanseatic one prior to 1830’s expansion of the industrial revolution, to a purely commercial international one after 1830, under Disraeli and Gladstone.
Once you understand that he is not talking about western civilization at all, but cosmopolitan, his arguments are a little more transparent – and always consistent. The west didn’t develop first, it developed fastest. Why? It’s counter-intuitive: martial epistemology and the oath of the intitatic brotherhood of soldiers, the economics of concentrating family wealth into technology (bronze, horses, chariots and their descendants) for use by professional warriors, and the voluntary construction of armies from these voluntary associations. The reward for which was enfranchisement in freedom: the reciprocal insurance of one’s property from theft and conquest. Conversely given the wetness of our terrain, and its oceans, seas, and rivers, we never had to create a monopoly organization to control irrigation that caused the centralization of authority and capital in the flood-river civilizations. Instead, we constructed manorialism, which was the control of territory and its allocation to those best able to use it. Out of these conditions we developed argument, reason, common law, natural law, jury, senate, independent judiciary, private property, contract. And these processes from ideas, to organizations, to production to institutions, to armies can adapt faster as a group than any other known human social order. So the west defeated the rest not because it was first, because it was fastest. And it was fastest for the simple reason that we discovered ‘truth’ in the objective sense, and it was more valuable to us than the propaganda and deception necessary for central governments to organize multitudes for alternative, more communal, means of production. We discovered truth. Truth gave us trust. Trust gave us velocity. And we were (and are) faster than the rest because of it. Truth is the secret of the west. (That and that we’re the most eugenic civilization aside from the Ashkenazim). Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine. -
Sigh. All The Enlightenment Theories Failed.
—“How about stopping with the anti-Semitic nonsense. Rothbard’s libertarianism has nothing to do with “Jewish Ethics”. . . try reading the Old Testament. Rothbard was for libertarian elites and opposed to statist ones.”— Peter E McAlpine Conversely, it has everything to do with jewish ethics, because likewise, it has everything to do with the attempt by the anglos, french, germans, and ashkenazi’s to express their group evolutionary strategies as universals. That’s the context of all my arguments: ALL ENLIGHTEMNTS FAILED because all enlightenments stated their nature as ‘the nature of man’ and it’s anything but the nature of man. The theory behind propertarianism and testimonialism is that we all screwed up. 1) man is rational and chooses rational actions. (cog sci) 2) groups develop competitive strategies that suit their geographic and demographic conditions. (Huntington) 3) these strategies evolved at the time of the Great Transformation out of whatever military (physically competing) strategies we used at the time, and were converted from physical tactics to political, ethical, moral, and religious justificationary narratives and arguments. (Gimbutas, Armstrong) 4) they evolved further when our family structures began to reflect our agrarian inheritance structures (Todd) 5) Evidence from American diaspora is that these properties were incorporated into our genes during the past x thousand years.(Fischer) 4) however universal decidability in matters of conflict is possible across whatever those boundaries are (Natural Law) 5) and that universal decidability is provided by nonimposition of costs against property-in-toto (across group strategies) not against just several (private) property within-groups, or across near-groups. 6) and therefore we can create a market for the production of commons that crosses preferences (in, near, out-group), not under the monopoly of consent (assent), but under the minority of legal prohibition on the use of commons as a means of parasitism (dissent). 7) and that it was this attempt to preserve in-group authority under majoritarian democracy that each group attempted to seize during the enlightenment, using whatever strategy was available to them: Anglo empirical – using very close to strictly constructed law – by misstating the nature of man as moral rather than rational German rational by attempting to preserve authority of the church and nobility through rational statement of the great narrative. French moral, by attempting to preserve the authority of the church on entirely moralistic (catholic) grounds. Russian romantic by attempting to preserve nihilism as the need for authority given the immorality of man, using nothing but narrative. Jewish pseudoscientific by using authoritarianism and pseudoscience, and suggestion that appeals to moral bias. WHY DO I MAKE THIS ARGUMENT? To show that all these errors, wishful thinking, and deceptions failed. And that the enlightenment was incomplete. But that it need not be overturned. Instead, that we might COMPLETE the enlightenment by completing the failed movement of the last century: the requirement for existentially rather than allegory in matters published into the informational commons – and by further requirement of strict construction in the publishing of laws proper, legislation(common contract), and regulation (unregulated commands). WHY SUCH STRICTNESS Because of the need to continue our historical evolution by incrementally suppressing new means of parasitism as they are created by man. ERGO: Do not criticize my work for what you ascertain, when I construct it based upon what I ascertain. NO MORE LIES. The next evolution of man is as costly as the last. We can complete the enlightenment. We can convert from the use of internally consistent rationalism to fully correspondent testimonialism, and eradicate the methods of deception in ethics, morality, politics, law, economics, and social science, and even the arts. Just as we converted from mysticism. And the rewards appear at least, to be equally as great if we do. Curt Doolittle The Philosohpy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine</div>