I think, like many, that the german project was a rather childish attempt at secular theology. To retain the inspiration of moral theology without the supernatural.
I think nietzsche’s insight was in the birth of tragedy and that he couldn’t convert it into scientific prose.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:54:47 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232378425316401153
Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232377333706887168
Even today the continent (secular theological philosophy) and the empire (scientific-logical-legal-economic) remain operating under attempts to preserve their traditional mythos.
Which is why continental philosophy is …. embarrassing.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:48:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232376785687523328
Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232376226469285891
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Abhiman11678846 That each civilization tried to find a way to accommodate the scientific revolution (newton > locke/hobbes > smith> hume) in the removal of theology from the group’s social political and competitive strategy, while preserving its strategy in secular theological form.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232376226469285891
That each civilization tried to find a way to accommodate the scientific revolution (newton > locke/hobbes > smith> hume) in the removal of theology from the group’s social political and competitive strategy, while preserving its strategy in secular theological form.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:46:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232376226469285891
Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232374886720557057
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Abhiman11678846 I’m saying (and I’m not alone) that the continental attempt to resist british “enlightenment” spread from france (rousseau) to germany (kant, schopenhauer), to the first jewish (Mendelsohn), and the second (Marx et al) reformations in their attempts to create a secular theology.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232374886720557057
I’m saying (and I’m not alone) that the continental attempt to resist british “enlightenment” spread from france (rousseau) to germany (kant, schopenhauer), to the first jewish (Mendelsohn), and the second (Marx et al) reformations in their attempts to create a secular theology.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:40:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232374886720557057
Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232372175463747584
The counter-revolution against realism, materialism, truth, markets and evolution: Cantor-Bohr (math), Boas-Freud (anth/psych), Marx-Trotksy-Rothbard(soc/econ), Adorno-Fromm(culture), Friedan(marriage), Derrida (truth and reason). Pseudoscience and Sophistry(Pilpul,Critique).
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:32:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232372863585398784
Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232371670020689920
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Abhiman11678846 Depends on classification. If the Anglo Empirical Revolution is the enlightenment, then postmodernism is one of the counter-enlightenments against science and reason. It’s the most successful because it’s pure sophistry: social construction by sophistry instead of theology.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232371670020689920
Testimony – P Is the Rational Expression of Our Ancient Traditions. https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/testimony-p-is-the-rational-expression-of-our-ancient-traditions/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:24:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232370685953085447
TESTIMONY – P IS SCIENTIFIC(LOGICAL, OPERATIONAL, EMPIRICAL) ARTICULATION OF OUR ANCIENT TRADITIONS. by Scott Strong What’s brilliant about you Curt is your ability to articulate it all so methodically. The reality is these Western ideas weren’t really formed by one great philosopher but are rather an an hod, kit-bashed collection of mostly intuitive practices that our ancestors accumulated, not out of some great philosophy or moral conviction, so much as pure pragmatism in that they were the best practices that simply worked and because if people did things that didn’t work, the group would die in battle, or starve in the lean winter months. Propertarianism is not your invention, but rather your codification and articulation of the mostly intuitive unconscious pragmatic wisdom of our ancestors. === That’s right. I just wrote it down for the first time the way others have written their bibles of primitive thought in primitive language. It may not have been possible to our body of advanced thought until we had an advanced language to write it in. But we’ve been practicing it for thousands of years. And that’s why propertarianism is a product of our European civilization, not me – i’m not that important and our ancestors are. And that is why it has more legitimacy than some other nonsense some philosopher pulled out of his had. I’m just a scientists discovering and capturing the rules of western civilization. I’m just doing natural science in the natural law of our people – writing down the formulae.
TESTIMONY – P IS SCIENTIFIC(LOGICAL, OPERATIONAL, EMPIRICAL) ARTICULATION OF OUR ANCIENT TRADITIONS. by Scott Strong What’s brilliant about you Curt is your ability to articulate it all so methodically. The reality is these Western ideas weren’t really formed by one great philosopher but are rather an an hod, kit-bashed collection of mostly intuitive practices that our ancestors accumulated, not out of some great philosophy or moral conviction, so much as pure pragmatism in that they were the best practices that simply worked and because if people did things that didn’t work, the group would die in battle, or starve in the lean winter months. Propertarianism is not your invention, but rather your codification and articulation of the mostly intuitive unconscious pragmatic wisdom of our ancestors. === That’s right. I just wrote it down for the first time the way others have written their bibles of primitive thought in primitive language. It may not have been possible to our body of advanced thought until we had an advanced language to write it in. But we’ve been practicing it for thousands of years. And that’s why propertarianism is a product of our European civilization, not me – i’m not that important and our ancestors are. And that is why it has more legitimacy than some other nonsense some philosopher pulled out of his had. I’m just a scientists discovering and capturing the rules of western civilization. I’m just doing natural science in the natural law of our people – writing down the formulae.
Good and Evil Is a Middle Eastern Not European Concept https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/25/good-and-evil-is-a-middle-eastern-not-european-concept/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 17:39:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232359536381526017
—-“Good and evil were invented in the middle east to facilitate cultural warfare between the middle east and the indians. European religion used chaos and mischief vs order, and our gods were ‘real people’ with real frailties.” – Curt Doolittle —“The concepts “good” and “evil” are actually Indo-European in origin. Etymology dictionaries are useful. Better perhaps to say that our misconceptions about what exactly those terms mean are influenced by Middle Eastern philosophy…”—AunMarie Grooms
Indo european a language and cultural family of genetically west eurasians of the proto-European, proto-Caucasian, proto-Iranic but NOT proto-turkic post glacial maximum peoples. The proto-caucasians and anatolians appear to have been lost to us. As far as I know, good and evil are indo-iranic not indo european. It’s unlikely that I err. The division between European, iranic, indo-iranic results in European (aristocratic egalitarian and martial), Persian(aristocratic authoritarian and martial), and Hindu( caste, duty-role, and ‘priestly’) pantheons. The argument put forth by others which I got from Karen Armstrong, was that it appears that the north and west europeans developed more so in the corded ware culture(material), and the iranics more in the vedas (spiritual), and that this is largely because etherial religion as we understand it evolved in what we call Mesopotamia-Anatolia or, more precisely, along the euphrates. It’s most likely that religious pantheons developed differently due to differences in indo european ethnicities, and strategies. The west pretty much killed everyone they came in contact with (or at least the males) because the neolithic farmers were not developed enough to resist them. But as the iranic people migrated east to india, then south of the caspian, then west back into Mesopotamia they encountered developed peoples that they had to conquer. So, iranics and indo iranics used hierarchy to rule an compete with others like the indus valley people and the Mesopotamians while europeans maintained aristocratic egalitarianism and didn’t develop authoritarianism until the late roman empire – and even then – they would have been more successful if they’d been much more authoritarian and much less tolerant.