Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • “Philosophical language then is a dead language, and perhaps an immoral one – an

    —“Philosophical language then is a dead language, and perhaps an immoral one – and rationalism a dead technology. And they will be incrementally combined institutionally and normatively into theology, with Literary Philosophy(Plato and his heirs), merely representing it’s position on the spectrum of Aristotelian/Stoic/Roman/English Law (science), Confucian Reason, French Literary Idealism, Platonic Rational Idealism, Continental and Augustinian Fictionalism, and Abrahamic and Zoroastrian Fictionalism.”—

    ie: there aren’t any.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 17:50:00 UTC

  • I’m going to repeat this because it’s profoundly important: As soon as you admit

    I’m going to repeat this because it’s profoundly important: As soon as you admit the criteria of … – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy. GRAMMARS INCLUDE LIMITATIONS ON SEMANTICS

  • I’m going to repeat this because it’s profoundly important: As soon as you admit

    I’m going to repeat this because it’s profoundly important: As soon as you admit the criteria of … – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy. GRAMMARS INCLUDE LIMITATIONS ON SEMANTICS

  • I’m going to repeat this because it’s profoundly important: As soon as you admit

    I’m going to repeat this because it’s profoundly important:

    As soon as you admit the criteria of …

    – deception and fraud

    – incentive

    – cost

    – warranty

    …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.

    GRAMMARS INCLUDE LIMITATIONS ON SEMANTICS

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 16:43:00 UTC

  • The Privilege Of False Belief (Fantasy Worlds)

    I think the point is, whether your display, words, and deeds impose costs upon those who do not carry such falsehoods. We are currently wealthy enough that we can tolerate many falsehoods. We are currently wealthy enought hat we can tolerate much dysgenia. The question arises when we are no longer wealthy enough to tolerate falsehoods and dysgenia. 😉

  • THE PRIVILEGE OF FALSE BELIEF (FANTASY WORLDS) I think the point is, whether you

    THE PRIVILEGE OF FALSE BELIEF (FANTASY WORLDS)

    I think the point is, whether your display, words, and deeds impose costs upon those who do not carry such falsehoods.

    We are currently wealthy enough that we can tolerate many falsehoods.

    We are currently wealthy enought hat we can tolerate much dysgenia.

    The question arises when we are no longer wealthy enough to tolerate falsehoods and dysgenia.

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 12:36:00 UTC

  • The Privilege Of False Belief (Fantasy Worlds)

    I think the point is, whether your display, words, and deeds impose costs upon those who do not carry such falsehoods. We are currently wealthy enough that we can tolerate many falsehoods. We are currently wealthy enought hat we can tolerate much dysgenia. The question arises when we are no longer wealthy enough to tolerate falsehoods and dysgenia. 😉

  • Russel’s Teapot And The Existence Of God

    One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof. You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception. The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable. Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured) Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise. There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers. But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar. Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal) As soon as you admit the criteria of … – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.

  • RUSSEL’S TEAPOT AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD One of the great falsehoods of philosop

    RUSSEL’S TEAPOT AND THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

    One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof.

    You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception.

    The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable.

    Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured)

    Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise.

    There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers.

    But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar.

    Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal)

    As soon as you admit the criteria of …

    – deception and fraud

    – incentive

    – cost

    – warranty

    …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-11 12:13:00 UTC

  • Russel’s Teapot And The Existence Of God

    One of the great falsehoods of philosophy: proof. You cannot prove anything, so the question itself is a deception. The questions are unfalsifiable, which is a center position between justifiable and warrantable. Justifiabl(excuse) > falsifiable (possible) > demonstrable(empirical) > warrantable (insured) Proofs exist in and only in mathematics, for the simple reason that positional relations (positional names that we call numbers) are by definition and necessity constant relations and cannot be otherwise. There are very few other constant relations. (time is one, and even that is a question of relative position and velocity). We can create certain set arguments. We can identify certain reductio (trivial) necessities just as we can identify certain prime numbers. But the question is fraudulent (a trick) of grammar. Since one cannot prove anything, one can merely justify (non-promissory), provide terms of falsification(promissory), demonstrate(tempmoral), or insure (intertemporal) As soon as you admit the criteria of … – deception and fraud – incentive – cost – warranty …. into philosophical argument, we change from philosophy to law, just as when we introduce empiricism into theology, we move into philosophy.