Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • (Just to counsel those who don’t know, misquoting, fabricating quotes, or writin

    (Just to counsel those who don’t know, misquoting, fabricating quotes, or writing fictional quotes, as long as they appear parody, satire, or fiction, is protected under law. Personally I see all talk whether overzealous or complimentary, or critical or ridiculing, as free advertising, and a measure of success – since those who can make arguments do, and those who can’t admit defeat by retreating into parody, satire, and ridicule. And while I love that people come to my defense, the chatter that actually bothers me is the overzealous. So don’t sweat it. It’s all good. – Cheers ; )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 09:58:00 UTC

  • How Do We Communicate Ideas with Fiction but Not Falsehood?

    HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY? William Butchman—“We have a universe of potentiality available to us. Is potential which has not yet been called into being ‘fiction’, is it ‘false’?”— Curt Doolittle No. We can state it falsely, but we cannot state that which we can envision is yet false. no. To respect natural law we must merely not make false claims. This is the beauty of fiction (literature) vs fictionalism (religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience – the discourse of conflation) Fiction makes no truth claims, it merely spreads ideas. If it makes truth claims, (particularly ‘smear campaigns against past idols) then that is not fiction but fictionalization – conflation)

  • How Do We Communicate Ideas with Fiction but Not Falsehood?

    HOW DO WE COMMUNICATE IDEAS WITH FICTION BUT NOT FALSELY? William Butchman—“We have a universe of potentiality available to us. Is potential which has not yet been called into being ‘fiction’, is it ‘false’?”— Curt Doolittle No. We can state it falsely, but we cannot state that which we can envision is yet false. no. To respect natural law we must merely not make false claims. This is the beauty of fiction (literature) vs fictionalism (religion, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience – the discourse of conflation) Fiction makes no truth claims, it merely spreads ideas. If it makes truth claims, (particularly ‘smear campaigns against past idols) then that is not fiction but fictionalization – conflation)

  • IS DOOLITTLE A RUSSIAN SHILL? “Doolittle is a shill for Putin” — Eli Harman My

    IS DOOLITTLE A RUSSIAN SHILL?

    “Doolittle is a shill for Putin” — Eli Harman

    My posts on Ukraine and Russia

    https://propertarianism.com/category/off-topic/russia-and-ukraine/

    My Posts on Putin and Russia

    https://propertarianism.com/?s=Putin+Russia

    My Video on Circumpolar Civilization (inspired by Gorbachev)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n42R6coy5Dk

    My position is pretty clear for anyone doing the research.

    And yes, I would rather live in Eastern Europe than western.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-25 14:49:00 UTC

  • Definition: Fictionalism

    Mar 24, 2017 11:43am DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM (important for propertarian core) Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses: 1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false. 2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:

    • conversation(bonding or entertainment),
    • discourse (discovery),
    • argument(persuasion), and
    • testimony(reporting),

    Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of

    • description vs fiction,
    • honesty vs deceit, and
    • truth or falsehood,

    Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.) 3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.   Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement) 2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and; 3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out. 4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism. 5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past. Of these groups: 0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism) 1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ), 2 – Supernormal Physicists, and 3 – Mathematical Platonists; All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons: 1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths. 2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains. 5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. And so: If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth  (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Definition: Fictionalism

    Mar 24, 2017 11:43am DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM (important for propertarian core) Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”). Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses: 1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false. 2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else:

    • conversation(bonding or entertainment),
    • discourse (discovery),
    • argument(persuasion), and
    • testimony(reporting),

    Differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of

    • description vs fiction,
    • honesty vs deceit, and
    • truth or falsehood,

    Of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.) 3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.   Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement) 2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and; 3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out. 4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism. 5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult) We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past. Of these groups: 0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism) 1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ), 2 – Supernormal Physicists, and 3 – Mathematical Platonists; All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons: 1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths. 2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or 3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or 4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains. 5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered. And so: If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and If we define truth  (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference. Then: We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups. We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups. Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM (important for propertarian core) Fictionalism is the n

    DEFINITION: FICTIONALISM

    (important for propertarian core)

    Fictionalism is the name of the judgement within philosophy, as to which statements that appear to be descriptions of the world should not be construed as such, but should instead be understood as cases of “make believe”, of pretending to treat something as literally true (a “useful fiction”).

    Fictionalism consists in at least the following three theses:

    1) Claims made within the domain of discourse are taken to be truth-apt; that is, descriptive or fictional, and honest or deceitful, and true or false.

    2) The domain of discourse is to be interpreted at face value—not reduced to meaning something else: conversation(bonding or entertainment), discourse (discovery), argument(persuasion), and testimony(reporting), differ substantially in the contractual commitments to one another as to the degree of description vs fiction, honesty vs deceit, and truth or falsehood, of our statements. (We white and grey lie all time time in conversation, and we do no such thing in testimony.)

    3) The purpose of *discourse(discovery)* in any given domain is not truth, but communication. Whether descriptive or fictional, honest or deceptive, true or false.

    Four common occurrences of fictionalism are:

    1) mathematical fictionalism advocated by Hartry Field, which states that talk of numbers and other mathematical objects is nothing more than a verbal convenience for performing their science. (the logic of constant relations: measurement)

    2) modal fictionalism developed by Gideon Rosen, which states that possible worlds, regardless of whether they exist or not, may be a part of a useful discourse, and;

    3) moral fictionalism in meta-ethics, advocated by Richard Joyce, suggests that fictions (Falsehoods) are too useful to throw out.

    4) religious fiction in all areas of thought – our most ancient form of fictionalism.

    5) Aesthetic Fictionalism (In the arts, in experience, in the new age, and in the occult)

    We must note that all three of these claims are just excuses for doing what has been done in the past.

    Of these groups:

    0 – Religious Language in toto (supernaturalism)

    1 – Literary Philosophers (positive, or advocates ),

    2 – Supernormal Physicists, and

    3 – Mathematical Platonists;

    All attempt to preserve the use of fictions for one of the following possible reasons:

    1) To conduct deceptions by claiming their arbitrary preferences or judgements are truths.

    2) Obscure their ignorance of causality and decidability in their disciplines, or

    3) Preserve the cost of their investments in obscurantist fictional descriptions, or

    4) Avoid the costs of investigating the method of decidability within their domains.

    5) Avoid the falsification of their arguments if methods of decidability within their domains are discovered.

    If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and

    if we define truth as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.

    Then:

    We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.

    We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.

    Natural Law (propertarianism), is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a .fictional literature.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-24 11:43:00 UTC

  • The Past Superstition vs Present Pseudoscience. (Fictionalisms)

    ….I think the problem is that the past was honest but justified it supernaturally, because the promise of reward was after death. Whereas the present is dishonest and justified pseudo-scientifically and promised if we can reach a socialist utopia or some variation thereof. The medieval order was hierarchical and honest. The only false promise was after death. We live in a world of loneliness and lies….

  • The Past Superstition vs Present Pseudoscience. (Fictionalisms)

    ….I think the problem is that the past was honest but justified it supernaturally, because the promise of reward was after death. Whereas the present is dishonest and justified pseudo-scientifically and promised if we can reach a socialist utopia or some variation thereof. The medieval order was hierarchical and honest. The only false promise was after death. We live in a world of loneliness and lies….

  • The People Who Lie and Defraud

    The author forgot that they were also (a) the developers of the pseudosciences ( Frankfurt/aesthetics and history, freud/psychology, boaz/anthropology, marx/sociology/economics, mises/economics, cantor/mathematical-platonism, (b) the conquest of the university by pseudoscience (all of the above), (c) as well as the organized attack on our constitution (Natural Law) by the selective prosecution of cases designed to incrementally break it, (d) as well as the current method of financial parasitism which we incorrectly call capitalism, but should call Rothchildian Monetary Fraud. There is nothing immoral about capitalism. But everything immoral about financialism. And they are the principle activists in propagandizing in the Entertainment, Media, and Advertising industries. “The People Who Lie and Defraud.” Yeah, we aren’t exactly saints and the british certainly take the cake during colonialism, but the consequences of their administration by rule of law turn out to be profoundly beneficial. Americans basically are great sherrifs but the worst possible judges of anything. And between the british and americans we pretty much do everything WRONG except the law. Thankfully THE LAW AND TRUTH ARE ENOUGH despite our multitude of utopian idealistic and entirely false fantasies about the nature of man. The evil of (((their))) intuitions like the evil of women’s intuitions is not so much from intent but from parasitic impulse and lack of agency. We must either conquer and rule, and rule by natural law, or be ruled and conquered. Yes (((they))) and their islamic cousins are evil as hell. But that does not mean they cannot be domesticated like all other wild animals we have domesticated in the past.