—The proof is in the Left’s success.— Lying is a successful strategy. Marxist pseudoscience was a successful strategy. Kantian pseudorationalism was a successful strategy. Acquinian Christian synthesis was a successful strategy. Christianity was a successful strategy. Jewish synthesis of Egyptian and Babylonian monotheism was a successful strategy. If you succeed by lying, have you in fact succeeded? —Gramsci was no fraud and no lie and no pseudo-science.— Are you sure that his Marxist framing of his criticism of capitalism is not in itself pseudoscientific? (it is). The assumption is that man was innately good and that state and capitalist were predators, rather than man was barbaric, and that religion(norm/ostracism), state(law/force), and capital(remuneration/exchange) were the three tools available to man to engage in the gradual eugenic domestication of man by the systematic culling of the underclasses. And the most successful societies with the highest standard of living are those that most successfully culled the underclasses and therefore domesticated man sufficiently to create a division of labor. This is the scientific explanation. Put it his way: if your standard of measure is wrong, or you basic axioms are wrong, all deductions from your standard of measure or your axiom are also wrong – and if they’re right then it’s just an accident. So, yes, marxism is pseudoscience, socially, psychologically, and economically, and Gramsci was yet another pseudoscientist. The fact that he bases his arguments on Marxist justificationism rather than Christian theologism, is merely a choice of words – words that were designed to achieve the same ends. —And they are a very eugenic group.— If that’s true then (a) why are they reproductively undesirable, (b) why do they have such high rates of inverted sexual dimorphism, homosexuality, schizophrenia, and disease? (c) (and the question that matters) why are they unable to hold territory of their own without a host to prey upon? I agree that jews are elites in populist circles but they are only temporarily so, just as anglos were elites during their enlightenment, french theirs, germans theirs, and jews theirs. Jewish enlightenment being the last can take advantage of the lessons learned from the first few. But in the end, the Jewish century just ended and the Jewish pseudosciences: boaz, marx, frued, cantor, mises, Rothbard, rand, frankfurt, will, as Hayek suggested, go down in history as the second attempt to create a lie as a revolt against western truthfulness (rationalism and science). –libertarianism is a straw dog — Well, I think marxism/socialism is a great lie, just like randian/rothbaridian liberarianism is a great lie, just like straussian/kristol/trotskyism is a great lie. BUT HERE IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING: “If lying works we should use it” AND HERE IS WHAT I AM SAYING “Make lying in the commons a crime and eliminate lying from the public discourse, and we will win by default” we are the most creative people that ever lived. And we have the bio data to tell us why now. TRUTH IS ENOUGH So stop trying to lie well, and instead learn how to tell the truth well, and how to prosecute liars well. That’s my response. 😉
Theme: Deception
-
Critical Rationalism And Justificationism: Just The Beginning
The critical rationalists are vocal about the ever present effects of ever present justificationism. yet they do not take this into behavior, manners, ethics, morals, politics, and economics to the same degree that they do to verbal argument, statistics, and physical sciences. The world is built subtractively: we seek to make things cheaper. We cannot make time and energy, we can only save them. We cannot make liberty we can only suppress parasitism. -
Critical Rationalism And Justificationism: Just The Beginning
The critical rationalists are vocal about the ever present effects of ever present justificationism. yet they do not take this into behavior, manners, ethics, morals, politics, and economics to the same degree that they do to verbal argument, statistics, and physical sciences. The world is built subtractively: we seek to make things cheaper. We cannot make time and energy, we can only save them. We cannot make liberty we can only suppress parasitism. -
No Place for the Ineffable?
–“So the ineffable has no place?”–Ramsey I find ineffability to be an exceptional excuse fo preserving obscurantism and deceit. There is nothing inexplicable. There are things we merely are too ignorant to explain. As far as I know any human experience is conveyable by one means or another. The causal explanation of that experience is NOT THE SAME as the experience itself. But that does not mean that the causal explanation is not necessary and sufficient for the explanation of the experience. A recipe is necessary for a cake, but eating a cake is necessary for the experience of eating it. We may eat a cake without knowing how to make it by the recipe. But we cannot claim that the recipe for creating the experience of the cake is unknowable. —“Surely not, but reverse-engineering every experience in an empirical manner is questionable to say the least, it will always be found wanting by most people.”— Man is part of the universe and subject to the same constructions. There is nothing mysterious about it. The most serious problem we face is that the search system (system 1) and the action system (moving body parts) is insulated from our introspection. But that does not mean that we cannot use other tools and technology to perceive what occurs in our minds and bodies just as we use tools to observe what occurs in micro, and macro space outside of human scale. Our emotions are reactions to change in state of inventory (Property) thus informing us to act to acquire and defend inventory (property). There is nothing more to know I think. Or rather, psychology seems to be telling us only that we possess a lot of cognitive biasses to compel us to act optimistically in a hostile world where in we are largely ignorant. Lets take that criticism further: due to dunning Kruger effect, just as any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic even to the scientist, any sufficiently advanced form of reasoning appears to be deception or conspiracy to those of limited ability. Or more generalized, we are all limited in our abilities. And we all want concepts reduced to terms which we can grasp within our abilities. That means that fundamental truths must be articulated in a different language for about every 15 points of IQ (standard deviation) and in life, this is exactly what we see. So any sufficiently advanced concept will be impossible to voluntarily accept into one’s framework unless it is converted into language (analogy to experience) that is within the ability of an individual to experience. We do not limit truths to that which the common man can experience. We seek to create tools by which the common man can experience it given his limited abilities to experience that which he cannot directly perceive. I have said all along that I am not sure I am capable of reducing my language to that of the common man, and I have struggled very hard to reduce it to digestible form for the uncommon man. But there are others who will happily take this technology and transform it for their subordinate groups. I am pretty confident that propertarianism is revolutionary on the scale of Hume and Darwin. And while both those men are better authors than I am, if Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Einstein and Heidegger can be reduced from abstraction to policy then certainly propertarianism and testimonialism can be. After all. in the end, the principles are simple: 1) We constitute a division of perception and cognition as well as labor, and it is through voluntary cooperation that we make use of the specialized perception of each. 2) The law of non-imposition is sufficient for the rational decidability of all conflicts among men. This law can be incrementally discovered as we incrementally evolve our knowledge and deceit, productivity and parasitism, private property and commons, cooperation and conflict. 3) We domesticated man by the centralization of rents, and then further domesticate man by the suppression of centralized rents both of which are accomplished by the opposing arts of competition in the market, and juridical defense via common law, under natural law, insured by reciprocal warranty, where that warranty is provided by the promise of violence. 4) there are three methods of coercion which we can use for ill or good in the creation or disorder or order. and men learn to specialize in them, and we develop class hierarchies in each: violence, remuneration, and gossip. These three groups roughly battle for political control and it is this constant conflict that assists us in adaptation to different circumstances. Liberty and truth keep us flexible enough to adapt to any circumstance using the specializations of any of those three classes. Ergo they are not a hierarchy but competitors. 5) We could not mandate truth because as we developed greater knowledge the means of deceit (pseudoscience and pseudorationalism) exceeded our ability to defeat them with the common law. But today we CAN know how to defeat them by demanding the same warranties of due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we demand of goods and services in the market for consumption and commons. Testimonialism gives us sufficient criteria for putting into the common natural law, the method by which we must speak truthfully in order to prevent harm(imposition of costs) by externality. Now does everyone need to understand all these things and their consequences? No. They need instruction in grammar, rhetoric, and testimony: the art of warrantying that one does no harm when speaking in public. This does not mean we cannot err. It means only that we must provide due diligence to intellectual products just as we provide due diligence for goods and services rendered. Since we did much of this in the past when our science and public speech was limited largely to direct interpersonal experience, there is no reason we cannot teach one to do the same to indirect, impersonal experience of cooperation in the broader market. This is all entirely possible. Whether liars, parasites, and rent seekers will like the fact that they can no longer speak without due diligence is something else. People do not need to agree to truth. It just is. People do not need to agree to common or natural law, it just is. Only under democracy do we care about majority opinion. Liberty is constructed by elites who refuse to tolerate the alternatives. So we must merely not tolerate the alternatives.
-
No Place for the Ineffable?
–“So the ineffable has no place?”–Ramsey I find ineffability to be an exceptional excuse fo preserving obscurantism and deceit. There is nothing inexplicable. There are things we merely are too ignorant to explain. As far as I know any human experience is conveyable by one means or another. The causal explanation of that experience is NOT THE SAME as the experience itself. But that does not mean that the causal explanation is not necessary and sufficient for the explanation of the experience. A recipe is necessary for a cake, but eating a cake is necessary for the experience of eating it. We may eat a cake without knowing how to make it by the recipe. But we cannot claim that the recipe for creating the experience of the cake is unknowable. —“Surely not, but reverse-engineering every experience in an empirical manner is questionable to say the least, it will always be found wanting by most people.”— Man is part of the universe and subject to the same constructions. There is nothing mysterious about it. The most serious problem we face is that the search system (system 1) and the action system (moving body parts) is insulated from our introspection. But that does not mean that we cannot use other tools and technology to perceive what occurs in our minds and bodies just as we use tools to observe what occurs in micro, and macro space outside of human scale. Our emotions are reactions to change in state of inventory (Property) thus informing us to act to acquire and defend inventory (property). There is nothing more to know I think. Or rather, psychology seems to be telling us only that we possess a lot of cognitive biasses to compel us to act optimistically in a hostile world where in we are largely ignorant. Lets take that criticism further: due to dunning Kruger effect, just as any sufficiently advanced technology appears to be magic even to the scientist, any sufficiently advanced form of reasoning appears to be deception or conspiracy to those of limited ability. Or more generalized, we are all limited in our abilities. And we all want concepts reduced to terms which we can grasp within our abilities. That means that fundamental truths must be articulated in a different language for about every 15 points of IQ (standard deviation) and in life, this is exactly what we see. So any sufficiently advanced concept will be impossible to voluntarily accept into one’s framework unless it is converted into language (analogy to experience) that is within the ability of an individual to experience. We do not limit truths to that which the common man can experience. We seek to create tools by which the common man can experience it given his limited abilities to experience that which he cannot directly perceive. I have said all along that I am not sure I am capable of reducing my language to that of the common man, and I have struggled very hard to reduce it to digestible form for the uncommon man. But there are others who will happily take this technology and transform it for their subordinate groups. I am pretty confident that propertarianism is revolutionary on the scale of Hume and Darwin. And while both those men are better authors than I am, if Kant, Hegel, Wittgenstein, Einstein and Heidegger can be reduced from abstraction to policy then certainly propertarianism and testimonialism can be. After all. in the end, the principles are simple: 1) We constitute a division of perception and cognition as well as labor, and it is through voluntary cooperation that we make use of the specialized perception of each. 2) The law of non-imposition is sufficient for the rational decidability of all conflicts among men. This law can be incrementally discovered as we incrementally evolve our knowledge and deceit, productivity and parasitism, private property and commons, cooperation and conflict. 3) We domesticated man by the centralization of rents, and then further domesticate man by the suppression of centralized rents both of which are accomplished by the opposing arts of competition in the market, and juridical defense via common law, under natural law, insured by reciprocal warranty, where that warranty is provided by the promise of violence. 4) there are three methods of coercion which we can use for ill or good in the creation or disorder or order. and men learn to specialize in them, and we develop class hierarchies in each: violence, remuneration, and gossip. These three groups roughly battle for political control and it is this constant conflict that assists us in adaptation to different circumstances. Liberty and truth keep us flexible enough to adapt to any circumstance using the specializations of any of those three classes. Ergo they are not a hierarchy but competitors. 5) We could not mandate truth because as we developed greater knowledge the means of deceit (pseudoscience and pseudorationalism) exceeded our ability to defeat them with the common law. But today we CAN know how to defeat them by demanding the same warranties of due diligence in public speech in the market for information that we demand of goods and services in the market for consumption and commons. Testimonialism gives us sufficient criteria for putting into the common natural law, the method by which we must speak truthfully in order to prevent harm(imposition of costs) by externality. Now does everyone need to understand all these things and their consequences? No. They need instruction in grammar, rhetoric, and testimony: the art of warrantying that one does no harm when speaking in public. This does not mean we cannot err. It means only that we must provide due diligence to intellectual products just as we provide due diligence for goods and services rendered. Since we did much of this in the past when our science and public speech was limited largely to direct interpersonal experience, there is no reason we cannot teach one to do the same to indirect, impersonal experience of cooperation in the broader market. This is all entirely possible. Whether liars, parasites, and rent seekers will like the fact that they can no longer speak without due diligence is something else. People do not need to agree to truth. It just is. People do not need to agree to common or natural law, it just is. Only under democracy do we care about majority opinion. Liberty is constructed by elites who refuse to tolerate the alternatives. So we must merely not tolerate the alternatives.
-
Even Testimonialism Will Not Herald The End Of History
In lower trust countries people justify their various forms of lying just as we high trust people justify the externalities caused by our combination of linguistic conveniences, methodological habits, variations in morality and ethics, and of course political correctness That does not mean that just as we live considerably better than all these lower trust societies, that we world not yet again live better than we do now if we spoke more truthfully than we do now.
The reasons are not terribly hard to understand. And in simple terms the people you associate with are more important in determining your prosperity and safety than your own abilities. So just as the Flynn effect is the product of reducing the bottom and saturating everyone else in scientific general rules, we can likewise expect the same increase by saturating everyone in testimonial speech and reducing the bottom. We are not yet at the end of history. There is a long way to go. And perhaps the reson we seem stalled in physics is because we aren’t producing enough patterns in our own behavior to deduce the construction of the rest of the universe. -
Even Testimonialism Will Not Herald The End Of History
In lower trust countries people justify their various forms of lying just as we high trust people justify the externalities caused by our combination of linguistic conveniences, methodological habits, variations in morality and ethics, and of course political correctness That does not mean that just as we live considerably better than all these lower trust societies, that we world not yet again live better than we do now if we spoke more truthfully than we do now.
The reasons are not terribly hard to understand. And in simple terms the people you associate with are more important in determining your prosperity and safety than your own abilities. So just as the Flynn effect is the product of reducing the bottom and saturating everyone else in scientific general rules, we can likewise expect the same increase by saturating everyone in testimonial speech and reducing the bottom. We are not yet at the end of history. There is a long way to go. And perhaps the reson we seem stalled in physics is because we aren’t producing enough patterns in our own behavior to deduce the construction of the rest of the universe. -
Your cell phone, cable, electricity, gas, heat in ukraine is about $40 a month.
Your cell phone, cable, electricity, gas, heat in ukraine is about $40 a month.
The customer has so few protections against misrepresentation here in the states compared to europe.
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-05 11:36:00 UTC
-
CREEPY CONSPIRACY THEORY PEOPLE Totally creeped out by the conspiracy theorist c
CREEPY CONSPIRACY THEORY PEOPLE
Totally creeped out by the conspiracy theorist category of people out there. It’s one thing to be from the third world and talk of gods and demons. It’s another thing to be from the first world and talk about conspiracy theory, magic technology, and aliens.
Now, I know that, just as mythology can be used as fantasy literature, and theology can be used as fantasy literature, just as history can be used as fantasy literature, just as political philosophy can be used as fantasy literature, just as rational philosophy can be used as fantasy literature, just as analytic philosophy can be used as a fantasy literature, just as mathematics can be used as a fantasy literature, we can use ghost stories, alien stories, technology stories for fantasy literature. We can create many models worlds for our minds to inhabit in order to avoid inhabiting the one our bodies do.
Broken minds find escape in that fantasy literature. And that the combination of a broken mind, the feeling of alienation from either the personal or social experience of having a broken mind, and the consequence of Dunning-Kruger effects, produces every incentive to escape into it. Either momentarily; or frequently; or unless challenged, or despite challenges: contrary to all the evidence.
Some of us do not fit well into a society which might nurture us. We are not likable. We lack empathy. We lack sufficient sympathy. We lack sufficient shared experiences. We are ill, or unattractive, deformed, or traumatized, or even simply poor and ignorant. So we invent reasons why society is ‘bad’. We invent reasons why we are good, if not superior to others. We invent reasons why others are bad. We find a fantasy literature which we can tolerate, and we accept it on faith because we need to.
I understand that these people exist. What troubles me is that we have created a host of ridiculous ‘religions’ – fantasy literatures we pretend are realities through want and faith – that are non-correspondent yet non-beneficial, while at the same time we have eliminated those fantasy literatures (polytheism) which are reasonably correspondent and reasonably beneficial. A dim, devout Christian with a broken mind, is a pretty good thing.
We can’t say that about almost any other fantasy literature religion
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-10-04 03:18:00 UTC
-
There Is Only One ‘Philosophy’ If We Speak The Truth. The Rest Is Ignorance, Error, Bias And Lies
(very important for anyone interested in philosophy)*(How should we teach Philosophy? Let me tell you.)* One can teach philosophy as historical LITERATURE(Errors, Lies and Failures). Or one can teach philosophy as the evolution of TRUTH TELLING (science). If you want to teach the history of TRUTH then you teach western philosophy – at least you teach a small subset of it. (A very small one). If you do teach truth then philosophy is equivalent to a STEM course SEQUENCE:1 – Philosophy (science of truthful speech)2 – Law (social/cooperative science)3 – Economics (organizational science)4 – Mathematics ( science of measurement )5 – Physical Science (physical sciences of the universe)6 – Technology (physical sciences in materials)7 – Engineering, (physical sciences in construction) If you want to teach literature, then teach moral literature. SEQUENCE:1 – Mythology, (Non-Conflationary Analogy)2 – Theology, (Authoritarian/Conflationary Analogy)—3 – Moral Literature, <<—- Almost All ‘Philosophy’4 – The Novel and Short Story, <<— Incl., Fantasy, Sci-Fi, Mystery, Etc.—5 – History, (description)6 – Biography,(description)—7 – Argument (coercion)7 – Essay (opinion) 8 – Poetry and Verse. (expression) WE MAY DIVERSIFY LITERATURE BY CULTURE LIKE DIET, AND FESTIVALS. But truth bears no competition. Polylogism cannot exist. All such attempts are merely ignorance, error, bias and lies. THE WEST EXCEEDED THE REST THREE TIMES. In the Steppe.(horse, wheel, bronze, heroism (and technology)) In the Ancient World (heroism, truth, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, and technology) In the Modern World. (heroism, truth, trust, reason, jury, natural law, commerce, accounting, common law, and technology ) For these simple reasons: Truth not compromise, Analytic(non-conflationary), not conflationary, Competition(sovereignty), not Decision(rule). OTHERS MUST LEARN TRUTH. WE DO NOT NEED TO STUDY ERROR.LIMITS: SPEAKING IN SEQUENCES (SPECTRA) I follow a general rule that if I speak in ideal types (concepts) and I cannot position an argument or idea on a spectrum (define its limits) then I do not know what I am talking about, and will unknowingly engage in conflation and imprecision from which no deduction is possible, since each attempt merely amplifies errors of conflation. Yet this is precisely what men do, because most men do not seek to discover uncomfortable (expensive) truth (requiring adaptation) but to justify a utilitarian falsehood (limit costs of adaptation). PHILOSOPHY = CHOICE/PREFERENCE + DECIDABILITY/NECESSITY Any Philosophical Framework, no matter which argumentative method is used to construct it (myth, parable, rationalism, pseudoscience, law, or science) must supply the following in order to produce a change in state of the human mind: 1 – Metaphysical value judgment as to man’s relation with reality (usually if not always unstated). 2 – A set of Concepts, Properties, and Relations, 3 – Values for those Concepts and Relations, 4 – Decidability from those concepts, properties, relations, and values. And in that metaphysical value judgment, and by the means of arguing in favor of it, do we find the differences between civilizations, religions, and philosophies. METAPHYSICAL ASSUMPTIONS – The world is uncontrollable(or evil) and I must escape from it. (Mysticism/Judaism/Christianity/Islam = ‘Critique/gossip’ or ‘fantasy worlds’ or ‘utopias’) – The world is hostile and I can only control how I respond to it (Buddhism = Disengagement) – The world of man is chaos but we can create harmony, and I must learn to live in harmony with it (Confucianism = Historicism) – The world is vast and I can only control and be responsible for what I have the ability to control and be responsible for. (Stoicism = Natural Law) – The purpose of my existence is to alter the world for the better having existed in it. (Heroism = Technology) ASSUMPTIONS ARE EVOLUTIONARY STRATEGIES We are (genetically, behaviorally, materially) more or less desirable to others in our capacity as children, kin, mates, friends, allies, leaders, rulers. We call this our ‘class’: Genetic, Occupational, Economic, Social. All of which overlap except for the outliers. . STRATEGIES ARE GOOD(LIBERATING) AND BAD(IMPRISONING), NOT MERELY DIFFERENCES IN PREFERENCES So some strategies will lead you into dysgenia, ignorance, decline, poverty and illness (ISLAM). And some strategies will lead you into slow evolution (Confucius), and some strategies will provide you with eugenics and rapid evolution (Western Aristocratic Egalitarianism “Aryanism”, Middle-Class Rule of Law, Working Class Stoicism, Underclass Christianity.) WESTERN PHILOSOPHY (HEROISM, LAW[natural empirical], TECHNOLOGY[science], REFLECTS CLASSES (just as Confucius vs Lao Tzu, just as Brahmins vs the Underclasses) Westerners do not engage in institutional conflation. We separate mythic literature(heroism), religion(sanctity), festival/celebration/sport, education, law, science. And we either produce a subset of each for each class, or we emphasize one or another in each class. In other words, we produce conceptual products for various markets (upper, professional, middle, working, lower, under). And because none has any real power via conflation of argument or institution, this market remains: a competition between philosophies (methods of decidability). WESTERNERS USE DECONFLATED INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENTS: SPECIALIZATION NOT UNIFORMITY This ‘deconflated market’ model is profoundly important when comparing the west to other ‘conflationary monopoly’ civilizations and cultures. THIS PROVIDES SPECIALIZATION IN EACH TYPE OF ARGUMENT, INSTITUTION It allows us to specialize in each without sacrificing each out of pragmatic necessity given the diverse abilities of each class (or rather lack of abilities of each class). THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE NOT (UNTIL NOW) HAD A UNIVERSAL COMMENSURABLE LANGUAGE ACROSS INSTITUTIONS AND ARGUMENT TYPES. While we have had MONEY to make commensurable good and services across all specializations While we have had NATURAL LAW to make conflict commensurable across all specializations. While we have had MATHEMATICS to make everything we measure commensurable across all specializations. While we have had NATURAL SCIENCE to We have NOT had a MORAL LANGUAGE OF COOPERATION across all those specializations. PHILOSOPHY IS LARGELY PRACTICED AS A MIDDLE CLASS AND UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS METHOD OF INFLUENCING THE RULING CLASS (STATUS QUO). Religion is largely practiced as a lower class means of resisting the ruling class (status quo). Religion coerces man by resistance. Credit and Trade are practiced as a means of rule by the economic class within the limits fo the religious and legal classes. Finance, Industry, Entrepreneurship, Calculative, Managerial, administrative specialize in organization of production Law is largely practiced as a means of administrative rule by the ruling class, by employing the professional class, just as war is practiced as a means of territorial rule by the ruling class by employing the working, and underclasses. Law coerces man by force. Science, technology, engineering, craftsmanship, and labor specialize in transformation (coercing the universe rather than coercing man). Women specialize in the organization of reproduction, care, and caretaking. They need no ‘religion’ except to confirm the intuitions that they are born with. Festivals, Philosophy, Soldiery are for men. And Religion, Feasts, and caretaking are for women. Not that we cannot preclude one or the other. But this explains the kind of information system (philosophy) we are attracted to: one that justifies our genetic predispositions. SO PHILOSOPHERS FAILED IN THE 20TH CENTURY 1 – Philosophers tried to make the discipline a SPECIALTY rather than a language of commensurability. (The continued investigation into Truth, since all the other specializations had broken off into sciences,) 2 – Philosophers tried to create a second set of lies, this time with pseudorationalism, and pseudoscience (the cosmopolitans:Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Adorno; Rand/Rothbard; and the Puritans: French, and American literary Postmodernists; And the secular Christians Rawls-and-too-many-others-to-list. ) 3 – Philosophers failed to solve the problem of the social sciences (cooperation) and instead used a multitude of deceptions and obscurantisms in order to justify authoritarianism(non-cooperation). This exposes most philosophers as theologians in secular rhetorical garb. PHILOSOPHERS EITHER ENGAGE IN THE INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH, THE ARTICULATION OF POSSIBILITY, OR THE CREATION OF A FICTION, OR THE CREATION OF DECEIT. Philosophers have a very poor record in history. Despite so many, it is largely those who struggle to discover empiricism and its offspring ‘testimony’ that have contributed to man. The rationalists are almost universally reducible to excuse makers, and those who attempt to create a rational literature with which to replace biblical literature of mysticism. Many people who enjoy philosophy are far closer to recreational readers of science fiction and fantasy with which to escape the effort of truth seeking in reality, than inquisitors into truth from which we may construct solutions. We can discover which of these a person is: recreational literature, seeker of a particular solution, or investigator of truth with very few questions and very little difficulty. Whenever we do not argue in favor of truth we merely deprive Man of the knowledge he needs to invent institutions of cooperation that assist us in cooperating in the real world. We can use the truth to identify possibilities, or we can deny the truth and create possibilities that require lies (religions) incompatible with reality. We can create deceptions with which to destroy truth or obscure it. It is quite easy in retrospect to determine which philosophers have done so. PHILOSOPHERS AS PROFITEERS ON THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION In other words, philosophers sought a market into which to sell their ideas for profit or coercion, not truth, regardless of profit or coercion. ROLE OF PHILOSOPHY? 1) Investigate and Prosecute Falsehoods And Their Advocates 2) Incorporate the findings of the sciences such that discover superior truths to those we use today. 3) Discover new possibilities having incorporated the findings of the sciences. 4) Articulate metaphysical representations, Reorganize Concepts, Properties, and Relations, Re-weight Values, and provide new criteria of Decidability. IS THERE A SPACE FOR LIARS? No. There is a space for parables. But liars, particularly philosophical liars, should be prosecuted like any other liar that creates a hazard in the commons. Most philosophers function akin to tiger traps baited with words and are completely unaccountable for the tragedy and death that they have caused. I am a philosopher. As such, a prosecutor. Anything that survives prosecution, and which I am willing to warranty with my life, is worthy of publication into the commons. If either of those conditions fails, then I should be punished for it. Why should philosophers have greater permissiveness than the manufacturers of ladders, and the brewers of coffee, or the makers of drugs? They shouldn’t. Because arguably, philosophers and theologians ship the worst product that causes the most harm of any product man has made. (I know. Everyone wants to play philosopher at everyone else’s expense just like they want to free-ride on everyone else in every other capacity in life. But speech produces consequences. And while we may always say truthful speech produces consequences that we must bear the cost of, there is no reason we must bear the cost of false speech. Especially given how much of it there is, and how expensive it has been for western civilization.) THE MOST IMPORTANT SEQUENCE – Testimony(what can I see not infer) – Vocabulary – Grammar – Logic(reason) and Measurement(math) – Natural Law – Micro Economics (incentives) – Strict Construction – Rhetoric (argument) -Cheers Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine https://www.facebook.com/groups/1262749110415707/permalink/1304648022892482/