Curt Doolittle

Theme: Deception

  • Demand for the “Pleasing Delusion”

    Sep 16, 2019, 12:03 PM by Daniel Gurpide I previously posted that –“Plato’s philosophy was for ‘the intellectuals’; the ethics of Plato are tied to his whole system of knowledge, including politics. The doctrines of Epicurus appealed chiefly to the middle classes, the bourgeoisie; the ethics of Epicurus are separated from politics and joined only with physics (and Aristotle). The teachings of Jesus were for the very poor, the lost sheep. The ethics of Jesus are isolated from both physics and politics and fitted into a development scheme of salvation.”— Curt and I were trying to figure out why Epicurean philosophy was wiped out so easily after the fall of the Roman Empire. There were never strong Epicurean communities. Epicureans prioritized their small groups and chose not to engage in politics (a consequence of the civil wars that used to plague the ancient world). I was recently reading “Liberalism: Ancient & Modern” by Leo Strauss. The central chapter and the longest chapter is his “Notes on Lucretius”. He identifies one of the main tenets of Epicurean teaching–that the world that we love is not eternal, because every world is mortal within the eternal universe of atoms in motion–as “the most terrible truth”. Philosophers can live with this truth with a tranquil mind. But most human beings cannot. And consequently most human beings can find peace of mind only through the “pleasing delusion” of a religious belief that the world of human concern is supported by a loving intelligent designer. I guess that the temptation for the Platonist “intellectuals” to lead the “lost sheep” and at the same time sandwich the middle classes has always been there.

  • Demand for the “Pleasing Delusion”

    Sep 16, 2019, 12:03 PM by Daniel Gurpide I previously posted that –“Plato’s philosophy was for ‘the intellectuals’; the ethics of Plato are tied to his whole system of knowledge, including politics. The doctrines of Epicurus appealed chiefly to the middle classes, the bourgeoisie; the ethics of Epicurus are separated from politics and joined only with physics (and Aristotle). The teachings of Jesus were for the very poor, the lost sheep. The ethics of Jesus are isolated from both physics and politics and fitted into a development scheme of salvation.”— Curt and I were trying to figure out why Epicurean philosophy was wiped out so easily after the fall of the Roman Empire. There were never strong Epicurean communities. Epicureans prioritized their small groups and chose not to engage in politics (a consequence of the civil wars that used to plague the ancient world). I was recently reading “Liberalism: Ancient & Modern” by Leo Strauss. The central chapter and the longest chapter is his “Notes on Lucretius”. He identifies one of the main tenets of Epicurean teaching–that the world that we love is not eternal, because every world is mortal within the eternal universe of atoms in motion–as “the most terrible truth”. Philosophers can live with this truth with a tranquil mind. But most human beings cannot. And consequently most human beings can find peace of mind only through the “pleasing delusion” of a religious belief that the world of human concern is supported by a loving intelligent designer. I guess that the temptation for the Platonist “intellectuals” to lead the “lost sheep” and at the same time sandwich the middle classes has always been there.

  • “Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is th

    —“Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is that to use philosophy and morality as an argument as opposed to utility, reciprocity based on empirical?”—

    0) A woman implies access to friendship, affection, or sex, which she will never deliver. 1) I promise you life after death if you obey and undermine the upper classes. (abrahamism) 2) I promise you power and equality if you undermine the political system (marx) 3) I promise you equality if you undermine men (feminism) 4) I promise you status if you undermine the status hierarchy (postmodernism) 5) I lend you money at usurious prices that will entrap you. 6) I lend you money or extend you credit to gamble. 7) I lend you money or extend you credit to buy alcohol or drugs. 8) I appeal to your morality and pass the hart cellar immigration act. How long do you want this list to go on? Because those are just the easy ones. These are all lies that bait you into hazard (risk and loss).

  • “Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is th

    —“Can anyone elaborate on the baiting into moral hazards via pilpul please? Is that to use philosophy and morality as an argument as opposed to utility, reciprocity based on empirical?”—

    0) A woman implies access to friendship, affection, or sex, which she will never deliver. 1) I promise you life after death if you obey and undermine the upper classes. (abrahamism) 2) I promise you power and equality if you undermine the political system (marx) 3) I promise you equality if you undermine men (feminism) 4) I promise you status if you undermine the status hierarchy (postmodernism) 5) I lend you money at usurious prices that will entrap you. 6) I lend you money or extend you credit to gamble. 7) I lend you money or extend you credit to buy alcohol or drugs. 8) I appeal to your morality and pass the hart cellar immigration act. How long do you want this list to go on? Because those are just the easy ones. These are all lies that bait you into hazard (risk and loss).

  • You don’t understand. We are against you. Trump is saving you from us. Because w

    You don’t understand.
    We are against you.
    Trump is saving you from us.
    Because we’ve had enough of you undomesticated animals, your pretense of victimhood, your false virtue signaling and your hatred of the civilization that made your selfish self righteousness possible..

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 01:48:01 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267634039768391683

    Reply addressees: @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267617193904287744

  • You don’t understand. We are against you. Trump is saving you from us. Because w

    You don’t understand.
    We are against you.
    Trump is saving you from us.
    Because we’ve had enough of you undomesticated animals, your pretense of victimhood, your false virtue signaling and your hatred of the civilization that made your selfish self righteousness possible..

    Reply addressees: @_ReaalAmerican_ @realDonaldTrump

  • Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics – Book and Vide

    Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics – Book and Video Link https://propertarianism.com/2020/06/02/why-leaders-lie-the-truth-about-lying-in-international-politics-book-and-video-link/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-06-02 00:56:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1267621150793728000

  • Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics – Book and Vide

    Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics – Book and Video Link https://t.co/L8N79SKqJx

  • Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics – Book and Video Link

    WHY LEADERS LIE: THE TRUTH ABOUT LYING IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS – BOOK AND VIDEO LINK by John J. Mearsheimer VIDEO AMAZON LINK In Why Leaders Lie, Mearsheimer provides the first systematic analysis of lying as a tool of statecraft, identifying the varieties, the reasons, and the potential costs and benefits. Drawing on a wealth of examples, he argues that leaders often lie for good strategic reasons, so a blanket condemnation is unrealistic and unwise. Yet there are other kinds of deception besides lying, including concealment and spinning. Perhaps no distinction is more important than that between lying to another state and lying to one’s own people. Mearsheimer was amazed to discover how unusual interstate lying has been; given the atmosphere of distrust among the great powers, he found that outright deceit is difficult to pull off and thus rarely worth the effort. Moreover, it sometimes backfires when it does occur. Khrushchev lied about the size of the Soviet missile force, sparking an American build-up. Eisenhower was caught lying about U-2 spy flights in 1960, which scuttled an upcoming summit with Krushchev. Leaders are more likely to mislead their own publics than other states, sometimes with damaging consequences. Though the reasons may be noble–Franklin Roosevelt, for example, lied to the American people about German U-boats attacking the destroyer USS Greer in 1940, to build a case for war against Hitler-they can easily lead to disaster, as with the Bush administration’s falsehoods about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. There has never been a sharp analysis of international lying. Now a leading expert provides a richly informed and powerfully argued work that will change our understanding of why leaders lie.

  • Why Leaders Lie: The Truth About Lying in International Politics – Book and Video Link

    WHY LEADERS LIE: THE TRUTH ABOUT LYING IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS – BOOK AND VIDEO LINK by John J. Mearsheimer VIDEO AMAZON LINK In Why Leaders Lie, Mearsheimer provides the first systematic analysis of lying as a tool of statecraft, identifying the varieties, the reasons, and the potential costs and benefits. Drawing on a wealth of examples, he argues that leaders often lie for good strategic reasons, so a blanket condemnation is unrealistic and unwise. Yet there are other kinds of deception besides lying, including concealment and spinning. Perhaps no distinction is more important than that between lying to another state and lying to one’s own people. Mearsheimer was amazed to discover how unusual interstate lying has been; given the atmosphere of distrust among the great powers, he found that outright deceit is difficult to pull off and thus rarely worth the effort. Moreover, it sometimes backfires when it does occur. Khrushchev lied about the size of the Soviet missile force, sparking an American build-up. Eisenhower was caught lying about U-2 spy flights in 1960, which scuttled an upcoming summit with Krushchev. Leaders are more likely to mislead their own publics than other states, sometimes with damaging consequences. Though the reasons may be noble–Franklin Roosevelt, for example, lied to the American people about German U-boats attacking the destroyer USS Greer in 1940, to build a case for war against Hitler-they can easily lead to disaster, as with the Bush administration’s falsehoods about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. There has never been a sharp analysis of international lying. Now a leading expert provides a richly informed and powerfully argued work that will change our understanding of why leaders lie.