Theme: Grammar

ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY -> POSTMODERN -> TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY [Y]ou see all these damned lists I make? All these definitions I write? How I walk through long sequences of reasoning? How I’m pedantic about what information is present, and what operation alters what information? How I place great burden on your ability to maintain a chain of reasoning, instead of giving you shortcuts that rely upon what we call ‘meaning’ – existing analogies in your memory? This category of philosophy is called ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY. Now technically analytic philosophy only requires set comparisons so that statements are internally testable, and non-contradictory. In other words “Does this appear to be true, and from the information stated in the words, can I say this is false?” Analytic philosophy attempts to incorporate scientific knowledge and their goal was to raise philosophy to a science – they failed. But analytic philosophy does not attempt to require basic research into creating sets of data. So analytic philosophy is extremely useful in the analysis and criticism of probabilistic data created in the age of probability and statistics. But it is not in and of itself useful for the solution of problems. There is nothing new therein. But TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY (what I write) additionally more burdensome because it requires I make sequences of testable statements constructed out of operations, taking as few liberties as possible, so that we do not get to ‘fudge’ using ‘fluffy’ or ‘obscurantist’ language. I have categorized myself as an analytic philosopher, since the term post-analytic philosophy refers to postmodern philosophy – lying. But I am settling on Testimonial Philosophy as term that separates Modern Philosophy (‘meaningful’ post-mysticism), continental (rationalisms), analytic (testable statements), postmodern (‘deception’), and Testimonial (scientifically complete using all dimensions of criticism.) Religious philosophy takes very little scientific knowledge – if any. we can say it might even be a detriment. Continental philosophy requires only that we do not rely upon mysticism or the supernatural, only that what we say is meaningful, and possibly useful. It’s a philosophy of analogy and meaning. Post analytic philosophy takes this idea further by replacing the supernatural that was created by the divine, and saying we can create the supernatural by choice and repetition: the social construction of truth. Analytic philosophy attempts to convert philosophy into a science in the hope that we can something about the world from our statements and words. But while we can test for falsehood with analytic language, we cannot divine from our words what we do not already know when we make use of them. Testimonial philosophy attempts to unite all disciplines into a single language constructed only out of truthful statements that have survived criticism by all dimensions. Truth is what survives total criticism whether we desire it or not. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY -> POSTMODERN -> TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY [Y]ou see all these damned lists I make? All these definitions I write? How I walk through long sequences of reasoning? How I’m pedantic about what information is present, and what operation alters what information? How I place great burden on your ability to maintain a chain of reasoning, instead of giving you shortcuts that rely upon what we call ‘meaning’ – existing analogies in your memory? This category of philosophy is called ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY. Now technically analytic philosophy only requires set comparisons so that statements are internally testable, and non-contradictory. In other words “Does this appear to be true, and from the information stated in the words, can I say this is false?” Analytic philosophy attempts to incorporate scientific knowledge and their goal was to raise philosophy to a science – they failed. But analytic philosophy does not attempt to require basic research into creating sets of data. So analytic philosophy is extremely useful in the analysis and criticism of probabilistic data created in the age of probability and statistics. But it is not in and of itself useful for the solution of problems. There is nothing new therein. But TESTIMONIAL PHILOSOPHY (what I write) additionally more burdensome because it requires I make sequences of testable statements constructed out of operations, taking as few liberties as possible, so that we do not get to ‘fudge’ using ‘fluffy’ or ‘obscurantist’ language. I have categorized myself as an analytic philosopher, since the term post-analytic philosophy refers to postmodern philosophy – lying. But I am settling on Testimonial Philosophy as term that separates Modern Philosophy (‘meaningful’ post-mysticism), continental (rationalisms), analytic (testable statements), postmodern (‘deception’), and Testimonial (scientifically complete using all dimensions of criticism.) Religious philosophy takes very little scientific knowledge – if any. we can say it might even be a detriment. Continental philosophy requires only that we do not rely upon mysticism or the supernatural, only that what we say is meaningful, and possibly useful. It’s a philosophy of analogy and meaning. Post analytic philosophy takes this idea further by replacing the supernatural that was created by the divine, and saying we can create the supernatural by choice and repetition: the social construction of truth. Analytic philosophy attempts to convert philosophy into a science in the hope that we can something about the world from our statements and words. But while we can test for falsehood with analytic language, we cannot divine from our words what we do not already know when we make use of them. Testimonial philosophy attempts to unite all disciplines into a single language constructed only out of truthful statements that have survived criticism by all dimensions. Truth is what survives total criticism whether we desire it or not. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine