Curt Doolittle

Theme: Grammar

  • INTERESTING: “KNOW”, “KNOWING” and “KNOWLEDGE” AS TERMS OF OBSCURANTISM. Possess

    INTERESTING: “KNOW”, “KNOWING” and “KNOWLEDGE” AS TERMS OF OBSCURANTISM.

    Possession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, throu axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity.

    The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency.

    Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there.

    Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception.

    But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action.

    One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge.

    I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-13 12:06:00 UTC

  • Interesting: “Know”, “Knowing” and “Knowledge” As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: "Know", "Knowing" and "Knowledge" As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: “Know”, “Knowing” and “Knowledge” As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Aphorisms are informationally dense. But argumentatively parsimonious. And they

    Aphorisms are informationally dense. But argumentatively parsimonious.

    And they are very hard to craft. They must ring true.

    The secret is that they must be well constructed sets.

    As well constructed sets, they are self evident.

    And composing well constructed sets, requires knowledge of construction.

    Not mere knowledge of use.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-07 05:06:00 UTC

  • might have to go through and clarify this a bit. Because its too open to fuzzy t

    http://feedly.com/k/1kP348MI might have to go through and clarify this a bit. Because its too open to fuzzy thinking and erroneous interpretation. But its a good start.

    I still also need to restate Boettke’s defense of Austrian Economics as a moral constraint. When I first started it was the best articulation – but its in desperate need of an update, and better positioning against the other Five Families of economic factions.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-06 03:52:00 UTC

  • Operationalism, by which I mean, strict construction from a sequence of descript

    Operationalism, by which I mean, strict construction from a sequence of descriptive actions, solves so many philosophical problems that are no more than artifacts of obscurant language.

    Chief among them the fallacy of Natural Rights, and the fallacy of aggression.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-25 05:18:00 UTC

  • LAWRENCE VANCE HAD NUMEROUS TERMINOLOGICAL ERRORS IN HIS RECENT POST ON LRC. – I

    LAWRENCE VANCE HAD NUMEROUS TERMINOLOGICAL ERRORS IN HIS RECENT POST ON LRC. – I FIXED THEM. NOW IT’S ACCURATE 😉

    Apparently Larry doesn’t know his etymology, or his history, and like the progressives appropriated the term ‘liberal’, larry is a rothbardian who wants to appropriate the term “libertarian”. Apparently he thinks ‘libertarian’ isn’t a bias toward liberty. And libertarianism isn’t both the philosophy of liberty AND the name rothbard tried to appropriate for rothbardian anarcho capitalism.

    Because larry seems to think that liberty is somehow about the appropriate use of violence instead of liberty. That makes him a rothbardian. Because the opinions of the rest of the libertarians in the world, and one’s analysis of the history of the use of the term libertarian, lead one to conclude that the term ‘libertarian’ means the primacy of liberty first – and before all other political goods. Not that there are no other political goods.

    ACCORDING TO LARRY:

    —“I am a Rothbardian. I am not Democrat or Republican. I am not liberal or conservative. I am not left or right. I am not moderate or progressive. I am not a fusionist. I am not a constitutionalist.

    I am a Rothbardian. I am both thin and brutalist. I am not holist or solipsist. I am not moralist or consequentialist. I am not open or closed. I am not a modal, cosmopolitan, cultural, regime, sophisticated, or Beltway libertarian. I do not have a bleeding heart. I am not a neo, second wave, or millennial libertarian. I am a plain old Rothbardian – one who needs no labels, issues no caveats, and makes no apologies.

    I am a Rothbardian. Rothbardianism is a political philosophy concerned with the permissible use of force or violence. It is not a political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government. It is not a political philosophy that is socially liberal and economically conservative. It is not a political philosophy that says government is less efficient than the private sector. It is not a political philosophy that says freedom can be achieved by promoting some government policies over others. It is not a political philosophy that is low-tax liberalism. Libertarianism is not the absence of racism, sexism, homophobism, xenophobism, nationalism, nativism, classism, authoritarianism, patriarchy, inequality, or hierarchy. Libertarianism is not diversity or activism. Libertarianism is not egalitarianism. Libertarianism is not toleration or respect. Libertarianism is not a social attitude, lifestyle, or aesthetic sensibility.

    I am a Rothbardian. I subscribe to the non-aggression principle that says, in the words of Murray Rothbard: “The only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another.” I am concerned with actions; I am not concerned with thoughts: I am concerned only with the negative consequences of thoughts. I believe that the non-aggression principle extends to government. Libertarians should therefore oppose or otherwise seek to limit the domestic and foreign meddling and intervention of governments, which are the greatest violators of the non-aggression principle.

    I am a Rothbardian. I believe in the golden rule. I believe in live and let live. I believe that a person should be free to do anything he wants, as long as his conduct is peaceful. I believe that vices are not crimes.

    I am a Rothbardian. Our enemy is the state. Our enemy is not religion, corporations, institutions, foundations, or organizations. These only have power to do us harm because of their connection with the state. And since war is the health of the state, the state’s military, wars, and foreign interventions must be opposed root and branch.

    I am a Rothbardian. I believe in laissez faire. Anyone should be free to engage in any economic activity without license, permission, prohibition, or interference from the state. The government should not intervene in the economy in any way. Free trade agreements, educational vouchers, privatizing Social Security, etc., are not the least bit libertarian ideas.

    I am a Rothbardian. The best government is no government. That government that governs least is the next best government. Government, as Voltaire said, at its best state is a necessary evil and at its worst state is an intolerable one. The best thing any government could do would be to simply leave us alone.

    I am a Rothbardian. Taxation is government theft. The government doesn’t have a claim to a certain percentage of one’s income. The tax code doesn’t need to be simplified, shortened, fairer, or less intrusive. The tax rates don’t need to be made lower, flatter, fairer, equal, or less progressive. The income tax doesn’t need more or larger deductions, loopholes, shelters, credits, or exemptions. The whole rotten system needs to be abolished. People have the right to keep what they earn and decide for themselves what to do with their money: spend it, waste it, squander it, donate it, bequeath it, hoard it, invest it, burn it, gamble it.

    I am a Rothbardian. I am a libertine. I am a hedonist. I am a moral relativist outside of the use of violence. I am a devotee of an alternative lifestyle never seen by man.

    I am a revolutionary. I am a social and moral nihilist. I neither wish to associate with nor aggress against those who are. I believe in the absolute freedom of association and discrimination.

    I am a Rothbardian.”—

    YES, LARRY, YOU ARE A ROTHBARDIAN. I AM NOT SURE YOU ARE A LIBERTARIAN.

    We have this big tent kind of thing. So we’ll let you in. No matter how silly your concept of how to obtain liberty is. Because we’re that kind of folk, you know. We’re libertarians.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-10 02:44:00 UTC

  • (note to self) Realism, Instrumentalism, and Operationalism, solve a lot of phil

    (note to self)

    Realism, Instrumentalism, and Operationalism, solve a lot of philosophical problems since so many of those problems are the product of language. It’s pretty funny or maybe ironic to me, that after more than a century of verbal gymnastics it turns out that language is the cause of the problems of politics not the cure for it. I don’t know why that’s so funny. So HUMAN, to conduct a century of distraction with little to show for it, but it’s definitely identifiable as an instance of the pattern of human foibles.

    Realism, Naturalism, Scientific Realism,

    Intuitionism, Instrumentalism, Operationalism

    Acquisition, Accumulation, Defense

    Perception, Objects of Utility, Change in State, Memory

    Calculation, Planning,

    Status and Mating

    Cooperation, Free Riding

    Monopoly of Control, Property, Norms

    LATER

    System 0: property (changes in state),

    System 1: intuition (search engine),

    System 2: reason (calculation)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-03 15:08:00 UTC

  • Tarski Is Specifically Referring To Formal Languages – Only Formal Languages

    [F]ormal languages are subsets of our full language. They are platonic (imaginary and symbolic) by definition and intent. Operational language is not platonic, but extant and demonstrated in real time and space, and can be used to describe actions in time and space, and if constrained to the description of actions in time and space, are open to observation, and confirmation, and falsification. This is why science requires operational language. This is why ethics MUST require operational language. Otherwise deception, self deception and error are obscured by the fungibility of language. Tarski, Alfred, “The Semantic Conception of Truth and the Foundations of Semantics”, in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 4 (1944). Tarski, Alfred. “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages”, in Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics, Clarendon Press, 1956.