I’m saying (and I’m not alone) that the continental attempt to resist british “enlightenment” spread from france (rousseau) to germany (kant, schopenhauer), to the first jewish (Mendelsohn), and the second (Marx et al) reformations in their attempts to create a secular theology.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:40:44 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232374886720557057
Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232372175463747584
The counter-revolution against realism, materialism, truth, markets and evolution: Cantor-Bohr (math), Boas-Freud (anth/psych), Marx-Trotksy-Rothbard(soc/econ), Adorno-Fromm(culture), Friedan(marriage), Derrida (truth and reason). Pseudoscience and Sophistry(Pilpul,Critique).
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:32:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232372863585398784
Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232371670020689920
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@Abhiman11678846 Depends on classification. If the Anglo Empirical Revolution is the enlightenment, then postmodernism is one of the counter-enlightenments against science and reason. It’s the most successful because it’s pure sophistry: social construction by sophistry instead of theology.
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1232371670020689920
Depends on classification. If the Anglo Empirical Revolution is the enlightenment, then postmodernism is one of the counter-enlightenments against science and reason. It’s the most successful because it’s pure sophistry: social construction by sophistry instead of theology.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-25 18:27:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232371670020689920
Reply addressees: @Abhiman11678846
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232370007184695297
TESTIMONY – P IS SCIENTIFIC(LOGICAL, OPERATIONAL, EMPIRICAL) ARTICULATION OF OUR ANCIENT TRADITIONS. by Scott Strong What’s brilliant about you Curt is your ability to articulate it all so methodically. The reality is these Western ideas weren’t really formed by one great philosopher but are rather an an hod, kit-bashed collection of mostly intuitive practices that our ancestors accumulated, not out of some great philosophy or moral conviction, so much as pure pragmatism in that they were the best practices that simply worked and because if people did things that didn’t work, the group would die in battle, or starve in the lean winter months. Propertarianism is not your invention, but rather your codification and articulation of the mostly intuitive unconscious pragmatic wisdom of our ancestors. === That’s right. I just wrote it down for the first time the way others have written their bibles of primitive thought in primitive language. It may not have been possible to our body of advanced thought until we had an advanced language to write it in. But we’ve been practicing it for thousands of years. And that’s why propertarianism is a product of our European civilization, not me – i’m not that important and our ancestors are. And that is why it has more legitimacy than some other nonsense some philosopher pulled out of his had. I’m just a scientists discovering and capturing the rules of western civilization. I’m just doing natural science in the natural law of our people – writing down the formulae.
TESTIMONY – P IS SCIENTIFIC(LOGICAL, OPERATIONAL, EMPIRICAL) ARTICULATION OF OUR ANCIENT TRADITIONS. by Scott Strong What’s brilliant about you Curt is your ability to articulate it all so methodically. The reality is these Western ideas weren’t really formed by one great philosopher but are rather an an hod, kit-bashed collection of mostly intuitive practices that our ancestors accumulated, not out of some great philosophy or moral conviction, so much as pure pragmatism in that they were the best practices that simply worked and because if people did things that didn’t work, the group would die in battle, or starve in the lean winter months. Propertarianism is not your invention, but rather your codification and articulation of the mostly intuitive unconscious pragmatic wisdom of our ancestors. === That’s right. I just wrote it down for the first time the way others have written their bibles of primitive thought in primitive language. It may not have been possible to our body of advanced thought until we had an advanced language to write it in. But we’ve been practicing it for thousands of years. And that’s why propertarianism is a product of our European civilization, not me – i’m not that important and our ancestors are. And that is why it has more legitimacy than some other nonsense some philosopher pulled out of his had. I’m just a scientists discovering and capturing the rules of western civilization. I’m just doing natural science in the natural law of our people – writing down the formulae.
—“Physics is too hard for physicists.”—Mathematician —“Economics is too hard for economists”—Physicist —“Social science is too hard for social scientists”—Economist —“Psychology is too hard for psychologists”–Behavioral economist
“Philosophy is too hard for philosophers” – Sociologist — via Kevin Wu “Philosophy is too hard for philosophers” – literally every specialized knowledge field– via Matt Vujovic
—“Physics is too hard for physicists.”—Mathematician —“Economics is too hard for economists”—Physicist —“Social science is too hard for social scientists”—Economist —“Psychology is too hard for psychologists”–Behavioral economist
“Philosophy is too hard for philosophers” – Sociologist — via Kevin Wu “Philosophy is too hard for philosophers” – literally every specialized knowledge field– via Matt Vujovic
by Martin Štěpán and Curt Doolittle [S]tephen J Gould was posing as an evolutionary biologist where in reality, he was an evolutionary denialist. Liars all: Gould, Boas, Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Friedan, Derrida, Cantor-Bohr. These people are all evolutionary denialists. Every single one of them. That’s what separates them from the european intellectual tradition, and why they were wrong about everything. Why do you think they evolved at the same time as Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzsche? Why do you think you have control over the lies your telling now, or that any of these people had control over the lies they were telling? In order to prevent falsehood, we categorize lying as not trying to lie, but as not performing due diligence against lying. If you try to justify a prior – you’re lying. What science did these people do: Gould, Boas, Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Friedan, Derrida, Cantor-Bohr. The scientific method exists to stop you from a justifying a prior, a cognitive bias – or a group’s mythology. They didn’t do any science. They made it up. Abrahamism = Evolutionary Denialism. Why?
Curt Doolittle Martin Štěpán this segue of yours sort of completes the picture as the female strategy against evolutionary reality. I mean in the end that’s what it’s all reducible to – evolutionary denialism.
Bill Joslin the incentive towit, raising children that may or may not be evolutionarily viable i.e. compensate for thoughts of infanticide and or, protect malinvestment
by Martin Štěpán and Curt Doolittle [S]tephen J Gould was posing as an evolutionary biologist where in reality, he was an evolutionary denialist. Liars all: Gould, Boas, Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Friedan, Derrida, Cantor-Bohr. These people are all evolutionary denialists. Every single one of them. That’s what separates them from the european intellectual tradition, and why they were wrong about everything. Why do you think they evolved at the same time as Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzsche? Why do you think you have control over the lies your telling now, or that any of these people had control over the lies they were telling? In order to prevent falsehood, we categorize lying as not trying to lie, but as not performing due diligence against lying. If you try to justify a prior – you’re lying. What science did these people do: Gould, Boas, Freud, Marx, Adorno-Fromm, Friedan, Derrida, Cantor-Bohr. The scientific method exists to stop you from a justifying a prior, a cognitive bias – or a group’s mythology. They didn’t do any science. They made it up. Abrahamism = Evolutionary Denialism. Why?
Curt Doolittle Martin Štěpán this segue of yours sort of completes the picture as the female strategy against evolutionary reality. I mean in the end that’s what it’s all reducible to – evolutionary denialism.
Bill Joslin the incentive towit, raising children that may or may not be evolutionarily viable i.e. compensate for thoughts of infanticide and or, protect malinvestment
“[A]ny evidentiary claim must be either an example (meaning) that is followed by operational construction (falsification), or by non operational correlation, exhaustive evidence, illustrating the limits (falsification).” These are the only two search criteria available for scientific(testifiable, due diligence, warrantable) statements. Here is what we do in P: Create a series of references (examples) that define the limits of the constant relations (properties you’re arguing). This usually takes three or more examples. In most cases I use civilizations. We call this disambiguation by serialization and operationalization. Then define or explain the term in the series by stating a constructive argument from a sequence of incentives using physical and natural law. Then falsify it by testing against all eight dimensions. This is the propertarian methodology. And this is why it is so difficult to be wrong when making a P-argument.