Theme: Truth

  • All non-tautological statements are theoretical (incomplete). Deduction, like Ap

    All non-tautological statements are theoretical (incomplete). Deduction, like Apriorism, is a special case.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-20 08:16:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778145701435932673

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778107633286975489


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/778107633286975489

  • WE HAD EPISTEMOLOGY BACKWARD Instances of Deduction(informationally sufficient)

    WE HAD EPISTEMOLOGY BACKWARD

    Instances of Deduction(informationally sufficient) like instances of Apriorism(survives non-contradiction) occur only as a special case of hypothesizing. And hypotheses occur as a special case of overlapping ‘search results’ (free association). Once we identify a possible search result we criticize it by trying first to justify it (find a potential route to it), and then try to refine that route (test it). This act of refining sometimes results in questionable, sometimes in reasonable, sometimes rational, sometimes in logical, and sometimes in mathematical justifications (potential routes).

    There is but one universal method and it consists of:

    Free association > Pattern

    Wayfinding mental criticism > Hypothesis,

    Experimental criticism > Theory,

    Practical criticism > Law

    Perfect Parsimony > Name


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-20 04:34:00 UTC

  • Q&a: Curt: What’s Your Criticism Of Kant?

    —Curt, Thanks for doing this. I would appreciate it if you could expand upon your criticism of Kant and what exactly he got wrong (and what he got right if anything). What is the problem with Critique of Pure Reason?— I think anyone can read wikipedia and understand the philosophical criticisms of Kant. I think most of us understand that there are problems of internal consistency, and of obscurantism, that allow him to reason from vague generalizations to specifics, and then to claim that a priori and a posteriori are different classes of knowledge rahter than the apriori is but a special case of the universal epistemological sequence we mistakenly call empiricism but is reducible to the sequence: free association, question, hypothesis, theory, law. Secondly, He did this in order to sew doubt. (which was Rand’s criticism). He wanted to sew doubt in order to attack empiricism. Thirdly, He was seeking a way to preserve germanic christianity in rational post-mystical terms as a means of AVOIDING the challenge posed by empiricism – and the vast literary nonsense that constittutes german (continental) philosophy is evidence of the damage he has done. And the use of his work by generations of pseudoscientists that followed him (Marx and Freud, Mises and Rothbard, The Frankfurt School, the posmodernists, and just about every other miscreant group of pseudo intellectuals) each took his verbal obscurantism as a method of overloading, suggestino, and deceit, to new heights, producing in the end, what we call, political correctness (outright lying), and the total destruction of social science under an ocean of postmodern pseudorational and pseudoscientific analogistic babble. So is his categorical imperative incorrect? No. But he is the inventor of pseudorationalism as a substitute for mysticism. As such it is his TECHNIQUE that is nothing but an enormous justificationary network designed to preserve church, monarchy, and state, order using pseudo-rational rather than mystical speech, out of fear that individual sovereignty and empirical analysis would threaten that order. Kant was a very bright man who created the rhetorical equivalent of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. And while the authors of the bomb rependted, and so have their followers, kant and his followers revel in the ongoing damage he has done. If you read the European Right, the reason they fail is they are stuck in kant’s restatement of christianity – still servants of nonsense, appealing to emotion using the pretense of reason, rather than appealing to reason regardless of emotional response. Because that’s what science means: cleansed of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&a: Curt: What’s Your Criticism Of Kant?

    —Curt, Thanks for doing this. I would appreciate it if you could expand upon your criticism of Kant and what exactly he got wrong (and what he got right if anything). What is the problem with Critique of Pure Reason?— I think anyone can read wikipedia and understand the philosophical criticisms of Kant. I think most of us understand that there are problems of internal consistency, and of obscurantism, that allow him to reason from vague generalizations to specifics, and then to claim that a priori and a posteriori are different classes of knowledge rahter than the apriori is but a special case of the universal epistemological sequence we mistakenly call empiricism but is reducible to the sequence: free association, question, hypothesis, theory, law. Secondly, He did this in order to sew doubt. (which was Rand’s criticism). He wanted to sew doubt in order to attack empiricism. Thirdly, He was seeking a way to preserve germanic christianity in rational post-mystical terms as a means of AVOIDING the challenge posed by empiricism – and the vast literary nonsense that constittutes german (continental) philosophy is evidence of the damage he has done. And the use of his work by generations of pseudoscientists that followed him (Marx and Freud, Mises and Rothbard, The Frankfurt School, the posmodernists, and just about every other miscreant group of pseudo intellectuals) each took his verbal obscurantism as a method of overloading, suggestino, and deceit, to new heights, producing in the end, what we call, political correctness (outright lying), and the total destruction of social science under an ocean of postmodern pseudorational and pseudoscientific analogistic babble. So is his categorical imperative incorrect? No. But he is the inventor of pseudorationalism as a substitute for mysticism. As such it is his TECHNIQUE that is nothing but an enormous justificationary network designed to preserve church, monarchy, and state, order using pseudo-rational rather than mystical speech, out of fear that individual sovereignty and empirical analysis would threaten that order. Kant was a very bright man who created the rhetorical equivalent of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. And while the authors of the bomb rependted, and so have their followers, kant and his followers revel in the ongoing damage he has done. If you read the European Right, the reason they fail is they are stuck in kant’s restatement of christianity – still servants of nonsense, appealing to emotion using the pretense of reason, rather than appealing to reason regardless of emotional response. Because that’s what science means: cleansed of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute

  • Q&A: Two Questions: Operationalism, And Nick Land.

    First, I don’t use the term ‘verifiable’ because that implies the fallacy of justificationism. For a general rule to exist and be non-false, we attempt to demonstrate determinism ( regularity, consistency ) of that general rule in every *dimension*: categorical consistency,
    internal consistency,
    external consistency,
    moral consistency,
    scope consistency(limits, full accounting, and parsimony). So in testing consistency (regularity, determinism), we ask the language is operationally descriptive and the process and results repeatable. We demonstrate regularity under some number of conditions. When we use operational language we demonstrate that we have restricted ourselves to existentially possible statements, and therefore constructed a ‘proof’ (test) of existential possibility. Now, a proof is not synonymous with a truth. It is merely evidence of possibility. Whereas if we cannot construct an operational proof, either the claim is false, or we do not know enough to claim it may be true. TWO: NICK LAND I am an analytic philosopher(science/proofs), and Nick is a Continental(meaning/literature) philosopher. I can probably translate any of his statements from literary to analytic if I work at it. But Nick’s writing verges on poetry, and while we probably agree on a lot, our frames are from two different worlds, and I am highly critical of the continental method in general. It is too hard to truth test continental statements and so I would prefer we spoke in literary analogy as do novelists, documentary, proof construction as I do, or empirical analysis as most scientists do. And I don’t find the conflation of these various technologies to be very helpful. Interestingly if you look at my work (anglo American legal empirical), Hoppe’s work (german Kantian rational), Moldbug’s work (Jewish critique), and Nick’s work (continental literary), you see that each of argues using our cultural frames of communication and argument. I think that’s the interesting takeaway. That it’s just more evidence of my argument that each enlightenment culture tried to take its internal normative and institutional models and to propose them as universals, by more honest or more dishonest means. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
  • Q&A: Two Questions: Operationalism, And Nick Land.

    First, I don’t use the term ‘verifiable’ because that implies the fallacy of justificationism. For a general rule to exist and be non-false, we attempt to demonstrate determinism ( regularity, consistency ) of that general rule in every *dimension*: categorical consistency,
    internal consistency,
    external consistency,
    moral consistency,
    scope consistency(limits, full accounting, and parsimony). So in testing consistency (regularity, determinism), we ask the language is operationally descriptive and the process and results repeatable. We demonstrate regularity under some number of conditions. When we use operational language we demonstrate that we have restricted ourselves to existentially possible statements, and therefore constructed a ‘proof’ (test) of existential possibility. Now, a proof is not synonymous with a truth. It is merely evidence of possibility. Whereas if we cannot construct an operational proof, either the claim is false, or we do not know enough to claim it may be true. TWO: NICK LAND I am an analytic philosopher(science/proofs), and Nick is a Continental(meaning/literature) philosopher. I can probably translate any of his statements from literary to analytic if I work at it. But Nick’s writing verges on poetry, and while we probably agree on a lot, our frames are from two different worlds, and I am highly critical of the continental method in general. It is too hard to truth test continental statements and so I would prefer we spoke in literary analogy as do novelists, documentary, proof construction as I do, or empirical analysis as most scientists do. And I don’t find the conflation of these various technologies to be very helpful. Interestingly if you look at my work (anglo American legal empirical), Hoppe’s work (german Kantian rational), Moldbug’s work (Jewish critique), and Nick’s work (continental literary), you see that each of argues using our cultural frames of communication and argument. I think that’s the interesting takeaway. That it’s just more evidence of my argument that each enlightenment culture tried to take its internal normative and institutional models and to propose them as universals, by more honest or more dishonest means. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
  • Defeating Cultural Marxism

    HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW (very important ideas inside) 1-Find a Lie 2-Ask if it is really true. 3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away. 4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed. AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW (number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.) 1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments. 3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law. 4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism. 5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law. 6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain. 8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law. 11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded. 13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time. 14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law. 20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW. 22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia. 23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying 28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language. 30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies. 33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women. 38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek. 43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER. 46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law. 50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading. 52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique). 54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth. 55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON. 58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ. 62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse. I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.

  • Defeating Cultural Marxism

    HOW TO DEFEAT CULTURAL MARXISTS USING THE WESTERN DEVELOPMENT OF LAW (very important ideas inside) 1-Find a Lie 2-Ask if it is really true. 3-Then just work through the whole argument until they run away. 4-Use their vanity to spam their channel or feed. AN ARGUMENT OVER WESTERN INVENTION OF LAW (number responds to the number of the tweet in the sequence. It’s just for my reference. Ignore it.) 1 Lets take the lie that we live under the code of Hammurabi. Now, Hammurabi made a list of standardized punishments. 3 But the greeks developed argument to order, but it was the stoics who created natural law. 4 The Romans were suspicious of Geek ‘excuse making’ and so they choose the stoic pragmatism. 5 The romans effectively industrialize ’empirical’ (natural) law. 6 Unfortunately, the combination of migration tribes, cost of land holding vs naval, and immigration of underclasses was almost impossible to manage without north african grain. 8 So when the first byzantine plague was followed by the islamic conquest of northern africa, and Islamic piracy and raiding destroyed trade as had the sea peoples in 1200 bc, the aristocracy and the demographic quality of the population was insufficient to maintain roman rule of law. 11 So administratin in europe collapsed and the roman mediteranean was victim of islamic piracy on a scale that the Vikings never matched, and only the sea peoples exceeded. 13 Now, to rebuild the lost population and rebuild the economy out of private feudal estates took time. 14 But Vienna supplied the byzantine navy, and the north sea trade, followed by the Hansa rebuilt trade just as the greeks, and romans, had built agean and mediterranean. And how the french dutch spanish and english built atlantic, and americans built pacific. Since it is not land but water that civilizations must hold in order to control trade routes, and the terms of trade, and the financing of trade. It was these generations who slowly merged roman law, church law, german law into an international body of DECIDABLE law, crossing all cultures: natural law. 20 It was this SCIENTIFIC law, that inspired Bacon, to invent empiricism, using law as a universal model, and cause the anglo empirical enlightenment and the development of science, medicine, technology, and NATURAL LAW. 22 The british then conquered the known world with guns, ships, accounting, banking, and a militia. 23 New Zealand is bigger than Britain. England had a tiny population. France reacted with a MORAL enlightenment preserving authority and culminating in dualist CONTINENTAL law. The germans reacted with rationalism (kant) by restating christian submission with obscurant speech. The ashkenazi responded with the pseudoscientific revolution: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Mises, Frankfurt and Americans responded by seizing this pseudoscience and expanding political correctness:Lying 28 Unfortunately, in the 20th century, all the philosophers – desperately trying to turn philosophy into a respectable science, were distracted by applying cantor’s set theory to language. 30 So all the thinkers of that era failed to defeat the Ashkenazi pseudoscientific revolution, and pseudosciences overtook academy, media, and state policy – only recently reversed by cognitive science, archeology, and genetic research. So since 1990 we have been slowly eradicating lies. 33 Now, what we did count on was the 1964 immigration bill’s attempt to flood the aristocratic west with underclasses that would allow the pseudoscientific era to expand just as Christianity had been spread by underclasses, women, and immigrants in the ancient world. What we did not count on, and cannot correct, is the flood of Caribbean and south americans and the voting patterns of single mothers in black, hispanic, and single white women. 38 So we neither had a chance to reform the law to prevent pseudoscience in public speech, nor could we defeat the rates of reproduction of the underclasses while employing and reducing the rate of reproduction of the women in the upper classes (germanic protestants). So our strategy seems to have failed and we cannot retain the continent, and our only solution is to force underclasses to revolt. If these underclasses revolt in sufficient numbers we will have the opportunity we seek. 43 So while others made rules, we made NATURAL LAW, and came close to strict construction: a formal logic of law. thereby recognizing finally, that it is natural law, that is the basis of western civilization’s ability to evolve FASTER than all other civilizations, despite being YOUNGER. 46 So there is no truth to the statement that the west did not invent law. Others invented commands. Still others codified superstition and norm into permanent and stifling and limiting rules. Others like china did neither and used vague moral philosophy to issue edicts (commands) not laws. But just as the west invented reason,rationalism,and science,the west invented social science: Law. 50 Now what I didn’t mention, is that I’m using the western rhetorical model to educate using truth. And you my friend, are using the Frankfurt schools technique of lies, propaganda, and overloading. 52 This technique is meant to raise the cost of argument to the point where the scientific party cannot respond and answer objections as fast as the liars can manufacture falsehoods (critique). 54 So thus endeth the lesson in the conduct of the economics of argument: cheap lies expensive truth. 55 It is not surprising that only westerners have developed a high-trust society. Truth is expensive. Truth is the most expensive norm we can develop, and produces the highest returns. But to develop the norm of truthfulness and high trust requires people capable of REASON. 58 My opponent demonstrates that he prefers rule by ashkenazi lies, then rule by anglo truth. The underclass never wins or rules, at best they are fooled by the master they prefer. The data is clear: it’s just demographics. Unless you can keep your median IQ over 106 and preserve truthfulness in public speech, you cannot obtain and hold the benefits of western civ. 62 We do not lose if we laugh at you for eternity – rebuild the favellas and slums. It’s your home. 🙂 I was not trying to achieve anything other than an excuse. I am very very good at what I do. That is why I am the most innovative contemporary philosopher of the American Right.

  • value is undecidable (subjective) truth is decidable (objective). In matters of

    value is undecidable (subjective) truth is decidable (objective). In matters of conflict resolution (law) we rely on objective.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 11:30:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777832314483183616

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777828172494536704


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777828172494536704

  • Testimionialism will be as revolutionary for mankind as empiricism – and likely

    Testimionialism will be as revolutionary for mankind as empiricism – and likely more so. http://propertarianism.wordpress.com


    Source date (UTC): 2016-09-19 09:46:56 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/777806169813487616