This is what I advise as the non-false position.
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-11 00:16:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689792991353876480
Reply addressees: @univcompass
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689786291469139971
Ask them to make any seemingly controversial philosophical statement without the use of the verb to be, and with the requirement of complete sentences, and ‘satisfaction of continuous recursive disambiguation’.
Then ask them if words mean something, or if people mean to…
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-10 18:53:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689711573185560576
Reply addressees: @DjangoMcLaren
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689709626575536128
Ask them to make any seemingly controversial philosophical statement without the use of the verb to be, and with the requirement of complete sentences, and ‘satisfaction of continuous recursive disambiguation’.
Then ask them if words mean something, or if people mean to communicate something with words, which serve as loose measurements open to ambiguity.
😉
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-10 18:53:26 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689711573068091394
There are two branches of philosophy, literary(platonic), and natural(aristotelian). Natural philosophy evolved into empiricism and science. Even the continental vs analytic divide still follows this demarcation. Why? west germanic is a practical military culture of farmers, and English is a legal, commercial, and scientific language of administration of scale reinforced by the Normans and the sequence of revolutions in innovation that followed the restoration of the classics (aristotle) to Europe as intellectuals fled the fundamentalist shift in Islamic countries. The english invented the modern state, and rolled the church into the state, creating a pervasive culture of empirical administration. The french were the most backward and corrupt government in Europe, most in league with the church and ever desirous of transferring the power of papacy and rome to France. With the english revolution in empiricism, france rebelled against it and sought something closer to church rule to enforce conformity with state socialism. The germans sought to replace the independence of the individual interpretation of the bible under protestantism with a new form of reason(kant). the jews( Mendelsohn) reformed their laws somewhat to be rational rather than supernatural. Then abandoned them in favor of marxism and socialism. The russians ever desirous of mirroring french authoritarianism, and much more mystical and superstitious as a people, favored literature of suffering instead of moral rationalsm of the germans, the optimistic moralism of the french, and the procedural morals of the English. Everyone resists modernity invented by the English because everyone was less developed at the time it was invented by the English – and all civilizations double down on their priors.
Just as you, wish to double down on yours. 😉
There is nothing left in philosophy that is not better done by science – albeit it requires more knowledge.
Reply addressees: @univcompass
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-10 18:49:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689710622357766144
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689699323343163392
RE: Studying Philosophy, Religion, or the Occult
You may find comfort there. (sedation)
You will not find answers there. (agency)
Because there is no truth there.
Nearly all religion and philosophy consists of tools of sedation of the sense of alienation as the scale and complexity of society produces increasing uncertainty and alienation.
The painful truth is, that the truth is not comforting.
It empowers us. But it explains the work we must do.
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-10 03:05:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689473003174686720
–Q: “Curt, would it be fair to label you a materialist?”–
I tend to interpret philosophical terms a pseudoscientific, and only slightly better than supernatural. That said our ancestors (philosophers) didn’t understand neuroscience.
So, when you say ‘materialism’ I know what that means. But it’s also a confusion between the existence of nouns (states) and verbs (processes).
Consciousness, imagination, and even qualia are terribly simple but philosophers lacked the knowledge to comprehend them.
Today we know how the brain works – pretty completely. And with AI currently demonstrating how simple associations produce emergent complexity, we’ve proved that yes, the world is governed by a very simple set of laws, and that our human experience is ‘material’ in the sense that we have legs (state), but we can run with them (process). Human experience consists of processes, almost all of which is simply the effect of a vast hierarchy of fragmentary memory.
Does that eliminate the spiritual (instinct and intuition), or does that eliminate the mythological (cognitive and emotional)? Well, not really. It only eliminates the pretense that such concepts have any form of existence other than in the collective of human minds. And that it turns out that’s enough. If gods and such are emergent from our collective minds, that would carry more viability than gods brought us into being and hold dominion over the universe, despite the obvious evidence to the contrary – especially given the long list of dead gods.
Reply addressees: @nitaabb99430819 @jrayrealhealth @univcompass
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-10 03:00:51 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689471846175940610
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689467379133157377
RT @curtdoolittle: @junkodama10 @jordanbpeterson We both read the same literature. We both are honest enough to speak truthfully of it. The…
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-09 08:29:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689192207901741056
Good question. No. It means you cant write a proof of internal consistency of everything. It means there is no closure except consistency and correspondence with reality. Which is similar to saying mathematical reducibility is limited. In other words there is no limit to mathematical expression without scale dependence caused by application to a correspondence with reality. Which means the same thing I’m saying. 😉
It it wasn’t 2am I’d explain further because the subject is fascinating. 😉 Its why I did all that exhaustive work on the grammars.
Reply addressees: @jskayfshd
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-09 06:23:16 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689160398350471168
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689070242902024199
We both read the same literature. We both are honest enough to speak truthfully of it. The problem is there are too few of us willing to speak that honestly – despite that its the cause of the crisis of the west.
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-09 06:01:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689154952113831936
Reply addressees: @junkodama10 @jordanbpeterson
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689135875156807680
Great question.
Not quite. Before that theory production is possible we require discovery to collect information, ensuring only it has as little bias in it as possible.
Science = Testimony production.
It’s just where in the spectrum of precision are we from curiosity, given our lack of understanding, to research to satisfy that curiosity, the hypothesis formation, to theory formation, to theory testing and survive.
Conversely, the earlier you structure your hypothesis or theory the more deterministic bias you insert into your theory.
This is one of the reasons for stagnation in so many sciences. It’s also the reason for the total failure of the behavioral sciences.
Reply addressees: @KrnZmmr @dissidentwrath
Source date (UTC): 2023-08-08 20:12:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1689006761942884353
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1688996243853152256