Theme: Truth

  • Stefan is very good at what he does. I certainly couldn’t do it. And he is moral

    Stefan is very good at what he does. I certainly couldn’t do it. And he is moral and honest. It’d be fun.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-02 10:31:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/683234035246718976

    Reply addressees: @princessladyz @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/682065490722750470


    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/682065490722750470

  • TIME TO ABANDON RATIONALIST TOYS AND LEARN SCIENCE LIKE THE BIG BOYS. Jeff Tucke

    TIME TO ABANDON RATIONALIST TOYS AND LEARN SCIENCE LIKE THE BIG BOYS.

    Jeff Tucker is a good man but like Phillip argues as a justificationalist and a rationalist and not a scientist.

    I am not so concerned about defeating the arguments of moral men no matter how foolishly they are constructed.

    That their central premise is belief consisting of shoulds, and therefore our religion stated without reference to divinity is failure by demonstration of construction alone.

    While as a scientist the central premise is necessity consisting of articulated law, and identical in construction to all sciences by contrast is success by construction alone.

    That the thinkers of the twentieth century could not transition from justificationary moral rationalism to critical and necessary and scientific argument is the reason for the persistence of these rothbardian nonsense arguments consisting of little more than the Talmud’s separatism restated in the terminology of Anglo rationalism.

    I think I have reformed moral philosophy forever by providing what the twentieth century thinkers failed to.

    But just as Marxism persists because of its self referencing non correspondent justificationary literary form and overinvestment by advocates, rothbardianism likewise is a self referencing, non correspondent, justificationary literary, construction easy to access without substantial knowledge and subject to overinvestment by advocates.

    I mean I don’t expect Hoppe to abandon the fallacies of argumentation, the deductivity of aprioristic observation, the insufficiency of inter subjectivity, the irrationality of his community construction either since his self worth and status are predicated on these falsehoods rather than his insights into incentives that result from his constructions under the logic of property rights – which are flawless and correct Rothbard in many cases.

    These are good people doing the best that they can with the rationalist tools at their disposal, but they are hardly intellectual competitors.

    Iron Age argumentative weaponry in an era of crucible steel and explosives.

    Eras:

    1-Religion. Mysticism.

    2-Law. Rationalism.

    3-Credit. Pseudo scientism

    4-Digital Reputation. Science.

    Welcome to the new age. It is time for priests, rationalists, and philosophers, like children to give up their toys.

    Liberty is the product of the organised use of violence to suppress parasitism in all its forms, so that we may voluntarily produce commons of which liberty is the first.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-02 03:47:00 UTC

  • Speaker: “Kneel” Petitioner: (Kneels) Speaker: “What is your name” Petitioner: “

    Speaker:

    “Kneel”

    Petitioner:

    (Kneels)

    Speaker:

    “What is your name”

    Petitioner:

    “My name is _____ “

    Speaker:

    “Be without fear in the face of your enemies

    Speak the truth even if it leads to your death.

    Take nothing not voluntarily given and paid for.

    Safeguard the commons, the weak, and the helpless

    Do no wrong. Permit no wrong. Punish all wrongs.

    This is your oath.

    What do you say?”

    Petitioner:

    “I shall be without fear in the face of my enemies

    I shall speak the truth even if it leads to my death.

    I shall take nothing not voluntarily given or paid for.

    I shall safeguard the commons, the weak, and the helpless

    I shall do no wrong, permit no wrong, and punish all wrongs.

    This is my oath. May my brothers strike me dead if I break it.”

    Guarantors (Witnesses):

    (together)

    “And I shall kill you myself if you should break it.”

    Speaker:

    “I accept your oath.”

    (strike petitioner open handed across the face)

    “And this is so you remember it.”

    (pause until petitioner gains composure)

    “Rise a Knight.”

    Petitioner

    (stands)

    “Thank you my brothers.”

    Witnesses:

    (cheers)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-28 04:55:00 UTC

  • If you speak the truth, then there is no difference between scientist, philosoph

    If you speak the truth, then there is no difference between scientist, philosopher and prophet. If you do not speak the truth then there is a great difference between them.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-26 03:46:00 UTC

  • “How does one construct a polity around truth telling which is competitive again

    —“How does one construct a polity around truth telling which is competitive against more demagogical ones, given that all populations exhibit variations in predisposition and ability for truth telling, or for scientific thought and speech?”— Eli Harman

    1 – A rule (non parasitism), a book (articulation), a plan (of implementation)

    2 – A minority of males who demand it via violence (use the same strategy the opposition does).

    3 – Raise the cost of the status quo until the demands (rule, book, implementation) are met. (the same strategy the opposition does)

    4 – Crush the Opposition Openly under Truth using social, legal, Political and military means.

    5 – Success of enforced truth telling will spread like any other technology give it’s (obvious) competitive utility.

    **There is NO DIFFERENCE between the evolution of each era from animism to mysticism, from mysticism to religion, from religion to reason and reason rationalism and rationalism to science … and from science to truth. ***

    In every era men have resisted increasing truthfulness, yet in every era they benefit from it.

    This revolution in social science will equal the impact of the revolution in physical science.

    The only question (in any era) is whether there are a surplus of unsatisfied males that would rather fight than fail. I am sort of counting on that peak happening by 2020-2025


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-25 05:52:00 UTC

  • Who Invented The Big Lie?

    [W]e start with Zoroaster who is the first philosopher.

    —“Zoroaster sees the human condition as the mental struggle between aša (truth) and druj (lie). The cardinal concept of aša—which is highly nuanced and only vaguely translatable—is at the foundation of all Zoroastrian doctrine, including that of Ahura Mazda (who is aša), creation (that is aša), existence (that is aša) and as the condition for free will. The purpose of humankind, like that of all other creation, is to sustain aša. For humankind, this occurs through active participation in life and the exercise of constructive thoughts, words and deeds. Elements of Zoroastrian philosophy entered the West through their influence on Judaism and Middle Platonism and have been identified as one of the key early events in the development of philosophy.[32] Among the classic Greek philosophers, Heraclitus is often referred to as inspired by Zoroaster’s thinking.[33] In 2005, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy ranked Zarathustra as first in the chronology of philosophers. Zarathustra’s impact lingers today due in part to the system of rational ethics he founded called Mazda-Yasna. The word Mazda-Yasna is avestan and is translated as “Worship of Wisdom” in English. Zoroastrians later educated the Greeks, who used a similar term, philosophy, or “love of wisdom,” to describe the search for ultimate truth. Zoroaster emphasized the freedom of the individual to choose right or wrong and individual responsibility for one’s deeds. This personal choice to accept aša or arta (the divine order), and shun druj (ignorance and chaos) is one’s own decision and not a dictate of Ahura Mazda. For Zarathustra, by thinking good thoughts, saying good words, and doing good deeds (e.g. assisting the needy or doing good works) we increase this divine force aša or arta in the world and in ourselves, celebrate the divine order, and we come a step closer on the everlasting road to being one with the Creator. Thus, we are not the slaves or servants of Ahura Mazda, but we can make a personal choice to be his co-workers, thereby refreshing the world and ourselves.”—-

    You will note that this is a pretty indo-european, indo-iranian, indo-hindu line of thinking. Yes it is magian. But he has no other method of expressing the ideas as ultimate goods. THE EVOLUTION OF THE BIG LIE There is a very big difference between “You Shall Worship One God”, “There is One Supreme God”, and “Only One God Exists”. There is a big difference between ‘the creator’s truth’, as the only available means of expression of truthful correspondence (and living a good life by personal action), and the assertion that god exists and we must obey him (authoritarianism). There is a big difference between the variable oral tradition of mythical gods and the invariable written tradition of supernaturally existential gods. So how did we get from the search for truth to The Big Lie? Who invented the Big Lie?

    —” Pentateuch was composed in the Persian period (roughly 520–320 BCE), as a result of tensions between the Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and claimed Abraham as the “father” through whom they traced their right to the land, and the returning “Priestly” exiles who based their claim to dominance on Moses and the Exodus tradition.”—

    The Big Lie was invented to lay a claim to land. Moses and Abraham appear to be entirely fictional characters, used to justify the retention of property in Judea. A big lie repeated often and proudly eventually appears as truth. The cost of chanting pays for the investment in belief. The big lies worked (voice of god) in the ancient world (babylon and Judah), they worked in the roman empire (christianity), they worked in the modern world (Marx, Boaz, Freud, and to a lesser degree Cantor, Mises, Rothbard). And reached culmination with Humanism(universalism), Postmodernism(social and verbal construction of reality), Feminism (that man is evil), Democracy(that majority possesses wisdom). We cure the big lies with truth. Over and over again.

  • Who Invented The Big Lie?

    [W]e start with Zoroaster who is the first philosopher.

    —“Zoroaster sees the human condition as the mental struggle between aša (truth) and druj (lie). The cardinal concept of aša—which is highly nuanced and only vaguely translatable—is at the foundation of all Zoroastrian doctrine, including that of Ahura Mazda (who is aša), creation (that is aša), existence (that is aša) and as the condition for free will. The purpose of humankind, like that of all other creation, is to sustain aša. For humankind, this occurs through active participation in life and the exercise of constructive thoughts, words and deeds. Elements of Zoroastrian philosophy entered the West through their influence on Judaism and Middle Platonism and have been identified as one of the key early events in the development of philosophy.[32] Among the classic Greek philosophers, Heraclitus is often referred to as inspired by Zoroaster’s thinking.[33] In 2005, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy ranked Zarathustra as first in the chronology of philosophers. Zarathustra’s impact lingers today due in part to the system of rational ethics he founded called Mazda-Yasna. The word Mazda-Yasna is avestan and is translated as “Worship of Wisdom” in English. Zoroastrians later educated the Greeks, who used a similar term, philosophy, or “love of wisdom,” to describe the search for ultimate truth. Zoroaster emphasized the freedom of the individual to choose right or wrong and individual responsibility for one’s deeds. This personal choice to accept aša or arta (the divine order), and shun druj (ignorance and chaos) is one’s own decision and not a dictate of Ahura Mazda. For Zarathustra, by thinking good thoughts, saying good words, and doing good deeds (e.g. assisting the needy or doing good works) we increase this divine force aša or arta in the world and in ourselves, celebrate the divine order, and we come a step closer on the everlasting road to being one with the Creator. Thus, we are not the slaves or servants of Ahura Mazda, but we can make a personal choice to be his co-workers, thereby refreshing the world and ourselves.”—-

    You will note that this is a pretty indo-european, indo-iranian, indo-hindu line of thinking. Yes it is magian. But he has no other method of expressing the ideas as ultimate goods. THE EVOLUTION OF THE BIG LIE There is a very big difference between “You Shall Worship One God”, “There is One Supreme God”, and “Only One God Exists”. There is a big difference between ‘the creator’s truth’, as the only available means of expression of truthful correspondence (and living a good life by personal action), and the assertion that god exists and we must obey him (authoritarianism). There is a big difference between the variable oral tradition of mythical gods and the invariable written tradition of supernaturally existential gods. So how did we get from the search for truth to The Big Lie? Who invented the Big Lie?

    —” Pentateuch was composed in the Persian period (roughly 520–320 BCE), as a result of tensions between the Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and claimed Abraham as the “father” through whom they traced their right to the land, and the returning “Priestly” exiles who based their claim to dominance on Moses and the Exodus tradition.”—

    The Big Lie was invented to lay a claim to land. Moses and Abraham appear to be entirely fictional characters, used to justify the retention of property in Judea. A big lie repeated often and proudly eventually appears as truth. The cost of chanting pays for the investment in belief. The big lies worked (voice of god) in the ancient world (babylon and Judah), they worked in the roman empire (christianity), they worked in the modern world (Marx, Boaz, Freud, and to a lesser degree Cantor, Mises, Rothbard). And reached culmination with Humanism(universalism), Postmodernism(social and verbal construction of reality), Feminism (that man is evil), Democracy(that majority possesses wisdom). We cure the big lies with truth. Over and over again.

  • WHO INVENTED THE BIG LIE? We start with Zoroaster who is the first philosopher.

    WHO INVENTED THE BIG LIE?

    We start with Zoroaster who is the first philosopher.

    —“Zoroaster sees the human condition as the mental struggle between aša (truth) and druj (lie). The cardinal concept of aša—which is highly nuanced and only vaguely translatable—is at the foundation of all Zoroastrian doctrine, including that of Ahura Mazda (who is aša), creation (that is aša), existence (that is aša) and as the condition for free will.

    The purpose of humankind, like that of all other creation, is to sustain aša. For humankind, this occurs through active participation in life and the exercise of constructive thoughts, words and deeds.

    Elements of Zoroastrian philosophy entered the West through their influence on Judaism and Middle Platonism and have been identified as one of the key early events in the development of philosophy.[32] Among the classic Greek philosophers, Heraclitus is often referred to as inspired by Zoroaster’s thinking.[33]

    In 2005, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy ranked Zarathustra as first in the chronology of philosophers. Zarathustra’s impact lingers today due in part to the system of rational ethics he founded called Mazda-Yasna. The word Mazda-Yasna is avestan and is translated as “Worship of Wisdom” in English. Zoroastrians later educated the Greeks, who used a similar term, philosophy, or “love of wisdom,” to describe the search for ultimate truth.

    Zoroaster emphasized the freedom of the individual to choose right or wrong and individual responsibility for one’s deeds. This personal choice to accept aša or arta (the divine order), and shun druj (ignorance and chaos) is one’s own decision and not a dictate of Ahura Mazda. For Zarathustra, by thinking good thoughts, saying good words, and doing good deeds (e.g. assisting the needy or doing good works) we increase this divine force aša or arta in the world and in ourselves, celebrate the divine order, and we come a step closer on the everlasting road to being one with the Creator. Thus, we are not the slaves or servants of Ahura Mazda, but we can make a personal choice to be his co-workers, thereby refreshing the world and ourselves.”—-

    You will note that this is a pretty indo-european, indo-iranian, indo-hindu line of thinking. Yes it is magian. But he has no other method of expressing the ideas as ultimate goods.

    THE EVOLUTION OF THE BIG LIE

    There is a very big difference between “You Shall Worship One God”, “There is One Supreme God”, and “Only One God Exists”.

    There is a big difference between ‘the creator’s truth’, as the only available means of expression of truthful correspondence (and living a good life by personal action), and the assertion that god exists and we must obey him (authoritarianism).

    There is a big difference between the variable oral tradition of mythical gods and the invariable written tradition of supernaturally existential gods.

    So how did we get from the search for truth to The Big Lie?

    Who invented the Big Lie?

    —” Pentateuch was composed in the Persian period (roughly 520–320 BCE), as a result of tensions between the Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and claimed Abraham as the “father” through whom they traced their right to the land, and the returning “Priestly” exiles who based their claim to dominance on Moses and the Exodus tradition.”—

    The Big Lie was invented to lay a claim to land.

    Moses and Abraham appear to be entirely fictional characters, used to justify the retention of property in Judea.

    A big lie repeated often and proudly eventually appears as truth. The cost of chanting pays for the investment in belief.

    The big lies worked (voice of god) in the ancient world (babylon and Judah), they worked in the roman empire (christianity), they worked in the modern world (Marx, Boaz, Freud, and to a lesser degree Cantor, Mises, Rothbard).

    And reached culmination with Humanism(universalism), Postmodernism(social and verbal construction of reality), Feminism (that man is evil), Democracy(that majority possesses wisdom).

    We cure the big lies with truth.

    Over and over again.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 03:28:00 UTC

  • Political Philosophy is a lot easier when you just start from the premise that a

    Political Philosophy is a lot easier when you just start from the premise that all goods are hypothetical, all bads are not, and that the only means of accumulating the knowledge to determine good from bad is exchange. This eliminates the fallacy that any of us know what is in fact good for all, other than institutions that allow us to choose any possible good but prohibit us from pursuing any known bad are a defacto good by prohibiting bads.

    This is contrary to human cognition because we evolved for negotiating cooperation not truth telling. It is contrary to human desire, because we desire consensus. It is contrary to political incentive because it limits political power.

    We all think we are ‘right’. But the only ‘right’ we can know is trade. Just as the only way we know whether we engaged in production or engaged in waste, consumption, or entertainment, is if others trade for what we create.

    Information and volition tell us what ‘right and wrong’ do not.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-23 02:13:00 UTC

  • Reading Bergson (French and Jewish) and like Kant (who he seeks to reform) its j

    Reading Bergson (French and Jewish) and like Kant (who he seeks to reform) its just layer upon layer of justificationary nonsense seeking authoritarian prescription.

    Propertarianism is so simple. Testimonialism is so simple. And all these philosophers are but prophets relying upon artful language.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-20 14:17:00 UTC