Theme: Truth

  • How can you claim to be powerful if you must engage in lying? You are not discus

    How can you claim to be powerful if you must engage in lying? You are not discussing ethics, you only claim to. Propaganda all.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 22:10:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665290705011671041

    Reply addressees: @RiverC

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665290408008765441


    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/665290408008765441

  • Why must you engage in obscurantism, straw men, conflation, and fallacy? Why do

    Why must you engage in obscurantism, straw men, conflation, and fallacy? Why do you need to lie? To deceive? Truth is enough.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 22:08:30 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665290165116649472

    Reply addressees: @RiverC

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665286820767383552


    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/665286820767383552

  • Objective truth exists independent of preference in matters of conflict

    Objective truth exists independent of preference in matters of conflict.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 21:53:10 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665286305463574528

    Reply addressees: @no_hybrys

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665285846015352833


    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/665285846015352833

  • You tell me. I just construct proofs. It’s the only way to end the lies. 😉

    You tell me. I just construct proofs. It’s the only way to end the lies. 😉


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 17:59:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665227458980012032

    Reply addressees: @RiverC

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665226887871004672


    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/665226887871004672

  • If one starts with false premises one has difficulty reasoning true conclusions.

    If one starts with false premises one has difficulty reasoning true conclusions. Most start with false premises purposefully.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 17:31:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665220411299397633

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/665219842367209473


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    The first question of ethics is why don’t I kill you and take your land, women, and things – not assuming cooperation as the starting point.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/665219842367209473


    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    The first question of ethics is why don’t I kill you and take your land, women, and things – not assuming cooperation as the starting point.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/665219842367209473

  • The most common false premise of ethics is to start with the assumption of moral

    The most common false premise of ethics is to start with the assumption of moral and ethical preference, rather than of killing and taking.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 12:33:00 UTC

  • If one starts with false premises one has difficulty reasoning true conclusions.

    If one starts with false premises one has difficulty reasoning true conclusions. Most start with false premises purposefully.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-13 12:31:00 UTC

  • What Constitutes a Truthful Religion?

    (important) [I] have a soul. I can observe it through introspection. It is a full accounting of my sins, offset by a selective accounting of my acts of charity. I know the balance of that account. We all know the balance of that account – even if we fear to look at it. The chief value of an all-knowing god, is as a psychological device that assists us in looking at the transactions in, and balance of, that account, without any ability to lie to ourselves. The chief value of confession is to publicly admit this balance, and use peer pressure to eliminate any deficit. Whether that soul is eternal is not a question – of course it is. We can commit no sin or perform no charity without the existence of others to sin or perform charity against. Our actions leave a permanent record in the universe. We live on eternally in the changes to the universe that we have made by our actions. That is what acting means: to alter the course of events. Each action does so. That our simple human minds need to anthropomorphize these ideas so that they are easier for the ignorant, dim, and fearful to grasp is no more surprising than that children need parables, myths, legends, and fairy tales to grasp basic concepts using models for concepts otherwise beyond their experience.

    [pullquote]the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.[/pullquote]

    This scientific view of one’s soul is not without what humans consider supernatural properties however. It is increasingly clear that we do not understand the structure of matter, space, and time, and that our perception of matter, space, and time, is limited to that in which we can act. If even some small part of our understanding of the universe is true, then it is entirely possible that it matters not only how we act, but how we think, and what we believe, and how others remember us. Given that the worst case argument we can construct about supernatural forces is to say “I do not know, but it places no cost upon me either way,” or that “I choose to act as if it is so because there is no penalty for doing so, but a benefit for doing so”, “and there are benefits to psychological rituals for all mankind”, we have enough justification for the conceptual use of one or more all knowing gods that assists our minds in confronting a full accounting of our actions, and the presumption of the possibility that collective ritual may in fact alter the structure of not only our minds, but the minds of others, and potentially the structure of the universe in beneficial ways. Moreover, since it is increasingly clear that we are not cognizant of the power of our genes, our intuitions and our biases upon our minds and actions, it is not clear that there is an as yet unrecognized equivalent of a calculating system of some sort – ostensibly unaware – produced by the actions, thoughts and memories of all of us. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. But without knowing I will not fail to pay the cost of perpetuating what has worked for all of human history: rituals that bind us to one another through invocation of the submission-to-the-pack response ever present in our brain stems. Our understanding is overrated, because it is extremely limited. So in these cases I prefer to do what is beneficial for men and man, assuming that the recipe we follow for collective religious ritual is causing us to produce some product that I do not understand, rather than to write it off as a psychological crutch or weakness. It’s just science. How we justify this particular thing as purely scientific and useful, rational, psychological or mystical is not important to me. These are just languages for different levels of abstraction, all of which describe the same process and its effects. As such I merely prefer the least false set of beliefs, and the most constructive forms of ritual. And those are, from my knowledge: the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • What Constitutes a Truthful Religion?

    (important) [I] have a soul. I can observe it through introspection. It is a full accounting of my sins, offset by a selective accounting of my acts of charity. I know the balance of that account. We all know the balance of that account – even if we fear to look at it. The chief value of an all-knowing god, is as a psychological device that assists us in looking at the transactions in, and balance of, that account, without any ability to lie to ourselves. The chief value of confession is to publicly admit this balance, and use peer pressure to eliminate any deficit. Whether that soul is eternal is not a question – of course it is. We can commit no sin or perform no charity without the existence of others to sin or perform charity against. Our actions leave a permanent record in the universe. We live on eternally in the changes to the universe that we have made by our actions. That is what acting means: to alter the course of events. Each action does so. That our simple human minds need to anthropomorphize these ideas so that they are easier for the ignorant, dim, and fearful to grasp is no more surprising than that children need parables, myths, legends, and fairy tales to grasp basic concepts using models for concepts otherwise beyond their experience.

    [pullquote]the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests.[/pullquote]

    This scientific view of one’s soul is not without what humans consider supernatural properties however. It is increasingly clear that we do not understand the structure of matter, space, and time, and that our perception of matter, space, and time, is limited to that in which we can act. If even some small part of our understanding of the universe is true, then it is entirely possible that it matters not only how we act, but how we think, and what we believe, and how others remember us. Given that the worst case argument we can construct about supernatural forces is to say “I do not know, but it places no cost upon me either way,” or that “I choose to act as if it is so because there is no penalty for doing so, but a benefit for doing so”, “and there are benefits to psychological rituals for all mankind”, we have enough justification for the conceptual use of one or more all knowing gods that assists our minds in confronting a full accounting of our actions, and the presumption of the possibility that collective ritual may in fact alter the structure of not only our minds, but the minds of others, and potentially the structure of the universe in beneficial ways. Moreover, since it is increasingly clear that we are not cognizant of the power of our genes, our intuitions and our biases upon our minds and actions, it is not clear that there is an as yet unrecognized equivalent of a calculating system of some sort – ostensibly unaware – produced by the actions, thoughts and memories of all of us. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. But without knowing I will not fail to pay the cost of perpetuating what has worked for all of human history: rituals that bind us to one another through invocation of the submission-to-the-pack response ever present in our brain stems. Our understanding is overrated, because it is extremely limited. So in these cases I prefer to do what is beneficial for men and man, assuming that the recipe we follow for collective religious ritual is causing us to produce some product that I do not understand, rather than to write it off as a psychological crutch or weakness. It’s just science. How we justify this particular thing as purely scientific and useful, rational, psychological or mystical is not important to me. These are just languages for different levels of abstraction, all of which describe the same process and its effects. As such I merely prefer the least false set of beliefs, and the most constructive forms of ritual. And those are, from my knowledge: the practice of sport, the discipline of stoic mindfulness, the sacredness of nature, the ceremonial request for wisdom from, and the ceremonial thanks to our heroes, the gathering of souls in the practice of all of the above, and our surrender to the pack as a means of overcoming our petty differences and interests. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Hard to tell if you’re getting the credit for your innovation in articulating th

    Hard to tell if you’re getting the credit for your innovation in articulating the basis of morality, but it’s been revolutionary.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-11-12 13:30:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664797505239035904

    Reply addressees: @JonHaidt

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/664169694639890435


    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/664169694639890435