Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Is Philosophy Empty?

    [I] can answer this question I think, as well or better than anyone living.  (Despite the obscurant framing of the question.)

    1) Rationalism and justification were dead ends. Theory and criticism have replaced rationalism and justification. We can justify contract, and therefore moral action, but we cannot justify truth. We can construct proofs of internal consistency, but never justification. 

    2) As far as I know the analytic method survives as a form of well-structuring our criticism, but the promise of analytic philosophy was a dead end: it’s entirely tautological.

    3) We can theorize by whatever means we choose, from unstructured free association to formal deduction. But theories must survive criticism. Philosophy remains an exceptional vehicle for theorizing while reducing errors. Therefore as a means of criticism philosophy is not empty.

    4) While, in philosophy, we have constructed: 
    (a) the logic of identity 
    (b) the logic of naming (including counting)
    (c) the logic of ratios (mathematics)
    (d) the logic of causality (physics)
    (e) the logic of language (‘logic as we use it’);

    we failed to complete:
    (f) the logic of existence (operationalism/operatio­nism/intuitionism/action­/e-prime)
    (g) the logic of cooperation (morality)
    (h) the logic of completeness (full accounting)
    (i) that truth must be testimonial (performed), and that all other use of analogy to testimonial truth, is an a subset of testimonial truth, limited to properties of the logic we use for criticism (a thru g).

    As far ask I know (and I work on this problem) can be completed since at present I am fairly confident that the logics of existence and cooperation, and the definition of truth have been solved. This means that philosophy is not empty, just that it took us a very long time to grasp its function as critical: most likely because moral argument is justificationary, and truth and morality are very different things. 

    – Cheers

  • If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things

    If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing.

    —Ernest Hemingway

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-07 04:29:00 UTC

  • IS PHILOSOPHY EMPTY? (from elsewhere) I can answer this question I think, as wel

    IS PHILOSOPHY EMPTY?

    (from elsewhere)

    I can answer this question I think, as well or better than anyone living.

    1) Rationalism and justification were dead ends. Theory and criticism have replaced rationalism and justification. We can justify contract, and therefore moral action, but we cannot justify truth. We can construct proofs of internal consistency, but never justification.

    2) As far as I know the analytic method survives as a form of well-structuring criticism, but the promise of analytic philosophy was a dead end: it’s entirely tautological.

    3) We can theorize by whatever means we choose, from unstructured free association to formal deduction. But theories must survive criticism. Philosophy remains an exceptional vehicle for theorizing while reducing errors. Therefore as a means of criticism philosophy is not empty.

    4) While, in philosophy, we have constructed:

    (a) the logic of identity

    (b) the logic of naming (including counting)

    (c) the logic of ratios (mathematics)

    (d) the logic of causality (physics)

    (e) the logic of language (‘logic as we use it’);

    we failed to complete:

    (f) the logic of existence (operationalism/operatio­nism/intuitionism/action­/e-prime)

    (g) the logic of cooperation (morality)

    (h) that truth must be testimonial (performed), and that all other use of analogy to testimonial truth, is an a subset of testimonial truth, limited to properties of the logic we use for criticism (a thru g).

    As far ask I know (and I work on this problem) can be completed since at present I am fairly confident that the logics of existence and cooperation, and the definition of truth have been solved. This means that philosophy is not empty, just that it took us a very long time to grasp its function as critical: most likely because moral argument is justificationary, and truth and morality are very different things. 🙂

    – Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2015-05-06 12:58:00 UTC

  • nonsense

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-phil-science/Justificationary nonsense

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-29 12:40:00 UTC

  • IS A WESTERN PECULIARISM. ASIANS USE DECEIT. MIDDLE EASTERNERS USE DENIAL

    http://romaninukraine.com/175-year-old-account-of-russians-being-proud-of-lying/TRUTH IS A WESTERN PECULIARISM. ASIANS USE DECEIT. MIDDLE EASTERNERS USE DENIAL.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-27 13:01:00 UTC

  • THE REFORMATION SIGNPOST: – NO ANGLO EQUALITARIANISM WANTED – NO GERMAN JUSTIFIC

    THE REFORMATION SIGNPOST:

    – NO ANGLO EQUALITARIANISM WANTED

    – NO GERMAN JUSTIFICATIONISM WANTED

    – NO JEWISH OBSCURANTISM WANTED

    WE ONLY PRACTICE TRUTH TELLING HERE

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 04:16:00 UTC

  • “A further problem is that a person recognizing a lie perceives no personal cost

    —“A further problem is that a person recognizing a lie perceives no personal cost as a consequence – after all he was not a victim of deception. He who is deceived also perceives no cost because, rather than feeling deceived, he instead feels more enlightened. The relative absence of cost makes deception very profitable.”— Aaron Kahland

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 10:34:00 UTC

  • THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS MUST BE DEFENDED JUST AS WE DEFEND THE NORMATIVE AND P

    THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS MUST BE DEFENDED JUST AS WE DEFEND THE NORMATIVE AND PHYSICAL COMMONS.

    The postmoderns (like Chomsky) are liars. Why should we not punish liars for the pollution of the informational commons, just as we punish pollution of the physical commons?

    Safeguard the helpless. Punish the wicked. Kill the evil.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 05:35:00 UTC

  • HONESTY, TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH VS PARASITISM AND DISCOUNTING. Honestly, truthfu

    HONESTY, TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH VS PARASITISM AND DISCOUNTING.

    Honestly, truthfulness, and truth are three different things.

    Honesty is what you believe prior to criticism, truthfulness is demonstration of scientific warranty having performed thorough criticism, and analytic truth is something we are likely prohibited from knowing, except as tautology. It is extremely difficult to make fallacious arguments if they are stated truthfully.

    People want to rely upon religious argument, moral argument, and rationalist argument, instead of scientific (truthful) speech: because it allows them to lie. Religious argument is an authoritarian mythos – often for the common good, because it allowed us to overcome tribalism – but just as often not. Moral argument without Propertarian criticism is an excellent means of lying because it forces guilt and shaming into the conversation. Rationalism is an exceptional means of lying because it forces verbalism into the argument. Postmodernism is the most masterful lie ever constructed after religion.

    —“But, … are you lying if you think you are telling the truth?”—

    This in itself is a verbalism: imprecise language that permits deceit through obscurity. The correct statement is, “if I fail to warranty by due diligence my statements, I am engaged in an act of willful ignorance.” Most of us engage in willful ignorance in order to use deceit to justify our discounts (parasitism). All language is negotiation, and all moral argument is justification. Truth isn’t kind to our justifications. But truthfulness is as necessary a commons as is property.

    – Humans acquire. We attempt to obtain the greatest benefit, in the shortest time, with the least effort, with the greatest certainty, at the lowest risk.

    – Cooperation is a multiplier on acquisition.

    – Parasitism in all its forms is a disincentive to cooperate: murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, fraud by obstruction, free riding, privatization of the commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest, and predation.

    – Parasitism is an unearned discount (theft) on cooperation. Commons are a premium on cooperation.

    – Cooperation, norms, truth telling, and property are costs – the premiums we pay for cooperation.

    – Everything else is theft.

    – Economic velocity and group production, acquisition and consumption are the result of the total suppression of parasitism in all its forms. The greater the suppression of parasitism, the greater the warranty of truth telling, the higher the economic velocity.

    It’s just math really.

    Humans are entirely algorithmically expressible creatures.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 05:34:00 UTC

  • APOLOGISTS The truth of any religion is the actions produced by its adherents. A

    APOLOGISTS

    The truth of any religion is the actions produced by its adherents. A religion is not what you believe it is, it is what we observe the results of its practice are. I know this infuriates Neo-Puritans, Jews, Muslims and Hindus if not Buddhists and Catholics, but the net result of it is that your religion produces outcomes, and those outcomes if different from outcomes in other religions, determines the properties of your religion. Not what you believe, not what you practice, not what you profess, not what you study, not what you teach – but what people do with belief, practice, profession, study, teaching.

    We have too much knowledge now that language, myth, narrative. ritual and belief are illusions that produce externalities. If you are poor, your culture and your religion, and that which you cherish, as well as the family you cherish, are responsible.

    I don’t have any respect for devoted atheism. The mythic is too important a producer of outcomes. Our ancient myths, from the greek to the germanic, to the Arthurian to the American revolution, to the Burkeian, to the science fiction of the golden age are more important than our religious, and rationalist traditions.

    The important reformations were Smiths (economics), and Darwin’s(our self image). . And the Marxist and syndicalist left, Jewish separatist, and neo puritan atheists, as well as the anti-Darwinian religious have attempted to suppress these narratives in an attempt to preserve authoritarianism: to preserve group bonds.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 03:42:00 UTC