Theme: Truth

  • WESTERN STRUGGLE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH – TWELVE POINTS OF PROGRESS IN 2014 (new vid

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rf7FBTT6QlwTHE WESTERN STRUGGLE TO SPEAK THE TRUTH – TWELVE POINTS OF PROGRESS IN 2014

    (new video!)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-20 20:04:00 UTC

  • I CAN TRANSLATE THIS ONE TOO: —“(a) Mathematics is common sense; (b) do not as

    I CAN TRANSLATE THIS ONE TOO:

    —“(a) Mathematics is common sense; (b) do not ask whether a statement is true until you know what it means; (c) A proof is any completely convincing argument; (d) Meaningful distinctions deserve to be preserved.”—

    Morality is common sense. Do not ask whether a statement is moral unless you know what it means. a proof of construction is a completely convincing argument because that is all we seek to prove.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 20:18:00 UTC

  • PROFOUND: MEANING AND TESTIMONY —“Brouwer’s criticisms of classical mathematic

    PROFOUND: MEANING AND TESTIMONY

    —“Brouwer’s criticisms of classical mathematics were concerned with what I shall refer to as ‘the debasement of meaning’”— (Bishop in Rosenblatt, 1985, p. 1)

    Let me see if I can translate this one….

    —“My criticisms of rationalism are concerned with the debasement of the meaning of truth: that which I can testify to having observed. And by consequence the cumulative externalities produced by the systematic debasement of the meaning of truth, and therefore the systematic debasement of our ability to testify truthfully. High trust societies, and their economic velocity, are not possible, or is liberty, under rationalism independent of the requirement for construction”—


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 19:57:00 UTC

  • PROFOUND: UNRIGOROUS THOUGHT IS NOT USELESS —“We are not contending that ideal

    PROFOUND: UNRIGOROUS THOUGHT IS NOT USELESS

    —“We are not contending that idealistic mathematics is worthless from the constructive point of view. This would be as silly as contending that unrigorous mathematics is worthless from the classical point of view. Every theorem proved with idealistic methods presents a challenge: to find a constructive version, and to give it a constructive proof.” — (Bishop 1967, Preface, page x)

    Now… lets translate this into the moral domain:

    —“I am not contending that any rational method is worthless for the purpose of truth-telling. That would be silly. Unrigorous thought is useful – we can arrive at theories by whatever means it is possible for us to do so. Every theory that survives by unrigorous – meaning rational – means, presents us with a challenge: to find an operational version and therefore demonstrate that it is existentially possible, open to observation, and therefore something that it is possible to testify to.”—

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 19:53:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    https://www.academia.edu/3242047/Real_Direct_RealismSanity.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-19 10:11:00 UTC

  • SENTIMENTAL, MORAL, RATIONAL, EMPIRICAL: LEGAL DECIDABILITY We can construct lib

    SENTIMENTAL, MORAL, RATIONAL, EMPIRICAL: LEGAL DECIDABILITY

    We can construct libertarianism as a sentimental, ratio-moral, or ratio-legal, or legal-empirical framework. But if we rely upon sentimental, and ratio-moral construction, then statements are not decidable, and opinion still influences the decision – we leave open not only the possibility of, but the preference for the addition of subjective preference into any decision. That is why we cannot construct rule of law upon ratio-moral arguments – revisionism and evolutionary corruption. This is why libertarianism in the anglo tradition has been constructed as a legal framework rather than moral framework of the cosmopolitan and continental traditions – by using strict construction and original intent. However, while this construction – as a system of calculation, which prohibits, unlike rationalism, the introduction of information not present in the original construction – still leaves open the question as to what determines the scope and limits to property upon which a that ratio-legal law is calculated. Empirical-legal evidence tells us that if we wish to construct a libertarian society, that we must define property as that which people treat as property by defense of it, and retaliation for violations of it. Without this knowledge we cannot eliminate demand for the state as an imposer of arbitrary norms, and suppressor of retaliation for violations of property that humans demonstrate they intuit as their property. There is only one way to eliminate the state, and that is to eliminate demand for it, by providing a sufficient body of property rights law, that all disputes are rationally decidable without the addition of subjective information.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-18 10:35:00 UTC

  • Moral Judgements

    de.aristocratia

    [M]oral judgement is not open to question any more than mathematical formulae are open to question. Either equations balance, and proofs can be constructed or they cannot. Either fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality was performed, or it was not. And in both cases, either information exists sufficient for decidability, or it does not. But no questions are undecidable if the information is present.

  • Moral Judgements

    de.aristocratia

    [M]oral judgement is not open to question any more than mathematical formulae are open to question. Either equations balance, and proofs can be constructed or they cannot. Either fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality was performed, or it was not. And in both cases, either information exists sufficient for decidability, or it does not. But no questions are undecidable if the information is present.

  • “Human knowledge, for the most part,is unjustified untrue unbelief”— David Mil

    —“Human knowledge, for the most part,is unjustified untrue unbelief”— David Miller

    Yes David Miller. That describes what it is not. But does not describe what it is: demonstrable.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-18 06:19:00 UTC

  • “What language do they speak if you light them on fire?” – Curt Doolittle “From

    “What language do they speak if you light them on fire?” – Curt Doolittle

    “From those lips, the torrent of rabid lies turns into sudden rapid truth.” — William L. Benge


    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-18 06:17:00 UTC