de.aristocratia
Moral judgement is not a question any more than mathematical formulae are questions. 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.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-17 05:24:00 UTC
“Meaning us an underclass preoccupation. The rest of us worry about facts and actions.@
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-16 02:15:00 UTC
ROMAN CUT THIS: #13 – LESTERIAN VERBALISM
Jan lester’s theory of liberty is an obscurantist tautological verbalism that starts with the mere normative meaning of liberty and he loosely deduces subjective value, rather than starting with subjective value, constructing morality, and defining liberty as a legal constraint against the members of the state as yet another statement of property rights. since nothing he states is existential, he demonstrates the fallacy of rationalism in creating mere analogies rather than operational necessities.
Only in libertine or marxist philosophy could you get away with anything that ridiculous outside of a temple of one kind or another. Only in philosophy could you get away with something that ridiculous.
And that’s before I get to the abuses of Critical Rationalism. For some reason Lester confuses falsification as hardening a theory, with legitimizing incompetence – a failure to demonstrate that he hasn’t just created a tautology. (Which he has.)
Apparently I have to do a summary of on all the extant libertarian follies instead of just making fun of Jan Lester. On the other hand, at least he isn’t promoting libertinism – he’s just promoting pseudo-rationalism, pseudo-science, and sloppy thinking.
Which doesn’t put him in too exclusive a club. Sigh.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-16 00:14:00 UTC
OMG:… Meaning is for poor people. OMG…. That’s my bit of wisdom for the day.
Philosophy and meaning are for poor people operationalism (science) and truth telling are for rich people.
Investigation is expensive.
The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer.
OMG.. That’s so true. And so awesome.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-15 04:31:00 UTC
Ya wanna know the secret? Science is the art of speaking truthfully. It hasn’t got anything to with whether we talk about the physical world, or the world of human action, or any other discipline that operates by different rules of regularity. It’s just learning to speak truthfully – and that’s hard. That’s it. Nothing more than that.
Now ‘the truth’ is just a bit of ideological nonsense – the search for god. It’s meaningless. Searching for truth is like searching for god. A bit of verbal naivety. A child’s mythos.
Instead, we try to speak as truthfully as possible at whatever level of precision we are capable of currently speaking in any given field of inquiry. Our search is merely to find the most truthful expression we can craft short of a tautology.
Cool huh?
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-14 11:51:00 UTC
THE TRUTH SPECTRUM
(most important thing I’ve written lately) (first draft)
Meaningful……Truthful…………..Truth……………..Tautology
Felt………………Demonstrated…Assumed………..Found
Intuitionistic…. Operational…….Parsimonious….Identical
Experiential…..Existential………Theoretical……..Axiomatic
Useful…………..Actionable……..Impossible………Irrelevant
Mental………….Physical…………Metaphysical…..Verbal
Imaginary……..Knowable………Unknowable…….Tautological
|–Informational Correspondence——————————–>|
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-14 07:25:00 UTC
Today’s lesson. Philosophy of this depth – testimonial truth and operationalism – is way, waaaaay too much for morals. So just keep it at the high level: you cannot speak the truth, since you can never know it. You can however speak truthfully, and you can learn how to speak truthfully, and if you speak truthfully you can warrant that of which you speak. This does not guarantee it is free of error, it merely means that you have done your diligence in the prevention of harm.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-13 11:31:00 UTC
The phrase “The truth will set you free” turns out to have been an empirical statement after all. It’s not poetic. It’s simply fact. But it’s a little imprecise. More accurately: USE of the truth, DEMAND for the TRUTH and PUNISHMENT for untruth will construct liberty.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-12 23:09:00 UTC
—“There are no paradoxes. Only bad definitions.”—
All conclusions are only as good as their presumptions.
Words are not actions, only symbols carrying meaning.
Actions exist. Measurements (observations) exist.
Unlike words, definitions constitute formal theories.
It’s not complicated.
If you hit a paradox, your theories are wrong.
(worth repeating)
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-12 08:45:00 UTC
THE MANNERS OF TRUTH
It is one thing to argue whether x leads to y “is true”. It is another to argue whether we and our opponent’s speak truthfully.
And now, we know, that the statement “x leads to y is true” can *only* mean “I promise you will also find that x leads to y”.
We have been indoctrinated into untruthful speech. We have become a culture of liars. We have lost Grammar, lost Rhetoric, lost history.
Imagine a news talk show, where one spoke truthfully and the other didn’t.
We can and should call liars liars, and even vectors for lies, liars.
Because it is true.
To treat manners with higher priority than truth is to let others steal from the normative commons merely by their utterances. And moral men neither can steal, nor tolerate stealing from others.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 22:20:00 UTC