FWIW: best to interpret Nietzsche as correctly identifying the problem and explaining it’s breadth but failing to SOLVE the problem. He did after all inspire the postmodernists and their relativism – precisely becasue he did not solve the problem.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-10 11:54:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778028748379410798
Reply addressees: @Gundissemenator @mentorstrophy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1778028361203192300
–“Denying other people’s lived experiences is called gaslighting.”–@wordy_fiend
I’m not sure that’s true. What you’re saying is that truth is subjective rather than the objective means of decidability when perceptions, values, and opinions conflict.
Gaslighting requires not denial of experience but UNDERMINING the causes of and interpretations of that experience as presumed by the individual.
There are plenty of false experiences, stemming from false presumptions of cause, or stemming from mental psychological and mental defect – primarily neuroticism and infantilization.
There are also plenty of experiences stemming from true presumptions of cause, and stemming from correct identification of those causes, and the correct mental, psychological and emotional reaction to them.
In other words, gaslighting is lying by the use of projection and suggestion. Correcting others when they are wrong, emotionally troubled, or immature is simply doing the moral duty of coercing others to mature into responsible adults.
Reply addressees: @wordy_fiend @TheBibleIsTrue @MikhailaFuller
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-09 18:24:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777764507953049601
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777761065839059083
IS ALL SYSTEMIC REASONING PHILOSOPHY?
Depends on how we define philosophy.
Man Reasons no matter what. He must.
if by Philosophy we mean the production of a coherent system of valuation and decision on the good using verbal (set) logic that’s possible by verbal reasoning then yes, maybe.
If by empiricism we require observable evidence to falsify our reason, and instrumentation to falsify our perception;
If by science we search for first principles and causes by the use of testing using empiricism and instrumentation to falsify our observation, our perception, our reason;
If by computation we construct existence from first causes, producing a universal logic of decidability;
Then there is a difference between Reasoning, Mythicism, theology to systematize mysticism, Philosophy absent mysticism, Empiricism, Science, And Computation (Formal Operational Logic).
And given that philosophy not a first cause, but reason is, then no we depend on reason not philosophy. Or we depend on the entire hierarchy of reasoning just as we do on the entire hierarchy of mathematics.
Reply addressees: @kyle_sheehan
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-09 15:14:03 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777716611551518720
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777689791854706801
RT @WerrellBradley: HATE SPEECH LAWS
…established a precedent, whereby we can call the Public Expression of Falsehoods to be Hate Speech…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-09 08:30:15 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777614992688218343
RT @LukeWeinhagen: Semantic Manipulation: Color of Lies
Whether pulling down or propping up – the Narrative Industrial Complex uses the sa…
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-09 04:28:41 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777554199112286283
“IT MUST BE FALSE BECAUSE IT’S DIFFICULT”, vs “IT MUST BE FALSE BECAUSE THE OVERVIEW IS SIMPLE”.
Why do you think you could understand say, category theory in mathematics, the emergence of the primary forces from discrete pressure, the biochemistry of proteins and their potential organization as a means of doing work, or say, the formal logic of legal proof, and grasp it from a just a paragraph? What about something as simple as the C programming language, or the Economics of human behavior? Or the difference between justification, falsification, and adversarial survival? And how should one explain any of those in a few paragraphs to people with no substantial education in them?
Our work (my work) is both vast and extremely technical, but the solutions that we are capable of producing are practical.
Why is it that you would presume to understand a thing if it was as revolutionary as darwin, and as complex as the innovation of computation?
It’s because for some reason people expect ethical, moral, economic, legal, and political thought to be simple – it isn’t.
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-09 03:08:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777534056722317312
I’M NOT ANTI CHRISTIAN
I’m anti-abrahamism (lying), not anti christian (Jesus).
If you want fundamentalism, you need to learn to lie to justify it. Learning the very simple lesson Jesus teaches takes not rationalization, justification, mysticism, supernaturalism, fiction, fraud, or lying.
Jesus solve the problem of the prisoner’s dilemma of cooperation by demanding the counter intuitive: seduction non aggression and by forgiveness into cooperation for mutual benefit: the extension of kinship love to all.
This made it possible for the primitive people of the middle east and the lower classes in the west, to find status, self image, self respect, and mindfulness without the wealth, power, ability of the upper classes of aristocratic warriors.
The Jeffersonian bible is sufficient, and doesn’t require lying to your self, others, or social construction of falsehoods.
It may be that some percentage of the people require the supernatural to sedate their neuroticism enough to obtain mindfulness. However the vast majority will not reject Christianity or natural law or Western philosophy, or Western science once they understand that Jesus’ solution was the only possible answer to achieving cooperation between the underclasses at the scale and under the technology of Greco Roman Civilization and the rate of change it imposed on the civilizations that had been static for three thousand years.
Affections all.
CD
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 22:30:49 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777464140862230528
The Criteria for Claim of Truthful Speech https://t.co/V7dZiihekV
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 21:02:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777441903811633366
The Criteria for Claim of Truthful Speech
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 21:02:27 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777441903757205504
Epistemology Is A Simple Thing (Really) https://t.co/FhjkT3yp1S
Source date (UTC): 2024-04-08 20:58:46 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1777440973884133863