Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • So while the left engages in lie-deny-pseudoscience-and incrementalism, the righ

    So while the left engages in lie-deny-pseudoscience-and incrementalism, the right engages in not telling the truth and moralizing. And in all things – truth rules. Until the right uses truth it cannot defeat the lie-and-deny-pseudoscience and sophism of the left.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 13:19:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173949614032076800

    Reply addressees: @Biorealism @charliekirk11 @TuckerCarlson @thespandrell @Steve_Sailer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173949207486652416

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Biorealism @charliekirk11 @TuckerCarlson @thespandrell @Steve_Sailer The dirty secret of western success has always been soft eugenics of the family, economy, military, and law. The problem is that the eugenics movement needed to succeed to prevent regression to the mean. And the postwar ban on the subject made conservatism impossible to advance.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173949207486652416

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Biorealism @charliekirk11 @TuckerCarlson @thespandrell @Steve_Sailer The dirty secret of western success has always been soft eugenics of the family, economy, military, and law. The problem is that the eugenics movement needed to succeed to prevent regression to the mean. And the postwar ban on the subject made conservatism impossible to advance.

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1173949207486652416

  • I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is c

    I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete.

    Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence,… https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=467274753869420&id=100017606988153

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 07:03:31 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173854983051186177

  • “Sounds like” can mean anything, since it’s merely free association. You sound l

    “Sounds like” can mean anything, since it’s merely free association. You sound like you live in a bubble of dunning kruger ignorance. šŸ˜‰ Means nothing. Make an argument or don’t waste oxygen.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 03:20:54 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173798957597822976

    Reply addressees: @Brian_Alford @DineshDSouza

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173797905083162624

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable ā€” 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/1173797905083162624

  • I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is c

    I think the demarcation between truth(decidability) and choice (preference) is complete.

    Philosophy only tells us choice now, while law (reciprocity), science(consistency correspondence, and coherence), and mathematics(measurement) provide decidability regardless of choice.

    The top of the pyramid is not philosophy but testimony, law, science, mathematics, and the logic faculty in a consistent coherent ontology. While philosophy (arbitrary ontology) has nothing to say but choice.

    In other words, Law (cooperation) science (evidence) are merely an extension of testimony. Which is why the west developed them. We are the only people that base our law entirely on sovereignty and therefore we have no other choice but testimony, law, science and math for decidability.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-17 03:03:00 UTC

  • Give me an example. Language, like violence can be used for true and reciprocal

    Give me an example. Language, like violence can be used for true and reciprocal or false and irreciprocal ends. It is just a resource. So while I work on eliminating falsehood by law I am not sure what you are working on other than association, which is useless for operations.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 21:10:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173705655414403072

    Reply addressees: @Semiogogue

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173705056358735872

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Semiogogue

    @curtdoolittle I want the marks in our environment to be reliable as a basis for making behavioral determinations. Like they were in the first place. Before *spoken language* introduced the ambiguity. Once upon a time there was no such ambiguity. https://t.co/R9AQUcUXQA

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173705056358735872

  • We Must Accumulate Law like we do Accounting Entries.

    AI will probably lie a lot, because so many games require that, but it’s not unrealistic to think it will lie less to itself. …  Humans are trapped at a cognitive level that depends upon buying into their own bullshit. … They’re generally so bad at lying they have to become deception zombies. – Nick Land (Outsideness)

    The degree to which we are dependent upon whatever set of paradigms in whatever set of narratives, we use for our network of decidability, is something between humbling and humiliating – which only increases my conviction that we must accumulate Law like we do accounting entries. Debits (acts) and Credits (revisions) continuously trying to maintain a positive balance sheet of human behavior, shipping new products of law as fast as parasites invent new means of imposing costs upon others.

  • by Daniel Gurpide I previously posted that –“Platoā€˜s philosophy was for ‘the in

    by Daniel Gurpide

    I previously posted that –“Platoā€˜s philosophy was for ‘the intellectuals’; the ethics of Plato are tied to his whole system of knowledge, including politics. The doctrines of Epicurus appealed chiefly to the middle classes, the bourgeoisie; the ethics of Epicurus are separated from politics and joined only with physics (and Aristotle). The teachings of Jesus were for the very poor, the lost sheep. The ethics of Jesus are isolated from both physics and politics and fitted into a development scheme of salvation.”—

    Curt and I were trying to figure out why Epicurean philosophy was wiped out so easily after the fall of the Roman Empire. There were never strong Epicurean communities. Epicureans prioritized their small groups and chose not to engage in politics (a consequence of the civil wars that used to plague the ancient world).

    I was recently reading ā€œLiberalism: Ancient & Modernā€ by Leo Strauss. The central chapter and the longest chapter is his “Notes on Lucretius”. He identifies one of the main tenets of Epicurean teaching–that the world that we love is not eternal, because every world is mortal within the eternal universe of atoms in motion–as “the most terrible truth”.

    Philosophers can live with this truth with a tranquil mind. But most human beings cannot. And consequently most human beings can find peace of mind only through the “pleasing delusion” of a religious belief that the world of human concern is supported by a loving intelligent designer.

    I guess that the temptation for the Platonist ā€œintellectualsā€ to lead the ā€œlost sheepā€ and at the same time sandwich the middle classes has always been there.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-16 12:03:00 UTC

  • They can’t stand the reason why either: Truth regardless of the consequence to t

    They can’t stand the reason why either: Truth regardless of the consequence to the dominance hierarchy; sovereignty and reciprocity in law (tort, trespass) before a jury of peers (impossibility of corruption); and markets (competition) in all walks of life; = optimum velocity.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-15 19:57:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173324951782330368

    Reply addressees: @JayMan471

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173310634504704001

    IN REPLY TO:

    @JayMan471

    Boy https://t.co/ejwfwxS50V

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173310634504704001

  • RT @realDonaldTrump: Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the

    RT @realDonaldTrump: Brett Kavanaugh should start suing people for libel, or the Justice Department should come to his rescue. The lies beiā€¦

    Source date (UTC): 2019-09-15 16:12:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1173268262060212225

  • Sophists, nearly all.

    It’s exasperating. Continentals are secular theologians at best. But even analytic philosophers are mostly sophists. Try to explain that the logics are falsificationary not justificationary. Ask them to try to prove something non trivial. Heads explode. Better, try “The liar’s paradox isn’t, it’s just a sophism of grammar using the copula in an incomplete sentence.” In fact, ask them to state any difficult philosophical question without using the verb to be, in a complete sentence, in operational language. Oops. Sophisms all. Very frustrating for philosophers playing cunning word games to realize that (a) almost all supposedly complex questions are merely errors in grammar, and (b) there is no closure available to the logics, (c) the logics are purely falsificationary – just like the sciences.