Theme: Truth

  • IDEALS VS LIMITS by Bill Joslin The notion of “ideal and unlimited” pertains to

    IDEALS VS LIMITS

    by Bill Joslin

    The notion of “ideal and unlimited” pertains to moral foundations asserted as universal and well… An ideal…. Opposed to the notion that all concepts exist with in limits (boundaries and context). By doing so, following a moral foundation which doesn’t acknowledge proper conditions which allows that action to exist has said action producing different and often opposite effects (ideal morals often result in immoral outcomes )


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-18 11:20:00 UTC

  • GOVERNING IS SIMPLE IF TRUTHFUL AND DIFFICULT IF DECEITFUL AND CORRUPT by JG Gar

    GOVERNING IS SIMPLE IF TRUTHFUL AND DIFFICULT IF DECEITFUL AND CORRUPT

    by JG Garner

    Agreed. Black and white. Dark or light. North or south. East or west.

    I read a book a few years back. A book well known to many. I will paraphrase the general idea.

    The author wrote governing is not hard. It is easy. The corrupt make it complicated. The compromised make the waters murky.

    It’s simple. Is it good for the nation? Is it good for the economy? Does it weaken us? Do we want those convicted of the most heinous crimes to still breath. As long as they live, they could be amongst us “free men” again.

    I’ve provided a small paragraph on an entire chapter. But you get my point. Things should be pretty cut and dry.

    In the criminal justice system we now look at the accused in a sympathetic view. Was his life hard? Did his parents beat him? Ect. The only thing we need to unwind is was a crime committed? Did the accused commit said crime? Is the victim dead or injured.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-18 11:15:00 UTC

  • THE OUTSTANDING QUESTION: CAN IT BE DONE? —“I do not think German philosophy w

    THE OUTSTANDING QUESTION: CAN IT BE DONE?

    —“I do not think German philosophy was a reaction to empiricism.”—Aaron Kahland

    —“Thinking Kant’s love affair with Rousseau being a German reaction to Anglo liberalism – secular Christian apologetics”—Bill Joslin

    I mean, british empiricism begins back in the 1090’s and within two hundred years becomes explicit under roger bacon. and by the 1600’s under Francis bacon all but complete. leading to hobbes, lock, hume, smith, et al. The bacons were jurists applying law to modern thought.

    Instead, Germans less so with leibnitz but certainly with wolff and kant continued the scholastic tradition of apriorism independent of empiricism, and when that failed moved to experientialism, and finally to the nonsense of marx and heidegger. These people were theologians applying theology to modern thought.

    The great questions, which dogs my work, are:

    (a) is this internal world of the germans and external world of the anglos genetic or cultural (linguistic, traditional, normative, literary, institution) or a mixture of both?

    (b) Given the difference between british (shallow), american (constitutional) and the german (metaphysical) moral depth be TAUGHT by design, and by what methods can it be taught. Because it appears to require both an institutional method of teaching AND sufficient immersion in the culture to produce the general disposition, and;

    (c) how can we teach as such while also training the opposite (sun tzu, machiavelli, grand strategy) that this “piety” or ‘moralism’ is a utility and a choice not a truth?

    Because it is the LATTER PROBLEM that seems to be the issue, not the former. In other words, today you talk to germans and they are convinced of this ‘nonsense’ that they have a special history rather than did the logical thing as all other peoples in history have done. (and arguably were in the right in both wars).

    Brits are in a virtue spiral of death for the same reason.

    Americans are incrementally defeated by their women for the same reason.

    And as far as I can tell it is christianity underneath that causes these failures – because it is ideal and unlimited, rather than limited and real (limits of tolerance and forgiveness)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-18 09:52:00 UTC

  • Um. Don’t feel bad when you PM me questions and I say “I don’t know.” … I say

    Um. Don’t feel bad when you PM me questions and I say “I don’t know.” … I say so because I don’t know. But it’s not an imposition to ask me a question I don’t know the answer to. The secret to being right is to be careful about what you say you know. And saying “I don’t know” is the shortest way of doing that. The difference is that we all like attention and we all like to solve puzzles, and we all like to opine. Thankfully I don’t need attention, I hate puzzles instead of problems, and I f–king opine and argue all day long already… lol


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-17 14:07:00 UTC

  • They are all reduced to secular theology now. As far as I know (and it is what I

    They are all reduced to secular theology now. As far as I know (and it is what I do) Social Sciences are solved within the domain of rational choice, and philosophy consists almost entirely of the study of discontinuous paradigms defended by sophisms: as resistance movements.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-16 20:03:04 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063522862689071104

    Reply addressees: @sapinker @qz

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063226337471676418


    IN REPLY TO:

    @sapinker

    Philosophers philosophizing about philosophy on world philosophy day https://t.co/GLOh6e06XO via @qz

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063226337471676418

  • Polysyllables. Pah’-lee-sill’-uh-bulls. And long chains of reasoning, fully acco

    Polysyllables. Pah’-lee-sill’-uh-bulls. And long chains of reasoning, fully accounting for costs.

    Approval, Disapproval, and Moralizing don’t take polysyllables and long chains of reasoning fully accounting for costs. It’s your reaction to being called out for having tried to escape payments of costs in exchange for gains.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-16 14:08:00 UTC

  • “Basically in layman’s terms: There are infinite frames of references (paradigms

    —“Basically in layman’s terms: There are infinite frames of references (paradigms). We can choose an arbitrary frame of reference within some set of paradigms, or we can use the OPERATIONAL frame of reference consisting of fully commensurable terms, or the mathematical frame of that same reference, that allows us to speak in a standardized format, such that we can discuss across domains and disciplines”—Yiannis Kontinopoulos

    (edited)


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-16 12:26:00 UTC

  • you cannot learn anything at from verbalism(meaning), only operations (actions).

    you cannot learn anything at from verbalism(meaning), only operations (actions). startat the beginning. its a long journey to understanding. https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-15 22:55:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063203799169404928

    Reply addressees: @UtopiumTinkerer

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063068437793173504


    IN REPLY TO:

    @UtopiumTinkerer

    @curtdoolittle Sounds like an interesting conversation was had. I have a question regarding a concept I was mulling over yesterday: Would it be right to separate the term “Law” and “Rules”, to strengthen both in terms and use?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1063068437793173504

  • They Talk About Ideals, and We Talk About Reals – The Difference Is Costs – We A

    They Talk About Ideals, and We Talk About Reals – The Difference Is Costs – We Account for Costs.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-14 13:07:00 UTC

  • “Are you a right wing libertarian?”— Hard to answer that question any longer.

    —“Are you a right wing libertarian?”—

    Hard to answer that question any longer. I write on Testimonial (Complete Scientific) Truth; the natural law of reciprocity; nomocracy (rule of law) under that natural law; the uniqueness of western civlization (individual sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, duty, judge-jury-law, and the resulting markets in everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polities, and war). In effect the formal logic and science of cooperation that we call ‘social science’ written as ‘law’.

    “Libertarian” now refers unfortunately to Anarchism since it was usurped by the anarcho capitalists. And “Liberal” has been usurped by the american socialists. And I have lost nearly all my confidence in any form of democracy other than markets – and in doing so moved those markets into the houses of government, eliminating monopoly rule. So classical liberal is not available to me either.

    You would find my policy recommendations left of center, but my democratic recommendations right of center, and you probably wouldnt understand my economic work.

    But in the end result, all questions of politics devolve into Masculine Meritocratic, Capitalization, and Eugenics, versus Feminine Equalitarian, Consumption, and Dysgenics. In that sense I am an economic paleolibertarian and an normative paleoconservative in that it is impossible to both be intellectually honest, and sufficiently informed in economics and biology to hold any other proposition than we must pay the underclass to stop reproducing very soon if not immediately, and we must end all underclass immigration and reverse as much of it as possible.

    There is no other option other than ‘faith’.


    Source date (UTC): 2018-11-13 12:26:00 UTC