—“There is no point in arguing with someone with a closed mind”— Anon
The problem is knowing when you are asking for an open mind : meaning “time to consider the argument”, and asking someone to agree, believe, or express faith in that which is not an argument but a fraud.
The only non-fraudulent version of that statement is:
–“there is no point in arguing with someone who is intellectually dishonest”–
Appeals for an ‘open mind’ are always frauds. ALWAYS. Either you have an argument or you don’t. Either the you AND the other person(s) are intellectually honest or you are not.
My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg
Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).
Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.
What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.
Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.)
The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg
Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).
Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.
What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.
Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.)
The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
My answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg
Is the statement an axiom? No. Itâs a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).
Is the law self evident? Self evident means âobviousâ. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.
What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.
Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both âMan Actsâ and âNon Aggressionâ are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than oneâs reflection. (Quite stupid really.)
The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
https://t.co/X0C0GANSPghttps://t.co/X0C0GANSPgMy answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg
Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).
Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.
What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.
Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.)
The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
https://t.co/X0C0GANSPgMy answer to Is Mises’s action axiom self evident? https://t.co/X0C0GANSPg
Is the statement an axiom? No. It’s a Law. The difference between an axiom and a law, is that an axiom is declared (created and therefore arbitrary), and a law is discovered (existential, and therefore unavoidable).
Is the law self evident? Self evident means ‘obvious’. Yes, that man acts and must act, is obvious.
What does the law that man must act tell us? Absolutely nothing. It is meaningless. To react we must only biologically respond. To act we must decide. To decide we must reason.
Like all Libertarian Tropes (nonsense-arguments) both “Man Acts” and “Non Aggression” are incomplete statements. Abrahamic sophisms (Pilpul and Critique) rely heavily upon suggestion. Suggestion refers to providing only partial information, such that the individual consciously or unconsciously provides the rest of the information – but provides his judgement or value of it. As such, when we make moral suggestions (half truths), we force the recipient to substitute his value judgements in order to complete the sentence (transaction for, or contract for, meaning). This is why non-aggression is nonsense and libertarianism is a dead end: because everyone intuits his moral standard of property. Thus agreeing with NAP yet in truth, agreeing only with himself. So we have millions of idiots running around claiming NAP is a standard of something other than one’s reflection. (Quite stupid really.)
The complete sentences are (a) man acts to acquire all that is necessary for survival, discounts on acquisitions, and opportunities for reproduction. And (b) reciprocity requires non imposition upon (aggression against) the demonstrated investments of others regardless of whether they are physical, kinship, interpersonal, organizational, the commons, institutional, or informational. In other words, anything people have born any cost to obtain an interest, and which they demonstrate defense of.
According to Christopher Heumann, an 18th-century scholar, pseudo-philosophy has six characteristics:
A preference for useless speculation
It appeals merely to human authority
It appeals to tradition instead of reason
It syncretises philosophy with superstition
It has a preference for obscure and enigmatic language and symbolism
It is immoral
According to Christopher Heumann, an 18th-century scholar, pseudo-philosophy has six characteristics:
A preference for useless speculation
It appeals merely to human authority
It appeals to tradition instead of reason
It syncretises philosophy with superstition
It has a preference for obscure and enigmatic language and symbolism
It is immoral
I don’t think a lot of people will be able to wield the epistemology all that well – although I might be wrong. But the number of people who will make arguments, and make them better and more accessible than I do is large. I mean, I see this stuff showing up everywhere. The terms. The ideas. The arguments. And the people who have been around for years are better than I am at the inspirational.
I don’t think a lot of people will be able to wield the epistemology all that well – although I might be wrong. But the number of people who will make arguments, and make them better and more accessible than I do is large. I mean, I see this stuff showing up everywhere. The terms. The ideas. The arguments. And the people who have been around for years are better than I am at the inspirational.