Analytic Philosophy One of the nonsense descriptions of analytic philosophy is that one is required to write in ‘clear’ prose. This is yet another bit of rationalist nonsense. —“it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences.”— The analytic philosophy movement (anglo) evolved out of the anglo predisposition for legal prose, the conversion of mathematics from prose to symbols, and the (desperate) desire of philosophy to find a pretense of calling itself a science. As far as I know the movement is dead, as have been most philosophical movements. At present, I am not sure much philosophy exists outside of a study of the evolution of math, logic, science, law, politics, and theology. So, it’s not that analytic prose must be clearer per se, in the sense that the average idiot should be able to understand it in colloquial prose (we leave that to the left and the europeans) – it’s that it must be constructed out of terms, phrases, and sentences that are logically testable, and free of analogy, the imaginary, and the phenomenal(experiential) – and the undecidable left to scientific investigation. Or as I would say it: it must be stated as mathematical, logical, operational, or scientific argument under natural law. The problem is that: 1) While relations are constant in mathematics they are also trivially simple (positional). 2) There are always more dimensions in a comparison of references than there are constant relations (this is a truism). 3) Closure does not exist (overplay contradiction) …. Argh. I don’t want to go through all this again…. Rationalism is usable only for interpretation of scriptural law. It evolved out of it. (Pilpul and Critique). Justified true belief is nonsense. No amount of justification will determine what is true. It is only survival from criticism that determinse a truth candidate, and justification merely explains one of the roads to rome (understanding).
Theme: Truth
-
Analytic Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy One of the nonsense descriptions of analytic philosophy is that one is required to write in ‘clear’ prose. This is yet another bit of rationalist nonsense. —“it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences.”— The analytic philosophy movement (anglo) evolved out of the anglo predisposition for legal prose, the conversion of mathematics from prose to symbols, and the (desperate) desire of philosophy to find a pretense of calling itself a science. As far as I know the movement is dead, as have been most philosophical movements. At present, I am not sure much philosophy exists outside of a study of the evolution of math, logic, science, law, politics, and theology. So, it’s not that analytic prose must be clearer per se, in the sense that the average idiot should be able to understand it in colloquial prose (we leave that to the left and the europeans) – it’s that it must be constructed out of terms, phrases, and sentences that are logically testable, and free of analogy, the imaginary, and the phenomenal(experiential) – and the undecidable left to scientific investigation. Or as I would say it: it must be stated as mathematical, logical, operational, or scientific argument under natural law. The problem is that: 1) While relations are constant in mathematics they are also trivially simple (positional). 2) There are always more dimensions in a comparison of references than there are constant relations (this is a truism). 3) Closure does not exist (overplay contradiction) …. Argh. I don’t want to go through all this again…. Rationalism is usable only for interpretation of scriptural law. It evolved out of it. (Pilpul and Critique). Justified true belief is nonsense. No amount of justification will determine what is true. It is only survival from criticism that determinse a truth candidate, and justification merely explains one of the roads to rome (understanding).
-
Socrates: Critique Plato: Pilpul Aristotle: Truth
Socrates: Critique
Plato: Pilpul
Aristotle: Truth
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 20:03:00 UTC
-
this speech edited together (constructed)? Or did trump give it whole cloth? And
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ&feature=youtu.behttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ&feature=youtu.beIs this speech edited together (constructed)? Or did trump give it whole cloth? And why haven’t I seen this before if it was a campaign speech? Because this is … well, this is evidence of excellence.
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 15:58:00 UTC
-
this speech edited together (constructed)? Or did trump give it whole cloth? And
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ&feature=youtu.beIs this speech edited together (constructed)? Or did trump give it whole cloth? And why haven’t I seen this before if it was a campaign speech? Because this is … well, this is evidence of excellence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2qIXXafxCQ&feature=youtu.be
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 15:58:00 UTC
-
Self Defense Requires Violence Truth Requires Defense
Self Defense
Requires Violence
Truth Requires Defense
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 13:16:06 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012686145908625408
Reply addressees: @navyhato
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012630447614930950
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — 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/1012630447614930950
-
(If it’s any consolation,you’re still my favorite living principally because you
(If it’s any consolation,you’re still my favorite living principally because you’re good at the work, honest about it, least pretentious about it, and in my opinion nearly absent ideological biases.Background as a youth, plus numbers, plus biz technology I think. Rare qualities.)
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-29 13:08:05 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012684127882170373
Reply addressees: @karlbykarlsmith
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012674943530696704
IN REPLY TO:
Original post on X
Original tweet unavailable — 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/1012674943530696704
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status. Analytic Philosophy One of the nonsense descr
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
Analytic Philosophy
One of the nonsense descriptions of analytic philosophy is that one is required to write in ‘clear’ prose. This is yet another bit of rationalist nonsense.
—“it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences.”—
The analytic philosophy movement (anglo) evolved out of the anglo predisposition for legal prose, the conversion of mathematics from prose to symbols, and the (desperate) desire of philosophy to find a pretense of calling itself a science.
As far as I know the movement is dead, as have been most philosophical movements. At present, I am not sure much philosophy exists outside of a study of the evolution of math, logic, science, law, politics, and theology.
So, it’s not that analytic prose must be clearer per se, in the sense that the average idiot should be able to understand it in colloquial prose (we leave that to the left and the europeans) – it’s that it must be constructed out of terms, phrases, and sentences that are logically testable, and free of analogy, the imaginary, and the phenomenal(experiential) – and the undecidable left to scientific investigation.
Or as I would say it: it must be stated as mathematical, logical, operational, or scientific argument under natural law.
The problem is that:
1) While relations are constant in mathematics they are also trivially simple (positional).
2) There are always more dimensions in a comparison of references than there are constant relations (this is a truism).
3) Closure does not exist (overplay contradiction)
….
Argh. I don’t want to go through all this again….
Rationalism is usable only for interpretation of scriptural law. It evolved out of it. (Pilpul and Critique).
Justified true belief is nonsense. No amount of justification will determine what is true. It is only survival from criticism that determinse a truth candidate, and justification merely explains one of the roads to rome (understanding).
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 23:47:15 UTC
-
Analytic Philosophy One of the nonsense descriptions of analytic philosophy is t
Analytic Philosophy
One of the nonsense descriptions of analytic philosophy is that one is required to write in ‘clear’ prose. This is yet another bit of rationalist nonsense.
—“it is characterized by an emphasis on argumentative clarity and precision, often making use of formal logic, conceptual analysis, and, to a lesser degree, mathematics and the natural sciences.”—
The analytic philosophy movement (anglo) evolved out of the anglo predisposition for legal prose, the conversion of mathematics from prose to symbols, and the (desperate) desire of philosophy to find a pretense of calling itself a science.
As far as I know the movement is dead, as have been most philosophical movements. At present, I am not sure much philosophy exists outside of a study of the evolution of math, logic, science, law, politics, and theology.
So, it’s not that analytic prose must be clearer per se, in the sense that the average idiot should be able to understand it in colloquial prose (we leave that to the left and the europeans) – it’s that it must be constructed out of terms, phrases, and sentences that are logically testable, and free of analogy, the imaginary, and the phenomenal(experiential) – and the undecidable left to scientific investigation.
Or as I would say it: it must be stated as mathematical, logical, operational, or scientific argument under natural law.
The problem is that:
1) While relations are constant in mathematics they are also trivially simple (positional).
2) There are always more dimensions in a comparison of references than there are constant relations (this is a truism).
3) Closure does not exist (overplay contradiction)
….
Argh. I don’t want to go through all this again….
Rationalism is usable only for interpretation of scriptural law. It evolved out of it. (Pilpul and Critique).
Justified true belief is nonsense. No amount of justification will determine what is true. It is only survival from criticism that determinse a truth candidate, and justification merely explains one of the roads to rome (understanding).
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 19:47:00 UTC
-
PARSIMONY BUT INCOMPLETENESS Agency = Action | Truth = Knowledge We never have c
PARSIMONY BUT INCOMPLETENESS
Agency = Action | Truth = Knowledge
We never have complete knowledge(omniscience) or complete agency (omnipotence).
Source date (UTC): 2018-06-28 16:56:30 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1012379220855713792