Month: February 2016

Lean esto y lloren. Curt dicta cátedra de filosofía en sólo unas líneas. Pregunta y respuestas: “Sr. Curt Doolittle, ¿es el misticismo cristiano una aproximación funcional o estructural a las cosas? [B]ueno, ésa es una pregunta interesante. “Funcional”, “Estructural”, y “aproximación a las cosas” son términos problemáticos. Si clarificamos la terminología, lo cual es el el propósito de la filosofía […]

–“or put another way “But one thing is the thought, another thing is the deed, and another thing is the idea of the deed. The wheel of causality doth not roll between them”.— [L]aurence, (Danny), Exactly. I tend to describe this problem as the Point of View in the grammar of testimony. (my emphasis being that it remain constant – […]

[O]bjective Morality consists of prohibitions on the impositions of costs upon others that would provide a disincentive for cooperation. We produce many norms that we treat as morality, just as we produce political commands that we treat as law. But norms are not necessarily moral, and legislation is rarely law. We also conflate heroism with morality. Which despite being two […]

Note: the O’henry ending is that given the alternatives why would you claim monotheism was not wrong except for immoral ends? How can you prove monotheism wrong, Mr. Doolittle? [W]ell that depends upon your concept of Gods. If you say that there is one set of optimum laws of man and nature then I would agree that this is truth […]

–“Curt: Political power ultimately originates from Economics or exchange, right?”— [I] am not sure I understand this question. There are three methods of power: 1) force, 2) payment, 3) gossip. One can use those three methods exclusively or in combination to band together into groups or hierarchies, and the focus the group’s efforts on the application of force, payment, or […]

(read it and weep) (a graduate education in philosophy in one lesson) Q&A: —“Curt Doolittle, is christian mysticism a functional or structural approach to things?”— [W]ell, now that’s an interesting question. 1) “Functional”, “Structural” and “Approach to Things” are problematic terms. If we clarify the terms – which is the purpose of analytic philosophy – then I am pretty sure […]

WHY NOT STUDY THE CONTINENTALS, MYSTICS, PHILOSOPHERS OF LANGUAGE? [S]pending time analyzing lies is not useful. In fact, its harmful. And that’s the intent of the authors. —“If you dance with the devil, the devil doesn’t change, the devil changes you.”— Or less eloquently, —“If you spend a lot of time with dung, you begin to smell of it.”— Or […]

Thievery is a successful group evolutionary strategy. Some groups practice it purposefully. Lying is a successful group evolutionary strategy. Some groups practice it purposefully. Wishful thinking is another group evolutionary strategy. Some groups practice it purposefully. Truth is an other group evolutionary strategy. Some groups practice it purposefully.

[T]HE ABSENCE OF COST IN POPPER’S CRITICAL RATIONALISM AND TESTIMONIALISM’S COMPLETENESS. —Since we can never know for sure what is true and what is false, — 1) **We can however perform due diligence on our hypotheses, and pay the cost of that due diligence, rather than fail to do so, and thereby export the cost of our falsification onto the […]

[W]e agree, with the provisions… ***”We agree to grant you equal rights in matters of property under the provision that you limit reproduction to kin, and create no moral hazard by bearing offspring that the rest of us must pay to raise and insure. Why? Because it is not necessary to grant you equal rights in any matter. It is […]

[I] write controversial philosophy. If it was not controversial it would not be revolutionary. – And I embrace controversy as good marketing, and the good conduct of argumentative research. *** http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/18/yes-im-controversial-but-why/ If my work is offensive, it means the person offended is a thief. That may seem an outrageous claim, but it will survive all criticisms. Truth is often painful. […]

[S]pencer and Darwin were so close. Unfortunately mises, popper, hayek, brouwer, bridgman, and poincare failed to carry them across the threshold. Why? Because the combination of women, marx, boaz, freud, created a sentimental alternative to truth – a great lie. And after the great war, keynes created a way to use consumption to recover from it, and the promise of […]

—“Your audacity impresses and amuses me.”– [G]iven that I’m outside of the academy, I am both too stupid to know that it cannot be done, and unregulated by academics who would prevent me from trying such an absurd thing. So I try in ignorance to achieve the unachievable. Now that I’ve gone through most of intellectual history, it seems that […]