Tag: philosophy

Take the W

In which a woman complains that others are utilizing her ideas without attribution:

So some of the team animals on YouTube are starting to « borrow » my ideas re: Political orientation being a natural biological divide.

As usual, people plagiarize my ideas years later without attribution or ever boosting my signal. Disgusting pigs.

Here’s reminding you that these are my ideas: THANKS.

Tell you what, I am VERY tired of people whose shtick is repeating everyone else’s original ideas cockblocking those of us who HAVE the original ideas.

Somebody is going to get killed eventually.

Having your ideas repeated is exactly what intellectual success is. Don’t expect credit and don’t expect most of those repeating your ideas to have any idea who first came up with them. Just take the W.

The most widely adopted ideas are seldom propagated by their originators, but by their popularizers. Think about how many people are familiar with Richard Dawkins instead of E.O. Wilson.

I see people using the terms “sigma” and “midwit” all the time. I would bet none of them have any idea that both terms were not only my original ideas, but neologisms I coined. And both The New York Times and Nature quoted my proof that religion doesn’t cause war, citing the precise numbers I calculated, without ever mentioning me or the book in which those numbers appeared.

Die Gedanken sind frei in more ways than one. If people were wiser and had more foresight, they would value original thinkers more highly. Instead, they grift off them when they’re not gatekeeping or cancelling or killing them. But they’re observably not, nor have they been since the Thirty Tyrants were making Socrates drink hemlock.

The only reward an intellectual can reasonably hope for is that his ideas will stand the test of time. Anything else is just a bonus.

We’ll know that my mathematical disproofs of natural selection and neutral theory are starting to go mainstream when people start denying that I had anything to do with them.

DISCUSS ON SG

You Never Stand Alone

When you stand with God.

And the picture of the only juror willing to call evil what it is and hold the evildoer responsible looks pretty much like what you’d expect a man described as “arrogant” and “unwilling to listen” by a group of wicked women is going to look like. As a general rule, if all the women are for it, it’s a terrible idea and you shouldn’t listen to one single word they say, because all of them are nonsensical rhetoric intended to put emotional pressure on you.

The mob is famously stupid. And female-led mobs are downright retarded, with zero sense of self- or societal preservation. Anyhow, it’s good to see social media is taking a strong position contra the mainstream media’s push.

DISCUSS ON SG

Theology Adjacent

As you probably know, I am highly allergic to theology and regard most of it as varying degrees of human philosophy dressed up as Divine revelation. The obvious holes in most dogma are the result of the same sort of amphiboly and ambiguity that render Enlightenment philosophy intrinsically flawed, and assuming one possible interpretation is the only one in obvious contravention of the observable facts. So, in the interest of maintaining the peace with other Christians, I keep my critiques to myself, particularly because I have no answers to replace those flawed dogmas.

If I had to summarize my Christian dogma, I would say that I am of the Glass Darkly School.

That being said, it is not possible to construct a metaphysics, as I am presently doing for the Veriphysics philosophical system, without addressing things like Truth, God, and Logos. So, if these matters are of interest to you, you may wish to peruse the outline that is being assembled at Veriphysics.

I would, however, caution the midwits that in this context, citing historical authorities and dogmas accomplishes nothing. If you wish to offer criticism, it has to be within the system itself; what Tertullian or Aquinas or Voltaire or the Pope said is of zero import for the purposes of this exercise.

DISCUSS ON SG

Never Assume Stupidity

A foolish aphorism known as Hanlon’s razor says “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

This is foolish and short-sighted. All adopting it accomplishes is to offer cover to the malicious and allow them to hide behind their multiple levels of deception. Consider the following comments made in response to a wicked fake philosopher seeking to convince others to submit to evil.

  • Sounds like the guy posted his shroom trip.
  • I became more retarded reading that retards nonsense.
  • Stones can’t dance; why do they spout such idiocy? Recycled Taoist mysticism.
  • Sounds VERY Hindu/Indian, or wearing those trappings at least
  • Sounds like some Psilocybin based philosophy from a 90’s art student.

It’s vital to not fall for the primary deception. But it’s also important to not fall for the secondary deception that allows the wicked to retreat while continuing to move and operate freely under the cover of harmless stupidity.

Always attribute to malice that which gives off even the faintest hint of sulfur, no matter how stupid it is. Neither demons nor the wicked are particularly known for their intelligence.

KTFS

DISCUSS ON SG

Two Perspectives on The Absurd

As I mentioned the other day, I’d been on a bit of a creative tear of late. And if I’ve learned one thing from GRR Martin, it’s that you’d better strike while the iron is at least warm, because you have absolutely no idea when life, the universe, and everything is going to pull the plug on your inspirational spark.

So, I wrote and recorded seven new songs, and added three remixes, in a style that can be reasonably termed Neo-Gothwave and characterized as if The Cure had actually read Albert Camus and hired a female singer. There are a lot of things going on behind the scenes, which includes the possibility that an actual band will record everything organically, but for now, suffice it to say that for those who are interested in the musical side, there is a new music video available for viewing at AI Central as well as a philosophical critique of the underlying Absurdist philosophy available for reading at Veriphysics.

I wouldn’t think there would be much in the way of crossover, but at least there is a little something for everyone.

DISCUSS ON SG

Give Them What They Voted For

The new Labour Prime Minister is going to provide refugees for those who welcomed them most enthusiastically:

There are 17 local authorities with no taxpayer-supported asylum seekers, an analysis by the Daily Mail reveals – as Andy Burnham vows to send more to middle-class areas. The Prime Minister yesterday promised to ensure arrivals are not only placed in the ‘poorest communities’ when he was pressed about proposals for a migrant camp near the tiny Oxfordshire village of Piddington.

‘All parts of the country need to play their part,’ he said – prompting the Tories to accuse him of wanting to ‘dish out another vindictive punishment beating to the UK’s middle classes’.

Asylum seekers who are waiting for a decision on their asylum claim are often eligible for accommodation and money to cover their living expenses. This is provided by the Home Office, and the migrants themselves are dispersed across the country.

Home Office figures showing the number of supported asylum seekers per local authority at the end of March reveal the areas that currently house no migrants are overwhelmingly rural beauty spots. These include the Cotswolds, Derbyshire Dales, Malvern Hills, the New Forest and the Scottish Highlands.

Others include Mid Devon, East Hertfordshire, Ceredigion (a scenic county in west Wales) and Hart, a 118-square-mile local authority taking in major towns, rural parishes and villages in Hampshire.

I think refugees and immigrants should only be permitted in states and cities where the population specifically voted to support asylum and immigration. Democracy, even in its limited form, has comprehensively failed due to its natural tendency to separate those who support the policies from the consequences of those policies. And in doing so, it becomes a potentially even more unjust system than monarchy.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Next Step

The first two Veriphysics works have been very well received and reviewed. However, a comprehensive philosophical system for the 21st Century requires more than a critique of the flaws of the dominant current philosophy, it requires a Metaphysics, an Ethics, and perhaps even a Politics if it is to provide a coherent system by which men can live their lives. After all, now that we have the key to the door that Kant locked, we still need to know what to do with that access to the Real.

I’ve been working on a structure of the metaphysics of Veriphysics for a few months, and have reached the point that I’m now beginning to lay out the skeleton. So if this sort of thing is of interest to you – and I am entirely aware that it will not be to most readers – you might want to start following the Veriphysics site that has lain fallow since June.

However, for love of all that is Good and Beautiful and True, do resist the temptation to try to demonstrate what a Smart Boy you are by proving that you’ve read a little Plato, or Spinoza, or Augustine and are familiar with their various definitions of seemingly relevant concepts. That sort of triviality doesn’t even get you past the bar for entry to the discussion here.

Just to be perfectly clear, I think anyone who is retarded enough to opine without having first read the relevant books and papers in their entirety, and preferably at least twice, should be sterilized on sight.

DISCUSS ON SG

A Passing Thought

The ideal role of woman is the cheerleader. The satanic inversion of the cheerleader is the critic.

It’s fascinating to observe the way in which women not only fail to understand their power over men, but how they sabotage their own well-being by not only giving in to the inversive role, but doing it without even realizing they are doing so.

The key, I think, is to understand that every man who isn’t an optimist with a gambling problem is perfectly aware of the fact that he could fail. It’s very, very easy to not do anything, to not try to succeed. Which is why it is imperative for the women in a man’s life to grasp that not only does a man have no need for a negative voice to balance his moments of optimism and inspiration, but that piling more negativity on top of his natural concerns, fears, and worries all but ensures that he will never take the risks required to level up.

There are men who don’t need cheerleaders and who are basically impervious to criticism. I’m one obvious example of that, as my habit of devoting myself to things that literally no one wants or is asking for tends to demonstrate. But even I respond well to cheerleading and bristle at negativity and unhelpful, insubstantial criticism.

And since so many people can’t seem to grasp what “unhelpful, insubstantial criticism” is, allow me to explain it to you. Before your criticize anything, ask yourself one question:

  1. Is there anything that can be done about it now?

If the answer is no, then keep your mouth shut and say something vaguely polite and positive. Because nothing you say can change what is already done.

DISCUSS ON SG

Taleb, Anti-Fragility, and Evolution

A reader writes in about anti-fragility and evolution:

I’m reading “Anti-Fragile” and, like Taleb’s other books, appreciate his insight. I do find it interesting how much he argues for anti-fragility using evolutionary and enlightenment examples. I agree with Taleb’s main point on anti-fragility. However, having read “Probability Zero” and your recent posts on Kant, I’m thinking you’ve refuted all his arguments to illustrate anti-fragility via evolution and enlightenment thinking. Taleb spends quite a bit of time writing about how evolution “directs” certain outcomes or how enlightenment thinking supports his humanism position.

Do you know if Taleb has read your recent works? His math background would hopefully allow him to fully engage in the math you’ve revealed.

My limited understanding is you’ve shown evolution can’t direct anything or even happen. The changes we see are either random or directed by some intelligence. Secondly, by refuting Kant and enlightenment thinking, would that impact Taleb’s thinking on how he approaches so many things being “unknowable”?

Taleb was familiar with SJWs Always Lie. I doubt he is familiar with any of my newer work. While we had some contact on Twitter beating up on Mary Beard and her ahistorical nonsense together, I have had no contact with him since getting banned from there in 2017 or whenever it was.

This is where I think it’s always vital to distinguish between the What and the Why. Anti-fragility is a sound concept and an important strategy that does not rely in any way, shape, or form on Taleb’s attempt to explain it in terms of evolution by natural selection or Enlightenment illogic.

One minor correction: the changes we see are not random. Kimura-style neutral drift has also been disproven in Probability Zero and The Frozen Gene, although the disproof was totally unnecessary because anyone who actually understood the math would never have pretended it could even begin to fill in the gaps produced by the insufficient rate of evolution natural selection; the drift equation is 40x slower to fixate than the already-too-slow rates examined in my books.

DISCUSS ON SG

Mailvox: The Significance of the Refutation

Can you explain how the refutation of Kant affects our life today in simplified terms that anyone can understand?

Most people have never heard of Immanuel Kant, but almost everyone lives inside a concept he created. The idea sounds humble enough. Human reason can’t truly know reality as it is, only how it appears to us through our limited human senses. That sounds modest and even wise. But once you accept the idea as a real limitation, a strange thing follows. If nobody can actually know how things really are, then every statement about reality becomes just one more opinion, one more “perspective,” and none of those opinions or perspectives can ever be proven true. Refuting Kant’s idea and showing that it isn’t a rule or a real limitation is extremely significant because it puts the possibility of actual knowledge back on the table.

Here are five ways the refutation of Kant’s idea about unknowability changes your world.

First, expertise and “the science.” For decades, people were told to accept various statements because experts agreed or studies showed, and to treat the matter as settled and beyond any possibility of question. Kant’s rule props this up: if reason can’t reach reality directly, then truth becomes whatever the credentialed authorities say it is, because there’s no independent reality you can check them against. Refuting the rule restores the obvious: there is a real world, then those expert scientific predictions either come true or they don’t, and an expert who keeps being wrong is wrong no matter how many credentials he holds. You’re not dependent upon either the experts or the scientists; you’re allowed to check reality yourself.

Second, the idea that everyone has their own truth” This phrase is everywhere now, and it descends directly from Kant’s idea. If reality is locked away and we only ever see our own version of it, then your truth and my truth are just two filtered views and neither can be more correct than the other. Refuting the doctrine eliminates this. There is one reality. People can be honestly mistaken about it, and perspectives can be particually correct, but “true for me” stops being a relevant position. Some claims match reality and some don’t, and which is which is not up to how you feel about it.

Third, morality. If we can’t know how things really are, then we also can’t know how things really should be, and right and wrong collapse automatically into preference, culture, or power, with the strongest, loudest voice defining it. This is why so many moral arguments today end in “who are you to judge.” Refuting unknowability reopens the possibility that good and evil are real features of the world, discoverable like other truths, not just labels we stick on things we happen to like or dislike. That changes how seriously you can take a moral claim, your own included.

Fourth, science and discovery itself. Kant’s rule says human reason can’t identify anything about reality that isn’t already handed to us through experience. But that’s not how the greatest discoveries actually worked. The planet Neptune was found by pure calculation first: a mathematician worked out that something unseen had to be tugging on Uranus, predicted exactly where to point the telescope, and there it was. The same thing happened with antimatter, predicted on paper before anyone detected it. Reason reached out and grabbed a piece of reality nobody had experienced yet. If Kant’s rule were true, those triumphs couldn’t have happened. Refuting it explains why the human mind really can discover the world, not just sort the impressions it’s given.

Fifth, your ability to have confidence in your own thinking. The quiet cost of Kant’s rule is humility turned into paralysis: who am I to claim I know anything, when the smart position is that real knowledge is impossible? That mindset trains people to defer, to hedge, to assume the truth is forever out of reach and someone else’s call. Refuting the doctrine gives that back. Your reasoning is a real instrument that makes real contact with the real world. You can investigate, conclude, and stand on what you find. You will not be right about everything, and partial knowledge is still the human condition. But the door to truth was never locked and reality was never off limits. Kant just declared that it was, and a lot of people placed false trust in his assertions for two hundred and fifty years.

The refutation of Kant is therefore akin to a creature that thought it was a fish discovering that it’s simply been swimming in water this whole time, and realizing that not only can it breathe in the air and walk on the land too, but also that it has wings and can fly.

In related news, VERIPHYSICS: THE RETURN OF THE REAL is now available for preorder in hardcover and paperback editions from NDM Express. They should be available at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and other bookstores next week. It contains both The Treatise, The Refutation, and the Agrippan Trilemma challenge.

DISCUSS ON SG