Tag: philosophy

One Ticket to the Ride

Mike Cernovich advocates men seeking to have children younger than the current societal norm.

If you’ve lived right, and done enough stuff, you won’t resent your kids or see them as having “held you back.” (That is almost always DELUSIONAL. It’s really hilarious how many people think they would have done something truly epic if only they hadn’t had kids. Kids often inspire you to become more.)

While men don’t have a biological clock the way women do, you still don’t want to die on your kids. Imagine being 70, having a kid, and dying when he’s 10. Hello? That’s creating cycles of trauma, and the number one rule of parenting is that your job is to close off cycles of trauma.

Anyway, that’s how you want to think about this subject.

Cold hard math and a little bit of biology.

You don’t have “all the time in the world.”

You get one ticket to the ride, and today is the youngest you’ll ever be.

It’s rather fascinating to see how many men, even men that one would not necessarily describe as having been particularly good men all along, are finding their way back to the Christian verities via a variety of paths.

He’s correct. Today is the youngest you will ever be, so make your game plan and act accordingly. The goal for a young man should be having his first child before the age of 30, and preferably as young as 25.

DISCUSS ON SG

Another New Platform

When I advocated building our own platforms, I really didn’t think we were going to have to recreate freaking Amazon. But that’s the post-capitalistic Gamma World in which we find ourselves, so please bear with us as we construct a new way to purchase books directly from Castalia House, Arkhaven, and quite possibly other publishers.

Dear Shopper,

It has been our pleasure to help stores like this one set up their digital footprint and grow into a budding business. Unfortunately, as it stands, Aerio is no longer able to support eCommerce moving forward, but you can!

Though this Aerio store may no longer exist, we encourage you to continue buying directly from them at their new platform or site. Thank you for your past support of our Aerio booksellers and your continued support wherever their new store finds a home.

Our goal was to help bloggers, authors, publishers, and small bookstores expand their reach, and we encourage you to continue supporting this store however you can.

Sincerely,

The Aerio Team

Aerio never really quite worked the way it should have. They were always operating on a shoestring, and, in fact, we came very close to taking it over a few years ago after their first two attempts to get it operational failed. And even when they finally did get it working, they never addressed the two issues that they repeatedly promised to address, namely, a) providing free shipping and b) providing shipping to the UK and EU markets.

It could literally be a chapter in a business book on why corporate forays into new markets need to be walled-off from the primary business. So, it’s not a big surprise that it’s been shut down. However, this creates a very real opportunity for us, and one we intend to pursue, basically because it would be not only remiss, but retarded, to fail to do so.

In the meantime, there’s always Amazon, until there isn’t.

DISCUSS ON SG

Thriving on Ambiguity

Edward Feser correctly points out that Daniel Dennett is a model modern philosopher, since modern philosophy is nothing more than word magic that has no relevance to truth, reality, or the human condition.

How do you get blood from a stone? Easy. Start by redefining “blood” to mean “a variety of stone.” Next, maintaining as straight a face as possible, dramatically expound upon some trivial respect in which stone is similar to blood. For example, describe how, when a red stone is pulverized and stirred into water, the resulting mixture looks sort of like blood. Condescendingly roll your eyes at your incredulous listener’s insistence that there are other and more important respects in which stone and blood are dissimilar. Accuse him of obscurantism and bad faith. Finally, wax erudite about the latest research in mineralogy, insinuating that it somehow shows that to reject your thesis is to reject Science Itself.

Of course, no one would be fooled by so farcical a procedure. But substitute “mind” for “blood” and “matter” for “stone,” and you have the recipe for Daniel Dennett’s From Bacteria to Bach and Back. The philosopher Peter Geach once wrote that we should treat materialist claims to have explained the mind the way we would treat a claim to have squared the circle: the only question worth asking is “How well has the fallacy been concealed?” In Dennett’s case, not well.

Indeed, what the Tufts University philosopher and cognitive scientist gives us is a whole battery of blatant fallacies. For example, throughout the book, Dennett makes assertions to the effect that evolution “designed” this or that. Of course, evolution, which is an entirely impersonal natural process, doesn’t really design anything. The whole point of Darwinism, as Dennett well knows, is to get rid of notions like “design,” “purpose,” and the like. Rather, evolution merely simulates design. It is as if the products of natural selection were designed, though really they are not—just as water flows downhill as if it “wanted” to get to the bottom, though of course it doesn’t really “want” anything at all. Talk of evolution “designing” things, like talk of what water “wants,” can only be metaphorical.

The trouble is that Dennett’s entire edifice makes sense only if it is not metaphorical. For example, like other materialists, Dennett models the mind on the idea of the computer. But computers are the products of human designers. Hence it makes no sense to try to explain the mind in terms of computers, since the existence of a computer itself presupposes the existence of a designing mind. Dennett’s way of dealing with this problem is to say that the human minds or “computers” that design computers in the ordinary sense are themselves designed in turn by evolution. But again, evolution doesn’t literally “design” anything, so this is no answer to the problem at all. It only seems to be an answer if we fail to distinguish the literal and metaphorical senses of the word “design.”

Dennett thrives on such ambiguity and imprecision.

I wouldn’t say he “thrives” on it so much as he “depends” upon it. It’s virtually impossible to read so much as a single paragraph by a so-called philosopher anymore without encountering one of the rhetorical techniques that Aristotle listed in the category of sophistries.

DISCUSS ON SG

Scott Adams is a Sore Loser

It’s hardly a surprise that Scott Adams is “taking the L” ungraciously. He still can’t admit that those who chose to remain unvaccinated did so on the basis of accurately assessing the available information and reaching the correct logical conclusion. This is grade-A Gamma secret kinging.

Scott Adams@ScottAdamsSays
I bow to your data-free analysis. You win.

His Twitter followers aren’t buying it. As they shouldn’t.

  • On data… early on, we had to look at mechanisms and examples – because of no data. Mechanism… Vit D, immune support. Examples: past mRNA woes. Now we have data but don’t know what to trust.
  • We had lots of data Scott. We knew the ‘vaccine’ was in clinical trials till 2023. We knew covid deaths included any cause with 28 days. We knew covid was only impacting sick or old. We knew ‘face coverings’ useless. You had access to the above too. What went wrong?
  • Gut instincts & experience are never to be relied upon, only ‘science’ provided by people who have a financial stake in that ‘science’ or a political motivation to control people.
  • Absence of safety data is self-sufficient reason not to take risk. It’s logical to evaluate risk before you take it. Then you had many different ways to find out why risk not worth to take.
  • Answering this question doesn’t require accurate data on the safety of the vaccine vs catching COVID. Experts who said “yes” told me they weren’t motivated by saving lives or telling the truth, & could be ignored. Then I was unsurprised to learn they mostly lied elsewhere.
  • I worked with PCR. I understood the science behind it. When the gov/Pharma/MSM all supported PCR at high cycles, ignoring solid, factual science…where were your analytics? We knew the data, the science, & analyzed what was happening, coming to the conclusion the PCR was invalid.
  • I think I can give everyone some indicators. When the same people pushing CRT, wars, & drag shows to little children say get vaccinated, it is a clue. When the fed gov exempts themselves from something, it is a clue. When there is 24/7 propaganda, the opposite is most likely true.
  • How did you analyze mRNA? When the gov changed the definition for “vaccine” they ignored all the science. How did you analyze those two things together? My analysis of previous science & experience in science allowed me to come to the conclusion that the Covid shots would be bad.
  • There was a lot of data analysis to use. We weren’t lucky. We used solid, factual, science based truths to come to logical conclusions. Our analysis was good. Hopefully, you’ll take a longer look at your own basis of analysis and find what went wrong.
  • They came up with a “vaccine” in 6 months for a Corona virus-something we never have had before. Then they started forcing people to take it(2 flags).The same govt & “science” that want us to eat bugs and get rid of our gas stoves (3 flags). They also masked little kids-4 flags
  • Lack of data is a MAJOR piece of data… I still cannot believe that it wasn’t mandatory to see the clinical trial data before roll out to expedite peer review and to prove transparency…
  • A healthy distrust of government and big pharma was all the early analysis that was needed. I am willing to wait for data to analyze, absent data the default position should be no for the average person. People with comorbidities had to gamble with more risk.
  • There is an ample sample size of government lies to assume fraud by default.
  • It’s not just looking at data. Making smart decisions also includes analysis of circumstances, motivations, facts and sources. I.e., critical thinking. This was an easy one.
  • The problem is, when data was given you dismissed it as bad data repeatedly…
  • What good did your data analysis get you? Believe it or not Scott, there are others out there who understand game theory. You’re not the only one. If the data you input into your analysis is dogshit, the results you get are dogshit. You used dogshit data and got dogshit.
  • Hardly data free analysis. Zelenko, Malone, McCullough,Gold,Kory,Wolf,FLCCC, and many many more. Out there for nearly 3 years
  • There was plenty of data both past and present. The fact that you still can’t see it and think we were all just lucky shows that you have learned nothing. Your opinions should never be trusted again. You simply lack the brain power to be taken seriously.

My own thought process on the subject of the Covid-19 vaccines was very simple, straightforward, and proved to be reliable. I observed that the people most actively involved in pushing the vaxx propaganda were outspoken global depopulationists. Therefore, I concluded that the vaxx was not intended to save lives and thereby increase the global population, it was intended to reduce the global population, most likely through adverse effects on human fertility.

And everything else, from the relentless government propaganda campaigns to the scientific information revealed by Karl Denninger and the inexplicable demonization of cheap, effective, and widespread substances like Vitamin D, zinc, and Ivermectin, collectively did nothing more than confirm the correctness of my initial conclusion.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Subversion of the Hero

And the intrinsic immorality of the Marvel hero. One thing you’ll notice about Arkhaven heroes compared to Marvel and DC heroes: they are absolutely willing to kill the wicked without hesitation or remorse. This is an excellent piece on the insidious modern subversion of the Western hero:

Classical heroes kill their enemies. This is really their most essential job. The role of the hero archetype is to slay dragons and evil kings. Their purpose is to root out evil. They may show mercy on occasion, but this is not their primary role. Mercy-giver is the role of the king. The Folk Hero’s job is a violent one for the sake of good.

However, your typical modern era hero story almost always includes a moment where the villain must be offered a chance for “rehabilitation”, or must stand trial, or where the hero does everything in his power to avoid using deadly force out of some moral reluctance. The modern hero is suspiciously full of reluctance to stamp out evil.

This “Marvel morality” is everywhere.

Try paying attention to this next time you watch a modern action movie. There is almost universally a moment in every film where the main character will show some reluctance to kill a truly evil villain (never mind the countless nameless villains the hero kills- this sentiment is reserved only for the main antagonist). This is a truly inexplicable trope. What is reveals is a reluctance on the part of modern Western culture to define actual evil. Everything must be nuanced. When we knew what evil was, heroes did not have to waste time on these silly moral dilemmas. There was no question on whether the heroes dead wife and children “would have wanted” him to take revenge on their killer, no question on whether the tyrant should be violently thrown down from the slain king’s throne. Questions like these would not have even been asked a couple generations ago, but in modern media a hero that kills evil without hesitation is unheard of. It would offend our modern sensibilities.

Think of Superman, or Batman. One of their defining traits is an unwillingness to kill. Even to kill evil, heinous villains. Its fine for Superman to destroy an entire city and likely countless civilians, but not to actually kill the main antagonist. Why? It is because they are products of a Neo-liberal marvel morality.

You could look to The Chronicles of Narnia as an example. In Prince Caspian, Peter duels the tyrannical king Miraz in a single combat. During the duel Miraz is traitorously slain by his own nobles, but there is never any question that King Peter is absolutely trying to kill Miraz. There is never any discussion between Peter and Caspian about sparing Miraz’s life- why would they?

However, the movie version of the story completely changes the this into a scene that could only have been written in the 21st century. No, Peter is not too “cowardly to take life”. This is a ridiculous question.

Peter saying Mira’s life is “not mine to take”. This is ridiculous. They are in a single combat to the death for the rule of Peter’s kingdom. Of course it is his to take. It is in fact his duty to do so.

Ok, he hands the sword to Caspian. This is fine I guess. Peter is not abandoning his duty, but letting the exiled prince avenge his father. Maybe the scene will turn out ok?

Nope.

Miraz then implies that Caspian killing him means “he has the makings of a Telmarine King”. This is ridiculous. Only a Telmarine King would slay a traitorous, fratricidal tryant? What?

Caspian says “not one like you”. As if avenging his father is comparable to his uncle’s crime of regicide and fratricide? This is ridiculous.

Then, Caspian inexplicably, ridiculously, spares his traitorous uncle in what appears to be some demonstration of high moral character.

Why even write this scene at all? Why show both Peter and Caspian spare Miraz when neither of them do in the book? Why not just have Mira’s nobles murder him during the duel?

Because in the eyes of the writers of this science, this makes them noble. For some reason, the hero must be shown being merciful to the main antagonist. Because in our modern eyes, for them to single-mindedly seek his destruction would be apprehensible. Note that both Peter and Caspian kill numerous other Telmarines in this movie with no moral qualms, Telmarine soldiers that have all wronged them less than their Lord Miraz did. This scene is in the movie for no reason other than to shove 21st century Neo-Liberal values down the audience’s throats.

This scene is awful.

Mercy is not a bad thing. But it is almost always used inappropriately in modern media like this. It is used not as true mercy, but as nauseating moralizing.

As a result of this inability to define true evil and treat it as such, our heroes must also become less heroic. Our popular media is filled to the brim with antiheroes.

A real folk hero suffers none of these delusions. If Superman were a real hero, he would kill evil men, not let them live to murder another day.

Indeed. Even as a child, I found it infuriating how Hollywood never permitted a hero to take decisive action, but only allowed him to use lethal force after first defeating, then mercifully sparing, the villain, who would then inexplicably attempt, and fail, to kill the hero, leaving the latter no choice but to finally finish off the villain. The first Lethal Weapon is a particularly egregious example of this cinematic trope.

In fact, at this point Batman should really be regarded as an accomplice and an enabler of the Joker, given how many times he has spared him and thereby permitted him to murder again and again and again. One might not unreasonably suspect of Batman of harboring secret sympathies for the Joker’s attitude toward the human race.

DISCUSS ON SG

You Can Legislate Morality

Another foundation of libertarian philosophy is destroyed, as the response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade in Texas conclusively demonstrates:

Recently released data shows that abortions committed in the state of Texas have decreased by 97 percent since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Based on data reported by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, 68 total abortions were committed in the month of July in Texas compared to the 2,533 babies who were killed in January.

Although the number of abortions reached slightly more than 3,000 during the months of March and April, the statistics show that numbers steadily decreased beginning in May. There were 2,596 fewer abortions committed in July than there were in June.

Of the women who sought abortions between January and July, less than 100 were married. Sixty of the 68 unborn babies who were killed in July were the children of unmarried women.

Most of the abortions committed during these seven months ended the lives of babies at up to eight weeks’ gestation. Two were committed on babies at 9-10 weeks gestation, one at 11-12 weeks, two at 13-14 weeks, four at 15-16 weeks, and five at 17-20 weeks. No babies were killed past 21 weeks.

It’s not only morality that can be legislated, but sanity as well, as we’re seeing with the gender-denial nonsense. We’re learning – or really, re-learning with the support of statistical and scientific evidence – that most, if not all, of the Enlightenment theories are entirely false. From economics to science, what worked beautifully as rhetorical hypotheses for hundreds of years are turning out to be comprehensive failures when put into practice.

Every high civilization decays by forgetting obvious things… The fact that a chaotic and ill-educated time cannot clearly grasp that truth does not alter the fact that it always will be the truth. Our generation, in a dirty, pessimistic period, has blasphemously underrated the beauty of life and cravenly overrated its dangers. As for our own society, if it proceeds at its present rate of progress and improvement, no trace or memory of it will be left at all.

G.K. Chesterton

DISCUSS ON SG

The Nature of Truth

One of the more important axioms of Veriphysics is the observation that truth is knowable, but it is not fully knowable, by Man. As a result, all decisions must be presumed to have been made on the basis of incomplete information, which renders the concept of fully-informed consent impossible. Therefore, any moral system based on consent is intrinsically flawed and consent cannot serve as a comprehensive justification for any action, agreement, contract, or exchange.

DISCUSS ON SG

When There is Nothing to Play For

Play to win anyhow. Peter King writes about a meaningless game from fifteen years ago.

Fifteen years ago this week, on Dec. 29, 2007, the 15-0 New England Patriots traveled to New Jersey to try to finish an undefeated season against the New York Giants, who, in a playoff sense, had nothing to play for. They were locked in as the fifth seed in the NFC playoffs, due to play at Tampa Bay in the first round of the playoffs, win or lose in Week 17.

It’s one of the best regular-season games I’ve covered as a football writer, which is paradoxical. Why was a game with two teams locked into their playoff positions so good? The Patriots had clinched home-field advantage through the AFC playoffs entering that night, yet played like it was a playoff game because of the potential for an undefeated season. The Giants, after beating Buffalo the previous weekend, also had nothing to play for.

Tom Coughlin doesn’t play meaningless games, however. I’m glad to see the Giants’ coach that day has written a book now, A Giant Win (written with Greg Hanlon, Grand Central Publishing) to commemorate that championship season for the franchise—with special attention paid to the Saturday night game on the final weekend of that regular season.

Coughlin on the game, and on his decision to play his full team against the Patriots:

“As soon as we won the previous week, you know how this goes because it’s scripted somewhere for the writers. ‘OK, coach, you gonna play your starters against New England?’ It started right away. I listened to that a little bit. I thought to myself, ‘We are the New York Giants. We are the flagship team of the National Football League. We are red, white and blue. I am not going to allow that future historians would look back upon this game, where the Giants would play the Patriots, the Patriots having a chance to have an undefeated season, and the New York Giants do not put their best foot forward. We are going to play our starters. We are going to play to win.’

“When I told our team that on Monday, they rallied. They wanted to play against the 15-0 New England Patriots. If you remember, we’re leading in the fourth quarter. We got the lead. It’s one of those games where, they beat us, but when we walked off, we knew we could play with them.”

In the eyes of many, it was a 35-38 Giants’ victory over New England. Coaches hate moral victories, but this was one for the Giants. It was also memorable for New England, of course, finishing a perfect 16-0 regular season by beating back a gallant bid for a big upset by a heavy underdog. I remember Tom Brady and Randy Moss in the New England locker room post-game. They couldn’t stop smiling. Brady was downright giddy.

He wouldn’t be giddy five weeks later, but that’s another story. When I spoke to Coughlin recently about the game, it was a pre-dawn memory the next day that stood out.

“I gotta tell you one more story because this is what will be most meaningful,” he said. “It was a great performance. I’m really proud of my team. That’s a team that’s 16-0, we know we can play with them. All that stuff. Next morning at 5 o’clock I come into my office and I see the red light’s on the phone. A voicemail. I pick up the phone and it’s John Madden. He’s saying, ‘Tom, I just wanted to call. Because I want you to know that is the greatest thing that’s happened to the NFL in the last 10 years.’ He said, ‘This is the National Football League—we don’t NOT play our players. We owe a responsibility to our fans to perform every day. That’s what you did. I’m just so proud to be a part of that. I’m so proud of what you’ve accomplished and what your team has accomplished.’ He said, ‘I’m very emotional right now. But I want you to know how I felt.’ I played it for my team in our next team meeting. It was moving. Very moving.”

The two teams met in the Super Bowl. The Giants beat the previously 18-0 Patriots, 17-14.

This historical anecdote is a useful reminder that excellence has its roots in effort. And success isn’t just luck combined with talent, it’s also a consequence of positive philosophy.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Evil of this World

It is remarkable to see how the patterns of history play out again and again. Even though more than 1,600 years separate us from St. Augustine’s time, the same behaviors appear every time evil gains the ascendancy.

OF THE KIND OF HAPPINESS AND LIFE TRULY DELIGHTED IN BY THOSE WHO INVEIGH AGAINST THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

But the worshippers and admirers of these gods delight in imitating their scandalous iniquities, and are nowise concerned that the republic be less depraved and licentious. Only let it remain undefeated, they say, only let it flourish and abound in resources; let it be glorious by its victories, or still better, secure in peace; and what matters it to us? This is our concern, that every man be able to increase his wealth so as to supply his daily prodigalities, and so that the powerful may subject the weak for their own purposes. Let the poor court the rich for a living, and that under their protection they may enjoy a sluggish tranquillity; and let the rich abuse the poor as their dependants, to minister to their pride. Let the people applaud not those who protect their interests, but those who provide them with pleasure. Let no severe duty be commanded, no impurity forbidden. Let kings estimate their prosperity, not by the righteousness, but by the servility of their subjects. Let the provinces stand loyal to the kings, not as moral guides, but as lords of their possessions and purveyors of their pleasures; not with a hearty reverence, but a crooked and servile fear. Let the laws take cognizance rather of the injury done to another man’s property, than of that done to one’s own person. If a man be a nuisance to his neighbour, or injure his property, family, or person, let him be actionable; but in his own affairs let everyone with impunity do what he will in company with his own family, and with those who willingly join him. Let there be a plentiful supply of public prostitutes for every one who wishes to use them, but specially for those who are too poor to keep one for their private use. Let there be erected houses of the largest and most ornate description: in these let there be provided the most sumptuous banquets, where every one who pleases may, by day or night, play, drink, vomit, dissipate. Let there be everywhere heard the rustling of dancers, the loud, immodest laughter of the theatre; let a succession of the most cruel and the most voluptuous pleasures maintain a perpetual excitement. If such happiness is distasteful to any, let him be branded as a public enemy; and if any attempt to modify or put an end to it let him be silenced, banished, put an end to. Let these be reckoned the true gods, who procure for the people this condition of things, and preserve it when once possessed. Let them be worshipped as they wish; let them demand whatever games they please, from or with their own worshippers; only let them secure that such felicity be not imperilled by foe, plague, or disaster of any kind.

St. Augustine, City of God, Book II, Chapter 20

A society that prioritizes economic growth, where hedonism is celebrated and consent is the highest morality. A society in which those who see the danger and instability inherent in the society are silenced, banished, and cancelled. A society in which those who provide pleasure are celebrated, and where the powerful may do as they like without fear of recourse or consequence. A corrupt society whose rulers hate Christianity.

Sounds familiar these days, doesn’t it.

DISCUSS ON SG