OVO

Etiology (alternatively aetiology, aitiology) is the study of causation.

Etiology – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Ship of Theseus paradox, also known as Theseus’s paradox, is a paradox that raises the question of whether an object which has had all its component parts replaced remains fundamentally the same object.

Ship of Theseus – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who you know or knew doesn’t matter. There is no guilt or innocence by contagion. Other people may help you out or hold you back, but how you respond to those experiences is your choice. You, alone, are responsible for what you do with your life. Get busy.

If you were diagnosed with terminal cancer, how would you cash out your chips? Wither away in some hospital bed doped up on morphine? Not me baby. I’d go out like this guy did. Grab one last brew and go skydiving. Without the parachute. So long Mr. Parachuteless Skydiver, we hardly knew ye.

Ernie’s House of Whoop Ass Dot Com

Let’s get some things straight before I get old and uncool.

1001 rules for my unborn son

“I never let anything stop me, ever,” he said. “People are going to stare, regardless. Live your life to the fullest everyday regardless, and you’ll be happy,” he said.

James O’Neal: ‘It’s perfect’ | KOMO News – Seattle, Washington | News

Snake, who has been fatally shot 2,143 times in the past six months, said he does not know why God deems it necessary for him to endlessly repeat his mission

Video-Game Character Wondering Why Heartless God Always Chooses ‘Continue’ | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source

the use of beauty as truth [this is dangerous and interesting territory]

Beauty Is Truth In Mathematical Intuition: First Empirical Evidence

The modern founder of critical rationalism was Karl Popper. Popper pointed out we can never justify anything, we merely criticize and weed out bad ideas and work with what’s left.

Critical Rationalism

Karl Popper Institut

Goatonapole is the philosophy of being that holds that there is a Goat and a Pole and that the Goat is on the Pole.

The goat is on a pole!

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN DOESN’T MEAN YOU SHOULD.

Image – 223XRIYEPUFQWARZHGNUO4AS3TVW4Z7O – Macrochan

Berkeley liberal mouthpiece George Lakoff writes about psychology and politics. He holds that the Republicans stand for the Strict Father mode of governance, while the Democrats are the party of the Nurturing Parent. His PC tenets, as all PC tenets do, prevent him from telling the truth. It is the party of the Nurturing (or is that Smothering and Controlling?) Mother.

You can guess who I favor. If all the teenagers in your town are organized into gangs, how long do you think the Metrosexual Teen Quaker Meeting is going to last?

Patriarchy is the natural mode of human political organization, even when the government is headed by a woman. Consider the few female heads of state: a very butch bunch.

One of the ways I have described my political hejira (sic :-)) from left to right is that I gave up worshipping the Great Mother and her Puer Son-Lover and took my place in the ranks of those who serve the Great King and his Warrior-Prince Son. Nurturing is for home and family and neighborhood, not for international relations with the other gangs in this fallen world.

Here’s a piece that divides Mr Obama from Mr McCain on two values: honor vs empathy. Or, to put it another way, a father vs Mommy.

[Does political correctness mask the truth? Is what is right or best derived (always / only / ever) from what is natural? What is the role of violence in preserving the peace? Some of my favorite questions. - Trevor Blake]

The following is from a letter in progress…

Some people claim that natural law exists. I have a moderate disagreement with this claim. At times the claim natural law exists seems to be the case. I am my body. My body dictates that (a) I prefer to live optimally, (b) I must eat to continue living, therefore (c) what impedes my ability to go on eating is eventually ‘illegal’ to me. But at times the claim natural law exists does not seem to be the case. What is the natural law that dictates my preference for just so much black pepper in the breading of fried chicken? The strongest case I can make for natural law existing is that in any contradiction one claim at minimum is false. After that it’s a guessing game. These examples show that natural law exists but is not applicable to all experiences. Therefore natural law can serve as part of but not a foundation for law.

Some people claim that natural law is known. I have a strong disagreement with this claim. I am my body. My body dictates that (a) I prefer to live optimally, (b) a specific combination of nutrients will consumed today will optimize my going on living, therefore (c) I must eat a specific combination of nutrients today. There is, objectively / naturally, a specific meal I should eat today. I do not know it and can only at best approximate it. The effort to identify that exact optimal meal would take so long that conditions would change and the answer no longer apply. This example shows that natural law is sometimes knowable but unknown. Therefore natural law can serve as part of but not a foundation for law.

Some people claim that natural law is preferable. I have a strong disagreement with this claim. I am my body. My body dictates that (a) I prefer to live optimally, (b) I must eat to continue living, therefore (c) I should eat what my body needs. But it is this very same body that prefers fried chicken over steamed yams, without regard to the fact that yams are more optimal in nutrition. This example follows my previous examples but is not my best. My best example is that a virus, or crocodile, is following its own natural law were it to consume me but this is clearly not preferable for me. The naturalistic fallacy is that natural law is preferable while playing a ghostly bait-and-switch game as to who it is preferable for. On the one hand natural law is preferable to humanity (and this particular human) because humanity is of nature. On the the other hand, when I’m being eaten by a crocodile, natural law is preferable to “Nature” (as much of an anthropomorphic ghost as “God”). Law comes from humanity. It is based on what we have inherited from the past and what we invent today. It is possible to learn from our errors but not to predict our errors before subjecting them to criticism. Law should be subject to criticism; doubt scours out only error, never fact. Therefore natural law is preferable only sometimes, not always.

Some people claim that science is the accumulation of truth statements. I have a strong disagreement with this claim. I claim that science is the accumulation of falsified statements. Any scientific claim is subject to criticism, likely to be incomplete and likely to include some measure of error. When a scientific claim is made, it is a the claim “if X is not true then Y” and not “if X is true then Y.” Science comes from humanity. It is based on what we have inherited from the past and what we invent today. It is possible to learn from our errors but not to predict our errors before subjecting them to criticism. Science should be subject to criticism; doubt scours out only error, never fact.

When some people claim that natural law exists, is known and is preferable I take it in a poetic sense and not a literal sense. It inspires but does not inform. To speak less in the abstract, they are a tonic against political correctness or letting oneself off the hook from the consequences of choices made. But they are not literally true. I place these claims in the same category as private ritual. My curses or blessings are not going to literally make ill or good occur in themselves but are rough mental landmarks for a path that I have to actually walk with my actual feet. Regarding the claim that science is the accumulation of truth claims, this is a claim in error but closer to the truth than the majority of theistic thinking (i.e. the majority of humanity today and throughout history). These claims are in error but the errors do not negate my decision to associate with those who speak of natural law.

Heaven makes sport of human affairs, and the present hour gives no sure promise of the next. [Lat., Ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus, Et certam praesens vix habet hora fidem.] – Epistoloe Ex Ponto (IV, 3, 49)

Ovid Quotes and Quotations compiled by GIGA

to argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.

WendyMcElroy.com: Chapter 15: Arguing in the absence of good will

1998 “Cavalcare La Tigre – Julius Evola:Centenary”

Because God Told Me To Do It: v/a – Cavalcare La Tigre (1998)

I’m a neoconservative with a strong interest in philosophy.

ChicagoCon

EGOISM

non serviam

In der WDR-Programmgruppe Religion und Philosophie

YouTube – Philosophie: Sir Karl Raimund Popper (1/5)