Your epistemological success is, I believe, genuine. The book to read, if you already haven't, is Louis Groarke’s wonderful An Aristotelian Account of Induction. Aristotle got their first, as can be no surprise, proving a highest, or rather surest most fundamental, knowledge is given by a form of induction, induction-intellection.
I went over this in the Class I'm doing on Uncertainty. I don't go into as much history as you do, which is invaluable.
I like to say (and think I can justify) we must rely on faith. There is no, and can be no, empirical proof for our deepest beliefs, which are got by intellection and then intuition.
It is no surprise postmodernism (and its Humean antecedent(s) made a concerted attack on induction, and faith. This allowed them to do the epistemological double-step. First pretend to have disproved faith, and pretending all truths are empirical, and then swapping in their own faith and calling it empirical.
Well, long enough for a comment. Many thanks for your work.
This "epistemological double-step" or "ideological bait-and-switch" as I call it, is now so prevalent in our society that it's impossible for any thinking person NOT to see it. It's moved from being a philosophical strategy to a cultural one.
Maybe, maybe not. I might humbly suggest that public education is to blame here. It is intended to destroy the curiosity that might lead people to the light, to confuse, but most of all, to inculcate obedience. I suspect that the reason it seems like - actually, not seems like - the reason we ARE regressing is specifically because of public education a la Mann and Dewey. (But perhaps I'm being too charitable to my fellow man - a charge I wouldn't deny.)
I agree with your criticism of public education. I would say there is a compromise position here: There is some percentage of the population that can never be capable of real thought, it is simply beyond them; but there is a much larger percentage that could think if it hadn't had its mind destroyed by public education.
The corruption of our Ivy league schools and higher institutions of learning have horribly crippled the West's intellectual capacity. I have met plenty of high IQ, capable thinkers but their indoctrination into the Postmodernist anti-faith claps blinders upon their mind's eyes.
The mind is a muscle, and as out of shape as many Americans are physically, they are far softer mentally. Lacking a councious understanding of logic, they are taught to rely on emotions (feeling) to perceive the world and determine truth. However, they still notice a degree of logical contradiction subconsciously, which stokes their self doubt. They rely on their subcouncious logic to function in the world and survive, (they call it common sense) but are discouraged from extending this into their councious thoughts.
No, but it tells you something is very wrong, and it gives you a place to start. Most people know intuitively that something is wrong but can't identify it. Contradiction between word and deed are some of the worst things that even children notice.
Serendipity: stumbled across your stack, while traveling in Brittany. A lot to catch up on.
In support of your assertion on intellect: "There is more logic in humor than in anything else. Because, you see, humor is truth." -Victor Borge
Humor is truth - recognizable, instantly, even without any deliberate logic assembled. Simple human intellect has humor as a fundamental element. Logical extensions just add refinement. And nearly all post-modernists have zero sense of humor, unless it is at the expense of someone they hate.
"About ten years ago, I read Stephen Hicks’ book Explaining Postmodernism. The book ends with the following paragraphs, which for many years preoccupied my mind:"
Superb book, demonstrating clearly that post-modernism is indeed no more than nihilism dressed in fancy clothes.
I'm with the late much-lamented Sir Roger Scruton
“A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”
Quite so.
And thanks for your Substack. I find it continually stimulating and a fine antidote to all the crap being written here, there and everywhere.
What I can truly say by now is the following: the survival of OUR PEOPLE is essential. As hard as it might be, I ask everyone to unite to ensure that named survival. And anyone realistic probably will agree that, although the urgency of now is undebatable (we face our imminent extinction, meaning within the next few generation), that this is a fight for the next MILLENIA. Our enemies have fought us for the same time in the past until now, and I must sadyl admit, that they have been quite successful.
And with apologies to the both David Hume and the Rolling Stones:
You can't get an ought from an is
You can't get an ought from an is
But if you try sometime, you'll find
You get what you need
The blow back at the true end of the Enlightenment will be a hurricane of epistemological collapse in what once was Christendom. Very interesting Substack you have here, best wishes for weathering the coming storm.
I write to you today in a sincere effort to help you accomplish your noble goals for seeking this office.
That is to help you facilitate the betterment of our schools for our children and young people.
To do this, I ask you to make the Board meeting agenda and the data points behind them available to me as well as all of the other taxpayers.
Upload the stack to a server where we can read, ratify and or annul the elements after log on.
In a perfect world each paragraph must have at least three possible answers: agree, disagree, no opinion at this time.
Direct democracy is a growing trend, and many companies offer these services:
hosting, voter receipts, and a running tally of totals for everyone to see.
In this way Madam Trustee you are assured that you will always have the strength of the community with you when making the decisions that really do effect the lives of our people.
For decades I've enjoyed reading the Right's intellectual takedowns and attempts at formulating cohesive ideologies, going back to Russell Kirk. Your work is fantastic and enjoyable. But the intellectual Right has always been exceptional at this sort of navel gazing.
What the Right sucks at is action, because the Right sucks at organization. As a result, the boot won't care that you can quote Hume while it's stomping your face. And no, I'm not talking about the sort of action as suggested by the not-so-subtle Federal fisher in these comments, but the type of *political* action that results from the professional and energetic organization the Left has had place for decades. The usual advice of "get involved in local politics" isn't effective. Been there, done that.
Apologies for my dour mood, and I don't mean to cloud up your comments section, this truly is good stuff. But wake me up when we get to the organization and action phase. At my age, my window of energetic participation is fast closing. ;)
Here at the Tree of Woe, you never have to apologize for having a dour mood. In fact, it's almost expected. You are, in any case, absolutely correct about the need for action.
My own study of the left's organizational strategy has found that having a core ideology is central to their success, hence my efforts in that regard. I don't think the Right has succeeded in anything approximating the success of, e.g. DEI/Decolonization/Woke ideology in uniting disparate factions. (Others disagree with me on this; some think the unity is already present, others that it's unnecessary.)
None of that is a core ideology, it is an excuse to take free shit from Whitey. They are organized around the principle of self-interest, if 'organized' is even the word. Perhaps 'motivated around' is a better way of putting it.
The Right is fantastic at organizing; after all we created civilization and virtually everything of value in it. We are not good at recognizing internal parasites that can mimic our in-group symbols. Our problem is that those internal parasites know the game after millennia of perfecting it, and know what needs to be done to keep us from organizing. For example, our politics seems very chaotic with politicians saying and doing crazy shit all the time, even displaying late-stage dementia yet no one with real power seems to care. But if a politician so much as mentions White issues in a positive way the entire system immediately activates to remove them. e.g., Trump and Steve King of Iowa.
As I said below, I disagree with you about ideology and philosophy. But I've been having this "ideology vs pragmatism" debate with my college roommate for 30 years and if I haven't persuaded HIM in all that time, I'm certainly not going to persuade YOU in 30 minutes over Substack.
Each of us has to find the way to fight this fight as best they can. Whether you agree with my way or not, I hope you soldier on.
Like a black Tuesday. Market collapse and rapid inflation. The US dollar is reduced to a third of its value. Heard it from Bo Polny. Now that Kissinger's petrodollar contract has expired, things might happen.
I find that totally believable. Do we have any confirmation from Saudi or American official sources that the contract has expired? I've seen four or five articles and tweets but nothing with any sources.
"When selecting our spiritual or religious tradition from among those available to us, we can take comfort in knowing that the gap between Athens and Jerusalem is not as wide as we thought. Monotheism is not a foreign import imposed upon European civilization from the Middle East."
If this is part of your argument for selecting Christianity, what would you say to the Ugandan, Congolese, or Korean who wants to join the fight?
I honestly don't know anything about their religious traditions! So the first thing I'd do before I opened my mouth would be to investigate that. I know that in China, for instance, the Jesuits found an ancient monotheism that they tapped into to promote Christianity.
Your epistemological success is, I believe, genuine. The book to read, if you already haven't, is Louis Groarke’s wonderful An Aristotelian Account of Induction. Aristotle got their first, as can be no surprise, proving a highest, or rather surest most fundamental, knowledge is given by a form of induction, induction-intellection.
I went over this in the Class I'm doing on Uncertainty. I don't go into as much history as you do, which is invaluable.
I like to say (and think I can justify) we must rely on faith. There is no, and can be no, empirical proof for our deepest beliefs, which are got by intellection and then intuition.
It is no surprise postmodernism (and its Humean antecedent(s) made a concerted attack on induction, and faith. This allowed them to do the epistemological double-step. First pretend to have disproved faith, and pretending all truths are empirical, and then swapping in their own faith and calling it empirical.
Well, long enough for a comment. Many thanks for your work.
I will read that book based on your recommendation - thank you!
Just bought the book. I'll make a post when I have finished it.
I very much look forward to it.
Matt - we've found a fellow traveler! We need to get this gentleman to a BSI event, STAT!
(I'll pay for a copy of "Uncertainty" and "Popper and After" to be sent to this man).
Then we'll stick him in a room w/ our mutual friend so he can get the full firehose of probabilistic reasoning.
Alex, you are right on the glide path and on heading, airspeed, and altitude. I am really enjoying your writing. Bravo.
Thank you so much!
This "epistemological double-step" or "ideological bait-and-switch" as I call it, is now so prevalent in our society that it's impossible for any thinking person NOT to see it. It's moved from being a philosophical strategy to a cultural one.
Fully agree. It's everywhere. And yet most people don't see it. From this I can conclude most people are not thinking persons!
Maybe, maybe not. I might humbly suggest that public education is to blame here. It is intended to destroy the curiosity that might lead people to the light, to confuse, but most of all, to inculcate obedience. I suspect that the reason it seems like - actually, not seems like - the reason we ARE regressing is specifically because of public education a la Mann and Dewey. (But perhaps I'm being too charitable to my fellow man - a charge I wouldn't deny.)
I agree with your criticism of public education. I would say there is a compromise position here: There is some percentage of the population that can never be capable of real thought, it is simply beyond them; but there is a much larger percentage that could think if it hadn't had its mind destroyed by public education.
I completely agree.
The corruption of our Ivy league schools and higher institutions of learning have horribly crippled the West's intellectual capacity. I have met plenty of high IQ, capable thinkers but their indoctrination into the Postmodernist anti-faith claps blinders upon their mind's eyes.
Harvard and Yale are seminaries still.
The mind is a muscle, and as out of shape as many Americans are physically, they are far softer mentally. Lacking a councious understanding of logic, they are taught to rely on emotions (feeling) to perceive the world and determine truth. However, they still notice a degree of logical contradiction subconsciously, which stokes their self doubt. They rely on their subcouncious logic to function in the world and survive, (they call it common sense) but are discouraged from extending this into their councious thoughts.
Great comment. Public “education” for the “win.”
Seeing the epistemological double-step doesn't by itself make it possible to resolve the epistemic foundation problem.
No, but it tells you something is very wrong, and it gives you a place to start. Most people know intuitively that something is wrong but can't identify it. Contradiction between word and deed are some of the worst things that even children notice.
Serendipity: stumbled across your stack, while traveling in Brittany. A lot to catch up on.
In support of your assertion on intellect: "There is more logic in humor than in anything else. Because, you see, humor is truth." -Victor Borge
Humor is truth - recognizable, instantly, even without any deliberate logic assembled. Simple human intellect has humor as a fundamental element. Logical extensions just add refinement. And nearly all post-modernists have zero sense of humor, unless it is at the expense of someone they hate.
Thanks for stumbling in! Agreed on humor is truth. Great point.
Victor Borge was an absolute treasure.
"About ten years ago, I read Stephen Hicks’ book Explaining Postmodernism. The book ends with the following paragraphs, which for many years preoccupied my mind:"
Superb book, demonstrating clearly that post-modernism is indeed no more than nihilism dressed in fancy clothes.
I'm with the late much-lamented Sir Roger Scruton
“A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t.”
Quite so.
And thanks for your Substack. I find it continually stimulating and a fine antidote to all the crap being written here, there and everywhere.
Thanks for the kind words!
What I can truly say by now is the following: the survival of OUR PEOPLE is essential. As hard as it might be, I ask everyone to unite to ensure that named survival. And anyone realistic probably will agree that, although the urgency of now is undebatable (we face our imminent extinction, meaning within the next few generation), that this is a fight for the next MILLENIA. Our enemies have fought us for the same time in the past until now, and I must sadyl admit, that they have been quite successful.
Indeed.
Oh we can dare and we can do.
United men and brothers too,
Their gallant footsteps to pursue,
And change our country's story.
Our hearts so stout have got us fame,
For soon 'tis known from whence we came.
Where 'ere we go they dread the name
Of Garryowen in glory.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m7RPjQxjmA
Amen.
The end of the beginning is a beautiful stage. You can see, from there, where your hand on the rudder brings the fleets.
Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau;
Mock on, mock on; 'tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
And with apologies to the both David Hume and the Rolling Stones:
You can't get an ought from an is
You can't get an ought from an is
But if you try sometime, you'll find
You get what you need
The blow back at the true end of the Enlightenment will be a hurricane of epistemological collapse in what once was Christendom. Very interesting Substack you have here, best wishes for weathering the coming storm.
Likewise to you, sir.
Nooooo....... Dont Go Pater! 😭
I'm not going anywhere! Just putting a milestone down in the ground.
What is this, a greatest hits album?
Re: enchantment, are you a John Michael Greer reader by chance?
I am!
Pater, we have him on for Sundays episode… you can hop on if you wish to! ❤️
I can't make the time slot, sadly but I"m sure the episode will be epic!
Things don't change until things change.
At this moment, fat, dumb and happy prevail......until they don't. Tick....Tick....Tick.
Start here:
Dear Mr. / Madam School Board Trustee
I write to you today in a sincere effort to help you accomplish your noble goals for seeking this office.
That is to help you facilitate the betterment of our schools for our children and young people.
To do this, I ask you to make the Board meeting agenda and the data points behind them available to me as well as all of the other taxpayers.
Upload the stack to a server where we can read, ratify and or annul the elements after log on.
In a perfect world each paragraph must have at least three possible answers: agree, disagree, no opinion at this time.
Direct democracy is a growing trend, and many companies offer these services:
hosting, voter receipts, and a running tally of totals for everyone to see.
In this way Madam Trustee you are assured that you will always have the strength of the community with you when making the decisions that really do effect the lives of our people.
Vty,
Helpful Taxpayer Citizen
Hosting Companies:
https://teletownhall.com/products/text-to-online-surveys/
https://publicinput.com/wp/online-town-hall/
https://www.govtech.com/archive/introducing-the-21st-century-city-hall.html
Your writings on logic in particular deserve a place in the libraries of the world.
That's really kind, thank you.
The nous article was big for me.
Glad it made sense to you.
For decades I've enjoyed reading the Right's intellectual takedowns and attempts at formulating cohesive ideologies, going back to Russell Kirk. Your work is fantastic and enjoyable. But the intellectual Right has always been exceptional at this sort of navel gazing.
What the Right sucks at is action, because the Right sucks at organization. As a result, the boot won't care that you can quote Hume while it's stomping your face. And no, I'm not talking about the sort of action as suggested by the not-so-subtle Federal fisher in these comments, but the type of *political* action that results from the professional and energetic organization the Left has had place for decades. The usual advice of "get involved in local politics" isn't effective. Been there, done that.
Apologies for my dour mood, and I don't mean to cloud up your comments section, this truly is good stuff. But wake me up when we get to the organization and action phase. At my age, my window of energetic participation is fast closing. ;)
Here at the Tree of Woe, you never have to apologize for having a dour mood. In fact, it's almost expected. You are, in any case, absolutely correct about the need for action.
My own study of the left's organizational strategy has found that having a core ideology is central to their success, hence my efforts in that regard. I don't think the Right has succeeded in anything approximating the success of, e.g. DEI/Decolonization/Woke ideology in uniting disparate factions. (Others disagree with me on this; some think the unity is already present, others that it's unnecessary.)
None of that is a core ideology, it is an excuse to take free shit from Whitey. They are organized around the principle of self-interest, if 'organized' is even the word. Perhaps 'motivated around' is a better way of putting it.
The Right is fantastic at organizing; after all we created civilization and virtually everything of value in it. We are not good at recognizing internal parasites that can mimic our in-group symbols. Our problem is that those internal parasites know the game after millennia of perfecting it, and know what needs to be done to keep us from organizing. For example, our politics seems very chaotic with politicians saying and doing crazy shit all the time, even displaying late-stage dementia yet no one with real power seems to care. But if a politician so much as mentions White issues in a positive way the entire system immediately activates to remove them. e.g., Trump and Steve King of Iowa.
As I said below, I disagree with you about ideology and philosophy. But I've been having this "ideology vs pragmatism" debate with my college roommate for 30 years and if I haven't persuaded HIM in all that time, I'm certainly not going to persuade YOU in 30 minutes over Substack.
Each of us has to find the way to fight this fight as best they can. Whether you agree with my way or not, I hope you soldier on.
Don't worry about the pragmatist, he's following the previous generation's ideologue without realizing it.
I have heard rumors that September of 2024 will be black.
What do you mean?
Like a black Tuesday. Market collapse and rapid inflation. The US dollar is reduced to a third of its value. Heard it from Bo Polny. Now that Kissinger's petrodollar contract has expired, things might happen.
I find that totally believable. Do we have any confirmation from Saudi or American official sources that the contract has expired? I've seen four or five articles and tweets but nothing with any sources.
"When selecting our spiritual or religious tradition from among those available to us, we can take comfort in knowing that the gap between Athens and Jerusalem is not as wide as we thought. Monotheism is not a foreign import imposed upon European civilization from the Middle East."
If this is part of your argument for selecting Christianity, what would you say to the Ugandan, Congolese, or Korean who wants to join the fight?
I honestly don't know anything about their religious traditions! So the first thing I'd do before I opened my mouth would be to investigate that. I know that in China, for instance, the Jesuits found an ancient monotheism that they tapped into to promote Christianity.