What kind of person do you imagine?
propertarianism.com
>I'm a Propertarian
Samuel Fisher
Other urls found in this thread:
maths.tcd.ie
twitter.com
Luke Hughes
It's all so tiresome.
David Sanders
Sounds like off-brand, incomplete Objectivism. Pass, I'll stick with the real thing
Joshua Mitchell
>Science, or the “scientific method” is an empirical method for gaining understanding of reality and access to truth.
I did a search on the site for "induction" and nothing came up.
Pottery.
Easton Wood
Has Doolittle managed to start a cult, amass a non-trivial following yet? I remember him trying desperately to hitch his wagon to NRx back in the day but no one really cared.
Jackson Cooper
The word "induction" is literally in the link I proved.
Not yet but he has gained a lot of attention in 2019 when John Mark became a Propertarian and introduced his large audience to it.
Juan Wright
*link I provided
William Kelly
Right, he has a paragraph where he goes over what the word means, but there is no attempt to reconcile it with their dogma.
Science at once gives
>access to truth
>we can never actually be sure that we’ve finally got it.
Robert Hernandez
I don't see any problem with this or a need to reconciliation. A theory, even though it may be falsified in the future, can still give us relevant insights in the here and now. A "good" system is one that allows for these paradigm shifts.
Ryan Anderson
A good scientific system yes. You can easily claim that it is pragmatically valuable. But the assertion that you're understanding reality or accessing truth seriously needs reconciliation. There is an unspoken worldview attached to what has been said which needs spelling out, as it is very weak.
Zachary Phillips
I think you erroneously presume that two distinct states (truth and falsehood) cannot have a continuum between them. Curt Doolittle is perfectly aware that a current theory may be falsified in the future and thus is in favour of a fluid, anti-static system that allows for progress towards truth.
Brody Cox
>that link
Ho boy this looks like something the Randfags would have a field day with, clearly this cat is trying to cop their style. Ancapery, a dash of individual/collective centrism, and ethnonationalism of all things? This fucker is all over the place. Objectivists hate all three.
Cameron Carter
How is science objective when it is agent dependent?
Why are values and preferences not truth, or, why is truth limited to the what is objective?
Why accept 'property' if values and preferences are not true?
Justify the nature of your objective/subjective distinction.
Carson Brooks
1. The scientific method is not 100% objective. However, it is our best attempt at objectivity.
2. Here I may deviate from what Propertarians will say.
There are subjective and objective truths. You rightfully pointed out that if we solely consider objective truths to be truths, then Propertarianism should singularly be a descriptive approach. Curt Doolittle himself says that Propertarianism is descriptive, not prescriptive. However he greatly deviates from this claim as he makes moral claims throughout the piece, which are subjective, not objective truths.
Camden Miller
Excellent digits.
What do you make of
>Justify the nature of your objective/subjective distinction.
?
Nathaniel Perez
Objective: Reality outside of our senses
Subjective: Reality perceived through our senses
Andrew Garcia
>date] [Auto] No new posts
They can leave me alone so that business owners can rob me blind.
Aiden Richardson
I just saw that you want a justification for this distinction. I'm not exactly sure what justification you want from me. A justification based on what?
Hudson Hughes
>Objective: Reality outside of our senses
So, like what Platonists said about reality outside our senses, or like some sort of pure materialism?
Easton Murphy
>A justification based on what?
You asking that question was the point of my question.
What does it even mean to discuss things existing outside of us, and what is the range demarcated by 'senses'? What role does our intuition or mind play in this? Ultimately, all the distinctions are arbitrary from our perspective, and there is no meaningful, in itself, distinction, ala Neoplatonism. That is a very quick and dirty overview of the dialectic I think we can have. Let me know what doesn't seem right.
Gavin Baker
We try to objectively observe the world around us through current scientific methods to gather more insights which can be used for pragmatic purposes. We try to observe the world objectively because of subjective truths and use the knowledge gathered for subjectively valued things (dominance, health, etc.). I wouldn't regard the distinction as arbitrary as these are clearly distinct states.
Kevin Perry
Go to this link
maths.tcd.ie
Go to pdf page 18/book page 12.
Read at least three pages.
Tell me what you make of Berkeley's case.
Dominic Davis
>bussiness owners rob me by making me buy their products
Ah you! soccie parasites are funny.
Blake Thompson
>business owners
You mean bankers
Carson Taylor
Bankers of the non-corporatist private bent are litteraly heroes and among the finest specimens of abstract thinking possible.
Connor Walker
Absolutely based levels of capital sentience acceptance.
Blake Bennett
>stem major
>doesn't read fiction (except sci-fi and fantasy)
>is very proud of his online iq test score
>owns a sword collection
Ayden Taylor
>is very proud of his online iq test score
probably the most relevant bit
Luke Perez
Wrong. If he did then he would not be familiar with the principles of Propertarianism
>stem major
That one is true.
Ian Jenkins
He got BTFO by the distributist and truediltom
Ethan Richardson
>date] [Auto] No new posts
wat
Liam Sanders
that doesn't mean much desu
Christopher Walker
The distributists video on Propertarianism was a catastrophe. He's a master in saying with much without really saying anything and the whole premise for his counter argument is based on a misunderstanding of Propertarianism.