I have a strong interest in analytic philosophy, and below I have linked to all my posts on the history of analytic philosophy, and its contribution to modern ontology, epistemology, and ethics.
(1) Logic
“The Laws of Thought,” September 9, 2013.
“An Observation on Deduction,” September 23, 2013.
(2) History of Analytic Philosophy
“Schwartz’s A Brief History of Analytic Philosophy: From Russell to Rawls: Chapter 1,” August 22, 2013.
“Schwartz’s A Brief History of Analytic Philosophy: from Russell to Rawls: Chapter 2,” August 23, 2013.
“Schwartz’s A Brief History of Analytic Philosophy: from Russell to Rawls: Chapter 3,” August 25, 2013.
“The Return of Metaphysics into Analytic Philosophy,” August 29, 2013.
(3) Ontology and Epistemology
“Quine and the Analytic–Synthetic Distinction ,” August 24, 2013.
“Karl Popper’s Three World Ontology,” September 4, 2013.
“More on Karl Popper’s Three World Ontology,” September 6, 2013.
“Chomsky’s Rationalism,” September 11, 2013.
“Epistemology in Modern Analytic Philosophy: A Review,” September 17, 2013.
“Strong Reductionism Failed in the Natural Sciences,” September 18, 2013.
“Epistemology and Kinds of Knowledge,” July 25, 2013.
“A. J. Ayer on Logical Necessity and a priori Knowledge,” March 27, 2014.
“The Epistemic Types of Probability,” May 17, 2014.
“The Types of Propositional Knowledge,” May 16, 2014.
“Why Should we reject the Existence of Synthetic a priori Knowledge?,” May 23, 2014.
(4) Ethics
“Ethics in Modern Analytic Philosophy,” November 18, 2013.
(5) Philosophy of Mathematics
“Philosophy of Mathematics: A Preliminary Classification of Theories,” December 7, 2013.
(6) Laws of Nature
“Laws of Nature: The Historical Background,” May 8, 2014.
“Types of Necessity and Laws of Nature,” May 9, 2014.
“Did Hume deny the Physical Necessity of Laws of Nature?,” May 10, 2014.
(7) Uncertainty
“Ontological Uncertainty and Theology,” May 15, 2014.
Wondering if you'd be willing to do a chat.
ReplyDeleteWe both started working on similar problems at about the same time. And have come to similar conclusions although not identical through different methods.
I know that the difference in our work comes down to the difference between aggregates and consumption under the assumption of common good on your end, and truthfulness, morality, and rational cooperation under the assumption of not doing 'bad' on mine.
And perhaps nothing more than the difference between dysgenic and eugenic reproduction as the translation of the criteria we both call that "assumption" of common good or 'doing bad'.
With that understanding (if we can achieve it) I feel you are better informed than I am on the consequences of MMT and inflation on prices, credit, debt and possibly information.
Now I am not an MMT supporter but it is the only referrer I know that has enough meaning to provide a starting point.
And while I agree that the K/NK movements describe cause and consequence. I do not think it constitutes a full accounting of consequence, and as such is insufficient. Nor do I find agreement with discretionary action rather than rule of law in matters of influencing the economy by policy means. Any more than I find agreement with discretion in rule of law in the practice of law, or policy.
The problem we (both) face in this subject matter is that there are very few people with broad enough knowledge of the various movements to converse with. Particularly the relatively serious failure of the 20th century thinkers to solve the problem of social science (the Wilsonian Synthesis) and its consequence.
It would help me a great deal if we could talk through this set of ideas. I would be hopeful it would be equally helpful to you as well.
Thanks
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine