For a general rule to exist and be non-false, we attempt to demonstrate determinism ( regularity, consistency ) of that general rule in every *dimension*:
So in testing consistency (regularity, determinism), we ask the language is operationally descriptive and the process and results repeatable. We demonstrate regularity under some number of conditions.
When we use operational language we demonstrate that we have restricted ourselves to existentially possible statements, and therefore constructed a ‘proof’ (test) of existential possibility. Now, a proof is not synonymous with a truth. It is merely evidence of possibility. Whereas if we cannot construct an operational proof, either the claim is false, or we do not know enough to claim it may be true.
TWO: NICK LAND
I am an analytic philosopher(science/proofs), and Nick is a Continental(meaning/literature) philosopher. I can probably translate any of his statements from literary to analytic if I work at it. But Nick’s writing verges on poetry, and while we probably agree on a lot, our frames are from two different worlds, and I am highly critical of the continental method in general. It is too hard to truth test continental statements and so I would prefer we spoke in literary analogy as do novelists, documentary, proof construction as I do, or empirical analysis as most scientists do. And I don’t find the conflation of these various technologies to be very helpful.
Interestingly if you look at my work (anglo American legal empirical), Hoppe’s work (german Kantian rational), Moldbug’s work (Jewish critique), and Nick’s work (continental literary), you see that each of argues using our cultural frames of communication and argument.
I think that’s the interesting takeaway. That it’s just more evidence of my argument that each enlightenment culture tried to take its internal normative and institutional models and to propose them as universals, by more honest or more dishonest means.
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute