So, is Trump a racist?

You're a statesman? Speak with wisdom, then, or STFU.

If anything distinguishes a full-time philosopher from an ordinary civilian, it's the degree of imagination and skepticism a philosopher applies to putative truth-claims.

Let's say, for instance, I test the strongest, most thoughtful representative of the Trump-bashing Democrat/left/"progressive" opposition with the following "offer" of exchange:

I concede that Trump is a racist, and you concede that the Trump-bashing Democrat/left/"progressive" opposition is intellectually bankrupt.

Fair exchange?

I'm not sure, because I'd be "exchanging" a certainty with overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence in its support for a mere probability or likelihood with a contentious body of evidence.

What's more, I don't expect to get such a concession of intellectual bankruptcy from even the "best," most responsive-to-evidence advocate of the Democrat/left/"progressive" segment of the electorate.  If they haven't figured it out by now, with all the evidence available, what will get them to concede what I take to be a certainty given all the evidence available to anyone who does his homework?

The very same Dem/left/"progressive" crowd, even its "best" representatives, are dismissive toward Ayn Rand, a towering neo-Aristotelian genius, and their attitude isn't just dismissive: it is grounded in an ideological hubris, arrogance, smugness, conceit, complacency, and a demonstrable ignorance of what Rand said and meant.  So when they savagely attack such an unknown ideal hidden under a strawman, do I expect much of anything better when they're going after lower-hanging fruit like Trump?

I regard it as a certainty that the left/Dems/"progs" are the boy who cried racism, and in doing so squandered their credibility and displayed their intellectual bankruptcy.

I'll now imaginatively reframe this topic, by ordering putative truth-claims in degrees of likelihood, plausibility, reasonableness, and so forth.  The basic idea being something that I may have gleaned from reading the Oxford Handbook of David Hume more than anything else I gleaned from it: beliefs or probability assessments should be proportional to the evidence.  (I take it that classical realism, a philosophical expression of common sense about the laws of nature independent of our experience of them, is not, for Hume, supported in principle by any of that experiential evidence.  His common sense is, as I understand it, pragmatic rather than involving "metaphysical" commitments about real mind-independent laws, entities. etc.  Different can of worms for another time...)

Now, not everyone has the same evidence-set.  Not everyone has done all the same body of homework.  But any careful observer of this blog knows that when I make a bold or controversial-sounding claim, I document it thoroughly with links or a process of independent reasoning.  So this is my personal assessment based on the homework I've done, which you the reader may not possess.  I don't expect you to accept that Rand is a towering neo-Aristotelian genius without having done the inductive homework necessary to recognize that fact.  (This is one way of stating Rand's distinction between the objective and the intrinsic.  That something is true doesn't automatically and immediately oblige someone who hasn't done the necessary cognitive processing to accept it as true.  Truth doesn't passively imprint on the human mind, as is the position of the authoritarian 'intrinsicist.'  But if an exhaustive and overwhelming inductive process supports an affirmation of it, then it is objectively true.)

First, the statements in the order they occur to me:

The American Left is intellectually bankrupt

Capitalism is far superior to socialism, morally and economically

Trump is a racist

Trump has a casual relation to the truth

Trump is less worse than the American Left

Ayn Rand is a towering genius

Aristotle is a better philosopher overall than Rand

Chris Cuomo is CNN's most thoughtful host

The current American political conversation is a shitshow

Philosophical education would solve a huge number of American and human problems

Trump is an equal-opportunity offender

Trump says a lot of racially insensitive and inflammatory things

Trump hasn't shown in action that he is, as he claims, the least racist person you'd meet

Trump inspires confidence in his policymaking abilities

Religion or politics without philosophy is a recipe for disaster

The sun will rise tomorrow

Mind is to body as form is to matter, rendering substance dualism defunct

We have free will, i.e., some broad range of behavior is ultimately up to us as agents (we have moral responsibility)

Moral responsibility and free will mean exactly the same thing

There is structural racism in America

The American Left cries racism so much that its credibility is shot

The American Left has a heightened sensitivity to racial and other injustice

Roughly half of Trump supporters are deplorable and/or irredeemable

CBP agents told detainees to drink from toilets

AOC's intellectual and moral compass is superior to Trump's

AOC's intellectual and moral compass is superior to Ayn Rand's

Noam Chomsky's intellectual and moral compass is superior to Ayn Rand's

Climate change is a serious problem requiring drastic action and soon

Artificial Intelligence will direct us to climate-change solutions

Now, the statements ordered approximately according to plausibility-to-this-here-homework-doer using basic copy-and-move tools:

The sun will rise tomorrow

Philosophical education would solve a huge number of American and human problems

Capitalism is far superior to socialism, morally and economically

We have free will, i.e., some broad range of behavior is ultimately up to us as agents (we have moral responsibility)

Religion or politics without philosophy is a recipe for disaster

Aristotle is a better philosopher overall than Rand

The American Left is intellectually bankrupt

The American Left cries racism so much that its credibility is shot

Ayn Rand is a towering genius

Trump has a casual relation to the truth

The current American political conversation is a shitshow

There is structural racism in America

Trump is less worse than the American Left

Chris Cuomo is CNN's most thoughtful host

Trump is an equal-opportunity offender

Mind is to body as form is to matter, rendering substance dualism defunct

Climate change is a serious problem requiring drastic action and soon

Artificial Intelligence will direct us to climate-change solutions

Trump inspires confidence in his policymaking abilities

Trump says a lot of racially insensitive and inflammatory things

Trump hasn't shown in action that he is, as he claims, the least racist person you'd ever meet

The American Left has a heightened sensitivity to racial and other injustice

Trump is a racist

CBP agents told detainees to drink from toilets

Moral responsibility and free will mean exactly the same thing

AOC's intellectual and moral compass is superior to Trump's

Roughly half of Trump supporters are deplorable and/or irredeemable

Noam Chomsky's intellectual and moral compass is superior to Ayn Rand's

AOC's intellectual and moral compass is superior to Ayn Rand's

So, yeah, I could affirm Trump is a racist but only if I were to affirm everything else on the list that appears before that.  And if I've done my homework, then I'm basically right about the Dems/left which means they're the ones who haven't done their homework before spouting or implying any number of truth-claims (including the patently ridiculous one about AOC being morally and intellectually superior to Rand - but that's what their intellectually bankruptcy has them committed to by implication if not explicit affirmation).

So where does it go from here?  The way I see it, either I have the Dems/left/"progs" dead to rights on their near-astronomical levels of hubris, or I just haven't done my homework thoroughly enough.  So, we're basically either an an impasse, or the Dems/left/"progs" need to clean up their act, big time, and they can start with taking in and digesting the second item on the second, plausibility-ordered list above (which I can state with a very high degree of confidence they have not undertaken, not yet anyway).  Implied in any number of high-plausibility things said above is that the American Right also needs to clean up its act (starting with item #2, again), although their hubris levels aren't nearly as triggering.

The way I see it, everything about this, based on everything produced to date in this blog, only stands to reason.  I need to get around (when?) to the Oxford Handbook of Free Will to be more confident that I've done requisite homework in that area, hence the "ambivalence" above about free-will-related statements.  (I'm more confident there is free will than that I know what exactly free will involves.  Am I a free-will libertarian or some kind of compatiblist, or is that a false dichotomy?  Still too busy working my way through the Oxford Handbook of Capitalism to focus my attention on all that right now.  And do I get to the Free Will handbook before getting to the Spinoza and newly-published Karl Marx ones?  I still haven't figured out the perfect research program yet, but I'm trying to via some kind of inductive process of elimination. Meanwhile, what are lefty Trump/Rand-bashers focusing their intellectual energies on?)

[Addendum: This country cannot have a rational conversation about racism or who is a racist when there is not common agreement on what is racism.  The "side" that has cried racism umpteen times does not agree with the other "side" about this, nor do I think (based on countless observations at this point) that the "side" that has cried racism umpteen times is prepared and willing to have a good faith dialogue with the other "side."  The former is too filled with hubris and is too insulated in its own epistemic and values bubble.  "He calls Mexicans rapists" or "His proposed border wall is racist" or "He calls black athletes sons of bitches" or "He said white supremacists are very fine people" is shitty so-called evidence revealing more about the thought processes of the "evidence"-mongers than anything; it doesn't matter if they come up with stronger examples, because they degrade standards of evidence when including the far-weaker ones (and treat them as obviously good evidence, no less).  Observe what they considered good evidence when they recklessly and unaccountably smeared Kavanaugh.  Etc. (etc. etc....)  There is (I believe) structural racism in the country, that it is more extensive than the Right is willing to acknowledge but much less extensive and pervasive than the Left keeps crying, and the Left is guilty of ignoring the perspective of black conservatives like Sowell et al.  The Left squanders credibility by bitching and whining all the time about how unfair things are, and with its reverse-racism of identity politics and race-based university admissions discrimination.  And how they go out of their way to avoid good faith dialogue with the opposition destroys their credibility the most.  Their narratives are ludicrous.  Just get them to address the arguments and positions of Ayn Rand with a strong Rand-defender present and watch them turn into basket cases, which I absolutely guarantee they do and will.]

[Addendum #2: This video makes a good point!  Would that the MAGA-bashers also get the message therein?  Or: how about if everyone wises up, ffs already?  [Addendum to addendum: this was the next video in my feed.  It seems like it's on the right track but at the end Prager says that good people overcome their feelings with the right values.  An Aristotelian phronimos (virtuous/wise person) doesn't experience a conflict between feelings and values.  What Prager is speaking of isn't virtue proper but continence.]]

[Addendum #3: What if the American Left considers it a worthwhile "exchange" to blow all its credibility by crying racism so much if they get a polity more sensitive to racial injustice in return?  But it's a rather unfortunate and unnecessary "exchange," innit?  Once all that credibility gets blown on this topic, what about the next important/urgent topic that arises?  And what if they've already blown their credibility on these other topics as well (which they have)?]

Prediction: Trump (or a Republican) will win in 2020

Mark my words; I'd be willing to bet 10,000 to 1 odds on this.  Details to come.  Gist: the Republican Party isn't morally and intellectually bankrupt (it's part way there, more in the intellectual rather than moral part, I think), but the Democrat Party is (i.e., in a different category - of primarily-intellectual degeneracy and perversity).  Heck, even I, an ordinary joe citizen with common sense and persistence, could wipe the floor with any of these two-dozen statist clowns.  But for Trump it should be plenty easy enough; just look how he dispatched with Crooked Hillary, the most pretend-qualified candidate in modern history (and my implication her cynical enablers, including it appears all the two dozen clowns).

The American people don't want their fucking statism and controls and their "free" this and that for illegals, their increasingly-expensive intellectual meltdown on college campuses, their hubristic contempt, their being the boy who cried racism and immediately assume the worst about their opponents and still haven't learned their lesson with the Trump win, their coddling of warped and destructive public-sector rent-capture, their mendaciously-worded "reproductive freedom / women's health" (OMG where do they get this newspeak facepalm) on demand funded in part by nuns through tax punishments, envy disguised as "compassion," their culpably defying economic consensus and logic with their dogmatic commitment to so-called minimum wage (and these dipshits have the nerve to cry racism at the drop of a red hat?), their equation of morality with politics, widespread illegitimacy among Democrat-friendly demographics, their lackluster to shitty record on (un-bullshitted-up) freedom, their reckless demagoguery on Trump's proposed border wall, their downright demonic smear campaign against Brett Kavanaugh, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc., all spiraling in a web of doubling down on failure and denial, 'kay?  Not hard to figure out, not hard at all.

===

On a completely unrelated topic, does anyone have any pointers for me as to where I could find the best blog on the internet?  I like to keep an eagle eye out for that sort of thing; but for all my exhaustive-seeming-to-me look at the intellectual landscape today I can't seem to think of any that are remotely in the same league as what this blog here is doing.  And to narrow things down a bit, for there to be such a thing as a best blog on the internet (wait, is there an off-internet blog?) it would have to be a philosophy one, right?

Wouldn't it most likely stand to reason that the 2nd best blog on the internet would also be a philosophy blog?  For that distinction I nominate this one.  It's the one I visit most often for pure philosophical material (where the profession's most popular blog, despite its uses, falls relatively short).  That author there has the leftists' number, too - most likely inductively based on countless exception-less instances of leftist scummery, amiright?  As a nice bonus, he's vastly learned on other subjects as well.

But I don't see that blog very loudly pushing the whole Philosophy for Children/Everyone or (synonymously?) 'Better Living Through Philosophy', either, much less the whole 'Aristotelian' thing consciously and explicitly taking after - in spirit, if not in letter - the most formidable intellect in human history to date.  I don't see any other blog even coming close to what that first-linked blog up there is doing in that regard.  Why in the fuck aren't any of the other blogs (that I know of, but what the fuck do I know, idk) doing that?

Have you seen the output of that blog in just the past week?  (After a three months' hiatus, that is; what happened in the meantime, thumb-twiddling?  Staring blankly into space?)

If any of you reading this knows of a superior blog to that one, please contact me ASAFP, pretty please with sugar on top, show me a fucking blog better than that one, so that I can emulate and try to catch up.  I'd like to be proven wrong about something for once, for shit's sake.

The guy is kinda an asshole, though, huh?  Am I wrong?  Okay then.  (We play Clintana and O'Rourke next week, they should be pushovers.)

Next thing you know he'll be throwing down the gauntlet to Scumbag Lisa Duggan at 10,000 to 1 odds, amiright? :D

And get me some of that flower he's smokin', huh?  Wow. ^_^

Also, this blog serves a pretty useful content-integrating function.  Why isn't he a nationally recognized hero ffs already, if hubristic nitwits like Another Obnoxious Commie can rise to that status?  Just because he's not on the junior high playground that is twitter doesn't mean he isn't worth following.

[Update: Thinking it through some more, I'm unsure if I'm using the odds-based-challenge idea properly.  What I'm trying to say is, I'm pretty fucking certain, man.  They're pushovers compared to Trump.  Same with Scumbag Duggan compared to that first-linked blogger.]

Is this blog too abrasive?

Someone sent me the questions/input copypasted below, which I'll answer in a follow-up post.

Meanwhile, if any of you reading this is a fat fucking pig and wants to do something about it, perhaps you just haven't found the proper motivation.  (Anecdote: a Church pastor friend of mine shed 100 pounds of fat and added 15+ pounds of muscle in 7 months using simple Snake Diet tricks.  And there's a shitload of other anecdotal cases that would be widely known about if only snowflakes weren't so triggered by truth and go tattling so much to the ban-happy 'net nannies.)  'Snake Diet Wizard' Cole Robinson is a motivational genius.  Stop fucking eating, fatty!

Copypaste:

Hello, I've read your articles of which you've posted recently on [...] I just wanted to make a few comments via pm (Out of respect for you and myself). I thoroughly enjoyed reading your article and quite a few of the links you've posted along with it. I felt that you presented a well defined argument and used valid sources to support your thoughts. My only criticism of it lies within your descriptive language of those you view as your opposition. The rational for describing them in such a way (correct me if I'm wrong) is that of disdain for those that show ignorance and apathy on Objectivism. I can see your views oon this as I've felt similarly with my peers. However, I implore you to reconsider this approach in further writing. Human are rational beings after all. Why do you believe your opponents refuse to see past their own flawed opinions? When you so clearly demonstrate a much better alternative? I will argue it matters in presentation. You arguments carry weight to the point of being attacks on character not just position. Vast generalizations were made upon your opponents in your description of them being intellectually lethargic. I believe you carry great sway with your rhetoric, but so much more is gained when look through their perspective and provide them with the bread crumbs so to speak to lead them toward their own better informed opinion. At the end of the day I see your posts as having more value when used to persuade rather than being used to "win" an argument. I only tell you this as I greatly appreciate your writing and wish to hear less vitriol and more rational understandings. Please do let me know if I'm off base in my criticisms. I don't wish to misconstrue you or your thoughts.
/copypaste

[Update: I already have in mind a title for the follow-up posting to this one: "Q: Is this blog too abrasive? A: Fuck no! (and I'm just getting warmed up, motherfucker)"]

Rand, the Greeks, and the ideal (kalos) man

(Image from "Kalos Kagathos: A Fine Soul in a Fine Body.")

Pursuant to my previous posting, I'll keep this brief to draw mainly one (highly important but all too neglected) connection: between Rand's conception of the ideal man and the ancient Greek concept of kalos kagathos.

In her 1963 article, "The Goal of My Writing," Rand wrote:  "The motive and purpose of my writing is the projection of an ideal man. The portrayal of a moral ideal, as my ultimate literary goal, as an end in itself--to which any didactic, intellectual or philosophical values contained in a novel are only the means."

Compare with this portion of the wikipedia article on kalos kagathos linked above:

The word was a term used in Greek when discussing the concept of aristocracy.^[4] It became a fixed phrase by which the Athenian aristocracy referred to itself; in the ethical philosophers, the first of whom were Athenian gentlemen, the term came to mean the ideal or perfect man.

Compare also with this encyclopedia.com entry:

Kalon : the neuter of the Greek adjective kalos, beautiful, fine, also admirable, noble; accompanied by the definite article (to kalon ), for example, the beautiful (or beauty). In Greek culture, what is kalon is typically the object of erôs, passionate or romantic love, and in (male-dominated) literature (and art), the term is predominantly applied to males around the age of puberty. Plato appropriates the kalon (along with the good and the just) as a key object for human striving and understanding in general, discovering in it, along with the good, one of the properties of the universe and of existence; erôs itself, in Plato, is transformed from a species of love into love or desire tout court, for whatever is truly desirable—and good (for the human agent). See especially his Symposium, Phaedrus (Hippias Major, possibly not by Plato, represents an unsuccessful attempt to define the kalon ). The truly beautiful, or fine, is identical with the truly good, and also with the truly pleasant, as it is for Aristotle (Eudemian Ethics I.1, 1214a1–8). The Aristotelian good man acts "for the sake of the fine (to kalon )" (Nicomachean Ethics IV.2, 1122b6–7), an idea which is sometimes used as a basis for attributing to Aristotle a quasi-Kantian view of the ideal agent as acting morally, even—if occasion arises—altruistically, as opposed to acting out of a concern for his or her own good or pleasure. Against this, we need to take account of Aristotle's treatment of his good person as a self-lover, someone who seeks a disproportionate share of the fine for himself or herself (NE IX.8, 1169a35–b1), though he or she may willingly concede his or her share to a friend (NE IX.8, 1169a32–34). This is consistent with Aristotle's wanting to treat the fine (or the admirable) as itself part—the most important part—of the human good; and indeed, he ultimately seems to recognize only two objects of desire, the good and the pleasant (NE VIII.2, 1155b18–21; cf. e.g. EE VII.2, 1235b18–23). In this context the pleasant will include only those pleasures that are not fine and good. For this move we may compare Plato's Gorgias (474C–475D), where Socrates actually reduces fine to good, pleasant, or both. Later Greek philosophy trades on, while sometimes modifying, this complex of ideas, which also forms the basis for the analysis of beauty in literature or in the visual arts.

And what is Rand's ideal of moral beauty or perfection, as it were?  Here's a major clue:

Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality—not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute.

(Note that very early on in my book, I identify the ideal of an (Aristotelian) end of history with a cultural norm of unbreached rationality, i.e., something well above the viral/toxic/low-effort dreck of social media as we now know it.  Getting kids on philosophy as early as possible/apprioriate would help with that problem; getting them on philosophy most expressive of the ideal of kalos would speed up the process.)

Given a fundamental agreement here between Rand and Aristotle on the human exercise of the intellectual capacity as virtuous/excellent/kalos human activity, and given the seriousness with which Aristotle is widely taken as a philosopher, it stands to reason that Rand's conception of the human good merits wider attention from philosophers.  It also follows that the culmination of 'Randian' study in the art of thinking in a course by that very name (1992) by Peikoff merits close attention from scholars in this area.  Excuses (among Rand-commentators especially) for avoiding such materials have to be rather pathetically weak (very non-kalos) at this point.

(The Aristotle-Nietzsche connection here also seems under-researched.  Also, any connection between the concepts of intellectual perfection and dialectical completeness should be duly-thoroughly researched.)

Spreading philosophy for children ASAFP

As I keep pointing out (and for abundantly good reason), philosophy for children is far and away the biggest no-brainer of all time.  Right now people are fighting over crumbs compared to what's at stake here.  Given the nature of philosophical activity, properly conceived - as love of wisdom and therefore organized (and therefore better) living - there is perhaps no human problem that can't be solved by more philosophy.  (It gets even better with Aristotelian philosophy, which may be the best kind of philosophical activity around.  If you haven't yet thought in terms of 'Ultimate living through ultimate philosophy,' then you have some catching up to do.)

The thoroughly-researched Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) entry on Philosophy for Children has an almost fresh copyright date (2018), so it's not like this article has been sitting around for a long time not being noticed on its merits.  What the 2018 copyright date does say is that it took about that amount of time for a philosopher to do the necessary integration of research materials out there and consolidate the essential findings all in one place, with a compelling narrative tying it all together.

(I've had the time/resources only to go through McCarty's Little Big Minds, within the past several months or so.  Just on its own it makes a compelling case for philosophy for kids, but it has a 2006 copyright date.  What has happened in the intervening 13 years?  Someone with the time, interest and expertise had to come along and organize all the available research.  YouTube will provide leads to Jana Mohr Lone and others (edit: see also Lone's blog), but won't provide you the comprehensive set of leads available at the SEP entry.)

So we're into the second year after the SEP entry's publication, and at least one philosopher has taken up the task of blogging about it vigorously.  I have just taken the next step of contacting the author of the SEP entry by email to inquire about how best this no-brainer idea can be spread ASAFP.  The author probably has a good network of contacts in this area, and if a network of contacts includes philosophers, a potential intellectual juggernaut is in the making.  By its very nature any opposition to philosophy for children is intellectually impotent, easily overwhelmed given enough time and dedication among the philosophers, the most advanced-level integrators in the humanities.

The question: why didn't I think of contacting the author before today?  Well, this is the nature of incomplete and imperfect knowledge, and limitations on time and mental resources.  Were I smarter than I am (I am merely a fanatical lover/pursuer of wisdom), this may well have happened sooner.  The better (Aristotelian) policy of mental integration being applied, the sooner such discoveries can be made and exploited for maximum benefit.

And, so, if you're reading this, what measures might you take to help spread the message of philosophy for children?  Perhaps contact the author of the SEP entry as I have and express your support.  Provide the SEP link with a good money-quote (this linked one quoting the author that most anyone with philosophical curiosity themselves can teach this subject; and most anyone can have philosophical curiosity) on social media when good opportunities arise, making sure to mention how authoritative the SEP is.  Those are a couple ideas that occur to me so far.  (Do I have to do all this myself?  Or will the end of history simply have to be a collaborative effort?  But of course it will....)

When a philosopher-friend on facebook linked to this article (by Rod Dreher at The American Conservative almost despairing over the seductive appeal of "alt-right" views to alienated young white men seeking meaning (and we're not talking the benign and philosophical Jordan Peterson-type guidance, but, well, identity-politics for white males), the thought occurred to me: "Gee, wouldn't it be nice if this or the next generation of young males are taught to think philosophically before this all becomes a problem...."  Seeing as I can't fathom a remotely plausible comeback to this, there probably isn't one.

Is there any social problem that wouldn't be optimally addressed by philosophy for kids?  Just now I see on the news the latest story about cop-killing dirtbags.  Put the kids on philosophy and they won't end up being cop-killing dirtbags.

Given that this topic is of the highest priority for a wisdom-lover, I will continue to pursue this vigorously however I can.  Providing top-notch blog postings as evidence for the benefits philosophy can bring will continue to be a part of this process.  But others with sincere concern about the future of humanity will have to do their part, as well.

I am currently discussing a bet on facebook with Bryan Caplan (Econ, GMU), winner of 14 bets in a row and counting, as to how soon philosophy for children can/will be part of the regular education curriculum nationwide (if not worldwide...).  If you follow the logic of this through, at some point there will be a checkmate situation against any opposition to philosophy for children.  (Just the very publicizing of the bet/idea can only affect the very circumstances being betted on, in the direction of philosophy-for-children sooner than later.  Think this through, and the only end-result is checkmate, pretty soon.  Just what the endgame will look like, I do not know yet, but it should be pretty awesome.)  I am willing to bet with long odds.  Given my own context of knowledge, it's a no-brainer.

Like Sciabarra did his homework in his own area of expertise, I did my homework well enough to notice the McCarty book in a library (who uses those anymore?) and to notice and promote the SEP entry so relatively soon after its publication, as no other philosophy blog or social-media platform is doing (yet).  (I found the SEP entry by googling "philosophy for children" after finding only so much material on youtube and not being satisfied with that.)

The rest of this blog's entries, and my book, should be a good indicator of how well and thoroughly I do my homework.  Philosophy for children will get them doing their homework really darn well, also.

Why delay?

[Addendum: Why does American politics kinda suck right now?  Well, a huge part of it has to do with our elected 'leaders' being so philosophically illiterate when contrasted with all of the key Framers.  Think of whatever social problem we have and it probably, likely, or definitely has to do with not enough philosophy going around.]

[Addendum #2: Imagine a scenario: the teachers get a 5% bump in pay/funding if they teach philosophy for kids according to the best available researched protocols, and additional bumps as results come in. Why wouldn't they go for it?]

Philosophy for children, cont'd

When you can get philosophers in unanimity on something, you know (or do you?) that it's a no-brainer.  One thing that philosophers can be in unanimous agreement about, once they've read the (thoroughly researched) Stanford Encyclopedia entry at the very least, is the urgent necessity to spread the idea of philosophy for children as far and wide ASAFP.  Once again, a money quote:

Nevertheless, because they lack background in the formal study of philosophy, many teachers are reluctant to encourage the philosophical thinking of their students. Their fears, however, are exaggerated. Familiarity with some of the standard philosophical literature might be desirable, but it is not necessary for bringing Philosophy for Children into the classroom. What is required is the ability to facilitate philosophical discussion. For this, it is much more important that teachers have some philosophical curiosity themselves than a familiarity with academic philosophical literature. Like their students, teachers unfamiliar with the discipline of philosophy may nevertheless have an aptitude for philosophical thinking—or at least a knack for recognizing when others are engaged in philosophical thought. [emphasis added]

The implications of this are of end-of-history-level (or should I just say it: utopian) significance.  (I now have a bet on offer with Bryan Caplan on facebook about how soon, say, philosophy-for-children might end up in the regular education curriculum.  Given Caplan's betting protocols - he's undefeated in 14 bets and counting - I should be rather confident that I know whereof I speak.)  One implication is this: in order to do the rightest-possible thing by our kids and get them into philosophy at as young an age as feasible, the adults need to get philosophically curious themselves.  (About fucking time?)  Philosophy is intellectual curiosity, and intellectual curiosity about philosophy may well be the best kind there is.  Just maybe.

In light of this let's consider one piece of feedback I've gotten about this on facebook (on a homework-doing-focused group, Polymath Mafia):

Michael Strong Chris Cathcart I've been leading highly philosophical intellectual dialogues in classrooms since the 1980s. I started out in Chicago Public Schools, then created special dedicated programs in public schools in Alaska, and since then have created or co-created a charter and many private schools in which Socratic dialogue was core (I've looked at the Philosophy for Children curriculum and found it a bit too constraining for my tastes, but I've certainly spent thousands of hours engaging students of all ages in philosophical dialogue in classrooms). By the mid-1990s I had concluded that it is impossible to do this at scale with any kind of quality in government schools. The combination of political governance and bureaucratic management makes any kind of serious innovation at scale in public schools impossible. There are certainly individual teachers, principals, and occasionally superintendents who implement good programs for a period of time. But when the supporting school board member(s), superintendents, or principals leave then the programs tend to revert back towards the mean: Public education is mostly about compliance. In small districts there can be some responsiveness to parent demands, but in larger districts bureaucratic compliance is the name of the game. Moreover, in many parts of the US the parents are actively hostile to philosophical inquiry. When I was implementing Socratic questioning in Alaska, a parent approached me saying, "Your questions cause confusion. Confusion comes from Satan. What you are doing is Satanic. I'm going to get you kicked out of the district." And in most districts, 5-10 activist parents can kill just about any innovation. Thus paradoxically, in order to create a more philosophically sophisticated citizenry, we need to eliminate government schools and allow for a market in education. My book, which outlines my approach, https://www.amazon.com/Habit-Thought-Socratic-Seminars-Practice/dp/0944337392

(Is it any wonder Socrates was sentenced to death by hemlock for his philosophical activity - on charges of "corrupting the youth" and "denying the gods."  I believe the human race has since learned better.)

The kind of resistance described here can be remarkably easy to overcome.  For a period of years now I have been in regular personal discussion and correspondence with a Christian pastor who is thoroughly on board with the spread of wisdom-loving once I've explained the basic concept.  He is now urging me to write that (ultimate?) philosophy for children book that may well need to be written (or does it?...).  Take as an example the highest-level theistic philosophizing in blog format (or any other that I know of) at Maverick Philosopher.  Far as I can make out, Maverick is the wisest blogger on the planet and it might not be close.  (So anytime now, he, too, should be robustly on board with philosophy-for-children....)  If anything, the kids need philosophy to best defend their faith against the intellectual sloppiness and hubris of the 'new atheists.'  (David Bentley Hart's smackdown of the 'New Atheists' and their philosophical illiteracy is pretty epic.)  Aquinas is the greatest pro-intellectual-perfectionism figure in the Christian tradition.  There's nothing for Christian parents to fear here, and tons to gain.  (Doesn't a loving God want intellectual perfection for us, so that we may face our earthly demise with the utmost wisdom?)

I don't agree with all of Michael Strong's points above.  The schooling format is essentially irrelevant in this context.  The benefits far exceed any costs.  At the present time, fights over school formats or funding are fights over CRUMBS compared to what's at stake here.  The only problem here is an incompleteness of (shared) knowledge, is all.

AOC and the toxic twitterized destruction of discourse

It's amazing how no one has drawn the cognitively-available stark connection between these two phenomena yet.

The legendary toxicity that twitter brings to (the destruction of rational) discourse is now becoming gobsmackingly clear to more and more people.  Unlike blogs (see the best one around right now, for instance - see just the output from the past week alone; it's legendary [with more recent posts under the influence of cannabis, giving lie to claims that it impairs productivity]), Twitter is a low-effort, low-thought-demanding medium.  It appeals to people's pleasure centers and encourages them to 'like' whatever satisfies their biases or to 'dislike' whatever would disconfirm them.  (The vast information made available by the internet, absent a philosophical mindset properly drilled into its participants, only means more information that can be ignored, distorted, etc.)  Social media in its present form places pleasure over truth, a problem Socrates, Plato and Aristotle noticed plenty early on.  It seems people don't learn (fast enough).

The most important topic that can be discussed right now is philosophy for children.  You won't find that being discussed on Twitter.

Let's set aside the Trump phenomenon for now - I'm not interested in the slightest in leftist-loser and Democrat whataboutism at the moment - and look at perhaps the single most intellectually-destructive and therefore toxic figure on social media right now, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  I know that twitterized memories may be short, but let's look back within the past month for the level of idiocy AOC is capable of, and rewarded with "likes" on social media for:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

✔@AOC

Republican hypocrisy at its finest: saying that Trump admitting to sexual assault on tape is just “locker room talk,” but scandalizing themselves into faux-outrage when my sis says a curse word in a bar.
GOP lost entitlement to policing women’s behavior a long time ago.
Next.

202K

6:50 A

(This tweet was in the wake of incoming Demon Rat congresscritter Rashida Tlaib saying that they would "impeach the motherfucker!")

I'll reproduce what I said earlier in this blog, and to which there is no reasonable counter that I can remotely fathom:

In the twisted cognitive world of [AOC] & Co., such gender-baiting is now the norm even when it is illogical and gratuitous.  To anyone with common sense - this excludes today's unhinged leftists - the gender of the person using foul language toward Trump is entirely irrelevant. 

But even more damning of [AOC]'s cognitive "skills": anyone who knows how to read and parse language properly knows that Trump was not admitting to sexual assault.  He said that he grabbed women "by the pussy" and that they welcomed it.  ("You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything....Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.") 

Perhaps the demonic Democrats have managed to bastardize the meaning of "sexual assault" as well?

This is not the only time AOC has spread her blatantly toxic (intellectually inferior) garbage on social media.  Let's try this one out:

Ocasio-Cortez Responds to Republicans Criticizing Her Over Latest Mistake: Stop 'Drooling' Over My Every Word

Ryan Saavedra provides video in which AOC says: "If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — Uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House."  Saavedra adds: "The 3 branches of government: executive, legislative, judicial."

How does AOC respond to Saavedra's correction?  Watch:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

✔@AOC

Maybe instead of Republicans drooling over every minute of footage of me in slow-mo, waiting to chop up word slips that I correct in real-tomd, they actually step up enough to make the argument they want to make:
that they don’t believe people deserve a right to healthcare.

Rep. Niraj Antani

✔@NirajAntani

What is a chamber of government, @Ocasio2018? https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1064340509441720320 …

52.7K

8:07 PM - Nov 18, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

19.8K people are talking about this

Let's set aside for the moment the issue of a 'right to healthcare' (an issue AOC would be too ignorant to discuss non-toxically). [ * - see appended note]

Here is what AOC considers to be a real-time correction:

"If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress — Uh, rather, all three chambers of government: the presidency, the Senate, and the House."

It is simply rationally unacceptable for an elected member of Congress to get away with saying that she made a correction here.  Do I need to spell it out?

(See also: Dunning-Kruger effect, observed in those whose overestimate their own cognitive abilities and don't know it.)

In just the past few days, AOC took to more flat-out intellectual laziness/dishonesty, by smearing a source based on its supposed funding source.  (Only when she was called out on her obvious scummery did she back down.)  She doesn't really care about doing her homework before making her claims.  Nothing about AOC's MO is progressive.

[Edit: Does AOC's following have the cognitive characteristics of an apocalyptic cult?  Cult leaders are well-known for their charisma but otherwise generally reviled as toxic.]

[Edit #2: In the "You can't make this shit up" department, AOC said, "I think it’s wrong that a vast majority of the country doesn’t make a living wage."  How can someone possessing such a superior moral compass be so intellectually lazy?]

[Edit #3: The real problem with AOC?  Her enablers.]

If we want to really crack down on social media (and especially twitter) toxicity, we should home on in its biggest offenders ASAFP.

Next up: More on philosophy for children.

[*] - The global GDP right now is roughly $75 Trillion, or about $10K for every inhabitant of the planet.  How much would it cost to fund this so-called right for all people who putatively have this right?  Why are the so-called rights of which AOC and her "progressive" ilk speak so expensive?  This is a separate issue from whether a decent people, through some institutional arrangement or other, statist or private, help to ensure people's needs are met.  This is about what kinds of enforceable claims we can make on the lives, minds, and efforts of others.  [The claim of a right not to be killed is enforceable, but doesn't really make any demands on the lives, minds, and efforts of others, now does it.  Anyway, the point of having a government isn't to generate desirable outcomes but to secure freedom.]  Even Ayn Rand says in her Galt speech that helping others as a spiritual payment for their virtue is a selfish necessity, but not a matter of duty as such.  This is even assuming people would need help in a society where its members live with maximum rationality, able (e.g.) to compose blogs that meet high philosophical standards.  It's easy to make happen.  Plus, healthcare costs can be drastically reduced for just about anyone who does his lifestyle homework.  The Democrats and Republicans are fighting over CRUMBS right now.